I had a thought bout the Bible

[JDM onlyy]

lol at "Bible" that books changes every year.

I know its been changed many times, yet Geoff won't accept it. I'm not going to believe what any man writes in a book and calls a "Bible." If this book is so mystical, and spiritual then how come it couldn't survive the times? Man has changed it so many times, but I recall my Social Studies teacher in 7th grade telling me that the Quran has not been altered since the day it has been written. I'm not Muslim and I don't belive in Islam, but I'm just saying if you really wanted to belive some words from some old guys, why not listen to their words then?

[Jaimecbr900]

I know its been changed many times, yet Geoff won't accept it. I'm not going to believe what any man writes in a book and calls a "Bible." If this book is so mystical, and spiritual then how come it couldn't survive the times? Man has changed it so many times, but I recall my Social Studies teacher in 7th grade telling me that the Quran has not been altered since the day it has been written. I'm not Muslim and I don't belive in Islam, but I'm just saying if you really wanted to belive some words from some old guys, why not listen to their words then?

Although like my buddy IS300 stated this has been discussed over and over again on here, I always find myself drawn in by the blatant stupidity and ignorance that runs rampant in these discussions.

It's so ironic that most of the "non-believers" who are so quick to always put in their in these discussions are always the still wet behind the ears 20 somethings..... I guess they also will believe that what they think today is so uber cool will still make them look cool 20 yrs from now too, huh?

#1. I'm getting pretty tired of people who haven't a clue what they're talking about, just what they're GOV'T school teacher told them back in 2nd grade or what their older cousin whom they idolize told them while they toked on a big fat joint, yet they call us stupid for believing something that is 1000 times older than both of them put together and then compounded to the power of 10. Right.....WE are the dumb ones.... The Bible hasn't been "changed". If by translating it to other languages is "change" to you, then you are an idiot.

#2. The Quran may not have been changed, but unless you study it, read it, and believe it in ARABIC......you TOO are "changing" it then, huh? So I guess that means that all those Muslims going to their Mosques all over the U.S.A. are wrong too, huh? They are some how less "Muslims" to you two???? Gotcha.

#3. It's so funny that all of you go through your entire "higher" learning careers believing all those fine books, works, history, and science much like......ummmmm, let's see......oh yes......people who sit at church on any given sunday. Don't believe it?

Well here you go: A teacher stands up and "teaches" you about a subject which is based on what???? Some book he or she studied when he or she went to her school. That book was written by whom? A real flesh and blood what??? Human, person, homosapien. Right? How do YOU KNOW that the book he or she is teaching you from is right? Did you go and test it yourself? The whole thing? Really? Bullshit. You BELIEVE IT because you WANT TO believe it. Both the parts that you tested and the 99.99999% that you never have nor will. Is there PROOF of every single thing from every text book you've ever studied? Ummm, not no, but HELL NO. Matter of fact, text books are re-written on a yearly basis, especially SCIENCE text books. Why? Because ironically enough they keep proving themselves WRONG constantly. So what YOU thought you "knew" last year, is WRONG this year. So to summarize, you guys hang your hats on a belief system that is ever changing because it proves itself WRONG from year to year as the basis of your beliefs????? Gotcha

Now, dress people better, give them better manners and attitudes, and you have????? What most of us see when we go to church. People who sit down and listen to someone that studied a book that both of them believe to be true to become smarter about a certain subject. Yep, there's a huge difference there, huh? You don't see people running down to their local school and calling everyone there stupid for believing whats written in some "book". Why not? You two are doing the same thing to people who believe the "book" they feel is accurate. The Bible is how old? Your Science book is how old? Yet, YOURS is somehow MORE credit worthy? The same book that told you last year Pluto was a Planet and this year it tells you it's not????? That book is the one you believe whole heartedly? And I'm the stupid one?????? Okie dokie.


I'll tell you what. I challenge either one of you to list out EXACT EXAMPLES of how the Bible has "changed". You both seem to be so eager to use that as your punch line, so I'm going to call you out on it. Put up or shut up time ladies. You say the Bible is, according to you, changing so much that we must be dumb to believe it. I just proved to you how brilliant you are for putting all your life eggs in the text book basket, so now prove to me why I should not put all my faith on the Bible.


-Cue the Jeopardy theme song.-

Time's ticking ladies. Let's see what you got. You wanted a debate? Let's see if you really want one.

[Deke]

I generally try to avoid these kind of threads, but I just kind of wanted to play devil's advocate (pardon any pun you may draw from that) to keep this conversation intelligent.

Now, dress people better, give them better manners and attitudes, and you have????? What most of us see when we go to church. People who sit down and listen to someone that studied a book that both of them believe to be true to become smarter about a certain subject. Yep, there's a huge difference there, huh? You don't see people running down to their local school and calling everyone there stupid for believing whats written in some "book". Why not? You two are doing the same thing to people who believe the "book" they feel is accurate.

I will agree that both religious and non-religious topics alike require a certain amount of faith. However, to imply that those who study science require the same amount of faith as those that study the bible is misguided. Let's take a basic principle of both the bible (Jesus is the son of God) and a basic principle of physics (force) as an example.

A. Force

A professor tells a student that if he pushes the side of a wheel (applies force), the wheel will accelerate in the direction of the force. The student calls bullshit. The professor tells the student to read the text book. The student reads it and still calls bullshit. The professor then tells the student, you don't have to believe me, I'll show you. Force is applied, the wheel accelerates.

B. Christ is the son of God

A minister tells a church goer that Jesus Christ is the son of god. The church goer calls bullshit. The minister tells the church goer to read the bible. The church goer still calls bullshit. The minister tells the church goer he must have faith.


I realize this is an incredibly simplistic example. But the matter is, the building blocks of science are things that someone can see and prove for themselves. They don't have to have faith, it occurs right in front of their eyes. With religion even the most simplistic ideas are constructed on faith.

And please don't read into this that I think that makes religion bad/stupid. I greatly respect faith as long as it's not blind.

I'll tell you what. I challenge either one of you to list out EXACT EXAMPLES of how the Bible has "changed". You both seem to be so eager to use that as your punch line, so I'm going to call you out on it. Put up or shut up time ladies. You say the Bible is, according to you, changing so much that we must be dumb to believe it. I just proved to you how brilliant you are for putting all your life eggs in the text book basket, so now prove to me why I should not put all my faith on the Bible.

I don't have the time or desire to quote specifics, but after a quick google search, I found that the word apocrypha refers to passages of the Bible that a given publisher doubts or rejects. The fact that there is such a word certainly leads me to believe that not all Bibles are created equally. And of course the ever popular wikipedia link if you are in fact interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha


Disclaimer: I do not claim to be an expert on this topic by any means. I'm simply someone who likes to have civil, intellectual discussions. If I make people think twice about something or someone makes me think twice, I consider it a success. If anyone resorts to name calling in my direction, I will consider you an unintelligent asshat unworthy of my time or attention

[Jaimecbr900]

I will agree that both religious and non-religious topics alike require a certain amount of faith. However, to imply that those who study science require the same amount of faith as those that study the bible is misguided. Let's take a basic principle of both the bible (Jesus is the son of God) and a basic principle of physics (force) as an example.

A. Force

A professor tells a student that if he pushes the side of a wheel (applies force), the wheel will accelerate in the direction of the force. The student calls bullshit. The professor tells the student to read the text book. The student reads it and still calls bullshit. The professor then tells the student, you don't have to believe me, I'll show you. Force is applied, the wheel accelerates.

B. Christ is the son of God

A minister tells a church goer that Jesus Christ is the son of god. The church goer calls bullshit. The minister tells the church goer to read the bible. The church goer still calls bullshit. The minister tells the church goer he must have faith.


I realize this is an incredibly simplistic example. But the matter is, the building blocks of science are things that someone can see and prove for themselves. They don't have to have faith, it occurs right in front of their eyes. With religion even the most simplistic ideas are constructed on faith.

Not only is it a very simplistic example, but it compares apples to airplanes.

Was it not "scholars" that at one point SWORE the earth was flat? How flat is it really? THAT is my point. Each and every one of those people that try and argue this never ending debate base their "beliefs" or lack thereof on "PROOF", i.e. Science, common sense, tangible, etc. Welllll, the "scholars" of yesteryear justified their "knowledge" 50 ways to Sunday and even wrote it down on books of that era. It was taught in schools, common knowledge, and as far as they knew tangible as well since sailors would often dissapear so the theory of "falling off the edge of the earth" held water in their eyes. Right or wrong? Wasn't it just yesterday that we thought a computer had to be monochrome and microprocessors were science fiction?

Well, my point is that it is ironic that I want to put my FAITH, which by definition requires no tangibility from my end, on a book that not only has been around far longer than the "earth is flat" scientologists, but when those that support the idea that I'm crazy and stupid use a BOOK chock full of inaccuracies and unproven theories that next year will be retracted or corrected to "prove" I'm wrong.....they are suddenly automatically right because they read it....in a tangible book..... Get it? Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black.

My example was also simplistic but much like the Bible carries the basic message correctly. Proponents of the idea that if it's not logical or tangible or "can be proven w/o a doubt right this very second when I say so" then it must absolutely positively be WRONG is ironic because they use information out of BOOKS that are force fed to them by HUMANS whom we all know never make any mistakes at all. Kinda like......well, the pot calling the kettle black......AGAIN.

[JDM onlyy]

Although like my buddy IS300 stated this has been discussed over and over again on here, I always find myself drawn in by the blatant stupidity and ignorance that runs rampant in these discussions.

It's so ironic that most of the "non-believers" who are so quick to always put in their in these discussions are always the still wet behind the ears 20 somethings..... I guess they also will believe that what they think today is so uber cool will still make them look cool 20 yrs from now too, huh?

#1. I'm getting pretty tired of people who haven't a clue what they're talking about, just what they're GOV'T school teacher told them back in 2nd grade or what their older cousin whom they idolize told them while they toked on a big fat joint, yet they call us stupid for believing something that is 1000 times older than both of them put together and then compounded to the power of 10. Right.....WE are the dumb ones.... The Bible hasn't been "changed". If by translating it to other languages is "change" to you, then you are an idiot.

#2. The Quran may not have been changed, but unless you study it, read it, and believe it in ARABIC......you TOO are "changing" it then, huh? So I guess that means that all those Muslims going to their Mosques all over the U.S.A. are wrong too, huh? They are some how less "Muslims" to you two???? Gotcha.

#3. It's so funny that all of you go through your entire "higher" learning careers believing all those fine books, works, history, and science much like......ummmmm, let's see......oh yes......people who sit at church on any given sunday. Don't believe it?

Well here you go: A teacher stands up and "teaches" you about a subject which is based on what???? Some book he or she studied when he or she went to her school. That book was written by whom? A real flesh and blood what??? Human, person, homosapien. Right? How do YOU KNOW that the book he or she is teaching you from is right? Did you go and test it yourself? The whole thing? Really? Bullshit. You BELIEVE IT because you WANT TO believe it. Both the parts that you tested and the 99.99999% that you never have nor will. Is there PROOF of every single thing from every text book you've ever studied? Ummm, not no, but HELL NO. Matter of fact, text books are re-written on a yearly basis, especially SCIENCE text books. Why? Because ironically enough they keep proving themselves WRONG constantly. So what YOU thought you "knew" last year, is WRONG this year. So to summarize, you guys hang your hats on a belief system that is ever changing because it proves itself WRONG from year to year as the basis of your beliefs????? Gotcha

Now, dress people better, give them better manners and attitudes, and you have????? What most of us see when we go to church. People who sit down and listen to someone that studied a book that both of them believe to be true to become smarter about a certain subject. Yep, there's a huge difference there, huh? You don't see people running down to their local school and calling everyone there stupid for believing whats written in some "book". Why not? You two are doing the same thing to people who believe the "book" they feel is accurate. The Bible is how old? Your Science book is how old? Yet, YOURS is somehow MORE credit worthy? The same book that told you last year Pluto was a Planet and this year it tells you it's not????? That book is the one you believe whole heartedly? And I'm the stupid one?????? Okie dokie.


I'll tell you what. I challenge either one of you to list out EXACT EXAMPLES of how the Bible has "changed". You both seem to be so eager to use that as your punch line, so I'm going to call you out on it. Put up or shut up time ladies. You say the Bible is, according to you, changing so much that we must be dumb to believe it. I just proved to you how brilliant you are for putting all your life eggs in the text book basket, so now prove to me why I should not put all my faith on the Bible.


-Cue the Jeopardy theme song.-

Time's ticking ladies. Let's see what you got. You wanted a debate? Let's see if you really want one.

I never once called someone stupid. I never said you were dumb for believing in the Bible. I never said don't do it. I don't know where all this hostility came from. I never "put all my life eggs in the text book basket" and I never said you shouldn't put all your faith in the Bible. I just said I wouldn't and I stated why I wouldn't.

I'm not even Christian, but I believe in God. I just don't believe following a book is the "way to God". We can say each side is not credible so why bother? Nothing in life is foolproof.

So only people who go to church are the ones who have manners, a good attitude and dress well? That is kind of biased don't you think? I know there a lot of people who don't believe in anything, but they aren't bad people.

No offense, but you have this problem where you talk to people like you're so much better than them.

[Jaimecbr900]

I never once called someone stupid. I never said you were dumb for believing in the Bible. I never said don't do it. I don't know where all this hostility came from. I never "put all my life eggs in the text book basket" and I never said you shouldn't put all your faith in the Bible. I just said I wouldn't and I stated why I wouldn't.

Ok, let's not be passive aggressive now.

You opened a thread in the Religion section which was designed to argue your belief. Don't say now that was not your intention.

I'm not even Christian, but I believe in God. I just don't believe following a book is the "way to God". We can say each side is not credible so why bother? Nothing in life is foolproof.

How do you know about a "God" w/o some sort of Bible as resource?

So only people who go to church are the ones who have manners, a good attitude and dress well? That is kind of biased don't you think? I know there a lot of people who don't believe in anything, but they aren't bad people.

You obviously missed my sarcasm and the overall point. See my previous reply right above this one. I explained it again.

Let me ask you something: If someone says that the sky is blue, and someone else says the sky is gray.......does that change the FACT that the SKY EXISTS????? So if a Bible designed to be easier to read for CHILDREN says something in a more simplistic way or clearer way......does that CHANGE the message? Is that what you guys are trying to imply? That because it's IMPOSSIBLE to translate original Hebrew writings into modern day English that somehow the MESSAGE is lost in the translation? Explain how. Remember: Sky is blue or sky is gray doesn't change that the sky is there, just you say tomato and I say tomatoe.

No offense, but you have this problem where you talk to people like you're so much better than them.

Again, tomato and tomatoes. You are entitled to think whatever you want, much like I am. I don't candy coat things. If you want to take that as harsh, then so be it.

What angers me is this: How many times did or do your parents tell you something that later turns out to be soooooo true? Quite often I'd bet. When you, me, and everyone on this planet were young we all thought we had ALL the answers to every question. We were invincible, unbreakable, and omnipotent. Atleast I thought I was. I knew it all. Well, guess what? We didn't. Not by far. As each of us grow up, we clearly see how naive and short sighted we really were back then.

So when I see a very young person falling back on their ass "knowing" that they have the world figured out at 20.......I laugh and I call them out. It is what it is. Reality bites sometimes. It sucks. I know. But that's life.

[JDM onlyy]

Ok, let's not be passive aggressive now.

You opened a thread in the Religion section which was designed to argue your belief. Don't say now that was not your intention.



How do you know about a "God" w/o some sort of Bible as resource?



You obviously missed my sarcasm and the overall point. See my previous reply right above this one. I explained it again.

Let me ask you something: If someone says that the sky is blue, and someone else says the sky is gray.......does that change the FACT that the SKY EXISTS????? So if a Bible designed to be easier to read for CHILDREN says something in a more simplistic way or clearer way......does that CHANGE the message? Is that what you guys are trying to imply? That because it's IMPOSSIBLE to translate original Hebrew writings into modern day English that somehow the MESSAGE is lost in the translation? Explain how. Remember: Sky is blue or sky is gray doesn't change that the sky is there, just you say tomato and I say tomatoe.



Again, tomato and tomatoes. You are entitled to think whatever you want, much like I am. I don't candy coat things. If you want to take that as harsh, then so be it.

What angers me is this: How many times did or do your parents tell you something that later turns out to be soooooo true? Quite often I'd bet. When you, me, and everyone on this planet were young we all thought we had ALL the answers to every question. We were invincible, unbreakable, and omnipotent. Atleast I thought I was. I knew it all. Well, guess what? We didn't. Not by far. As each of us grow up, we clearly see how naive and short sighted we really were back then.

So when I see a very young person falling back on their ass "knowing" that they have the world figured out at 20.......I laugh and I call them out. It is what it is. Reality bites sometimes. It sucks. I know. But that's life.

I did open this thread to start a discussion/debate, not to demean or call anyone stupid. You obviously must've interpreted that the wrong.

FYI, I was baptized in a baptist church. I never said I knew everything in the world.

When the hell did I say I knew everything in the world?

How the hell is my age relevant to this debate?

I have no problem with people being harsh, I'm harsh myself, but you speak to me because of my "age" like I don't know anything. How the hell do you know what I know and don't know? You don't know me. So don't act like you do.

With that being said, I'm done with this thread because its already starting to escalate to a point where I never wanted it to be because someone took something personally.

[StreetHazard]

I accept

[StreetHazard]

No offense, but you have this problem where you talk to people like you're so much better than them.

X2 it seems to be a growing trend with religious types.

I'll tell you what. I challenge either one of you to list out EXACT EXAMPLES of how the Bible has "changed". You both seem to be so eager to use that as your punch line, so I'm going to call you out on it. Put up or shut up time ladies. You say the Bible is, according to you, changing so much that we must be dumb to believe it. I just proved to you how brilliant you are for putting all your life eggs in the text book basket, so now prove to me why I should not put all my faith on the Bible.


-Cue the Jeopardy theme song.-

Time's ticking ladies. Let's see what you got. You wanted a debate? Let's see if you really want one.

I really just glanced over and ignored whatever else you wrote as being completely irrelevant...But I will address this since you are so eager.

Many fundamentalist Christians believe the Bible is inerrant or infallible, but for those that do not there is a branch of philology or bibliography called "Textual Criticism" or "Higher Criticism".

Textual criticism is concerned with the identification and removal of errors from texts and manuscripts. Ancient manuscripts often have errors or alterations made by scribes, who copied the manuscripts by hand. The textual critic seeks to determine the original text of a document or a collection of documents, which the critic believes to come as close as possible to a lost original.

From the scholarly point of view, the differences in various Biblical manuscripts are well-documented. A few well-known variants include:


John 7:53-John 8:1-11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best manuscripts and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. Critical text scholar Bruce Metzger summarizes: "The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming."

Mark 16:9-20 does not exist in the earliest and best manuscripts. Virtually all scholars believe it was a later addition, added by scribes who felt the original ending was unsatisfactory.

1 John 5:7-8 — "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" — the infamous Comma Johanneum, is accepted as a later insertion by virtually every scholar. It is most interesting that it is the only explicit reference to the Trinity in the New Testament, yet it is not part of the original epistle, but dates from probably the fourth century.

Matt. 5:22 The phrase "without a cause" appears in some early manuscripts and some writings of early church fathers, but this phrase does not appear in the earliest manuscript (Papyrus 67 dated AD 125-150) nor in the earliest church father writing (Justin dated about 165 AD) of Matthew 5:22. Virtually all scholars believe that this phrase was added by the third century. (It is notable that this phrase is in the King James Bible but it is not in the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith Translation of Matthew 5:22.)

John 1:18 is notoriously difficult because various manuscripts read either monogenes theos ("the only God") or ho monogenes huios("the only son").

Heb. 1:3 reads "reveals (phaneron) all things" in the Codex Vaticanus, while most manuscripts read "sustains (pheron) all things". This is particularly interesting because there's a scribe's marginal note in the CV that reads "Fool and knave, leave the old reading, don't change it!", indicating contention over an intentional change in the passage.


I am just stating a few examples, but a simple google search will yield alot more on this subject...Personally I don't give a shit if god himself wrote the Bible, or if you think the work is infallible or not. It is only worth as much as the paper it is printed on, and the blood that has been spilled in his name.

[Jaimecbr900]

I really just glanced over and ignored whatever else you wrote as being completely irrelevant...But I will address this since you are so eager.

Many fundamentalist Christians believe the Bible is inerrant or infallible, but for those that do not there is a branch of philology or bibliography called "Textual Criticism" or "Higher Criticism".

Textual criticism is concerned with the identification and removal of errors from texts and manuscripts. Ancient manuscripts often have errors or alterations made by scribes, who copied the manuscripts by hand. The textual critic seeks to determine the original text of a document or a collection of documents, which the critic believes to come as close as possible to a lost original.

From the scholarly point of view, the differences in various Biblical manuscripts are well-documented. A few well-known variants include:


John 7:53-John 8:1-11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best manuscripts and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. Critical text scholar Bruce Metzger summarizes: "The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming."

Mark 16:9-20 does not exist in the earliest and best manuscripts. Virtually all scholars believe it was a later addition, added by scribes who felt the original ending was unsatisfactory.

1 John 5:7-8 — "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" — the infamous Comma Johanneum, is accepted as a later insertion by virtually every scholar. It is most interesting that it is the only explicit reference to the Trinity in the New Testament, yet it is not part of the original epistle, but dates from probably the fourth century.

Matt. 5:22 The phrase "without a cause" appears in some early manuscripts and some writings of early church fathers, but this phrase does not appear in the earliest manuscript (Papyrus 67 dated AD 125-150) nor in the earliest church father writing (Justin dated about 165 AD) of Matthew 5:22. Virtually all scholars believe that this phrase was added by the third century. (It is notable that this phrase is in the King James Bible but it is not in the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith Translation of Matthew 5:22.)

John 1:18 is notoriously difficult because various manuscripts read either monogenes theos ("the only God") or ho monogenes huios("the only son").

Heb. 1:3 reads "reveals (phaneron) all things" in the Codex Vaticanus, while most manuscripts read "sustains (pheron) all things". This is particularly interesting because there's a scribe's marginal note in the CV that reads "Fool and knave, leave the old reading, don't change it!", indicating contention over an intentional change in the passage.


I am just stating a few examples, but a simple google search will yield alot more on this subject...Personally I don't give a shit if god himself wrote the Bible, or if you think the work is infallible or not. It is only worth as much as the paper it is printed on, and the blood that has been spilled in his name.

Much like you supposedly did, yet addressed my entire post, I skimmed over your "googled" content.

That's awesome that you can "google it". I guess the irony of you buying what you find on the net hook, line, and sinker is lost in translation to you, huh? We all know that everything on the net is 100% true...........just pointing out how YOU too put so much FAITH on things that you find on the net, yet you make fun of people who put FAITH on something else....... Pots and kettles again.

Ok, from what I skimmed through on your post it seems that you are grasping at straws. Know why? Because my main question still persists:

Here it is......


Pay attention........



Think about it before you answer..........


Ready?...........


Sure?............


Ok............


Here we go........






HOW DOES CHANGING A FEW WORDS AROUND TO MAKE IT LEGIBLE IN YOUR NATIVE LANGUAGE CHANGETHE OVERALL MESSAGE OR MEANING?

Should I give you the gray and blue sky example again?