Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 269
  1. #121  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    Wouldn't it be funny if the Bible were literally true with no contradictions?

    I'm a thinking, scientifically-minded, well-educated man who hold the KJV Bible to be the literal, true word of God. I didn't always think that but, after close study, I found it to be true.

    Would you call a math book that showed 2 + x = 6 (x=4) and 9 - x = 2 (x=7) to be contradictory? (or maybe just different lessons for different situations?) The Bible is a living, flexible document used to instruct believers. If you don't believe it, it will all appear to be nonsense.

    I'm certainly not trying to be confrontational, but I just wanted to give a viewpoint that you can believe the Bible to be the literal, non-contradictory truth without having to push your views on anyone else. You don't have to agree with me and I'm not demanding it. You can believe anything you want but even those of us with a functioning, free-thinking brain can accept truth for what it is.

    No, Gen 1 & 2 are not contradictory.
    So the following two statements are both literally true?

    John writes
    "He [Jesus] said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head, and gave up His spirit".
    Luke writes
    "Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into Thy Hands I Commit My Spirit." and having said this, He breathed His last."
    As mentioned before: clearly, both describe what Jesus said immediately before he died, but they tell us a totally different version...

    According to the math example you mentioned, where x is 4 in one case and 7 in a totally different and unrelated equation, maybe you are going to say that the statements above don't refer to the same Jesus, just as the two equations don't refer to the same x?

    The bible is so full of contradictions, it is totally impossible that all of it is literally true simultaneously. You can still say that it is true in a more broad (and important) sense, but certainly not literally true, unless you make use of very strange twists of logic.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  2. #122  
    First, I will provide the two verses from King James Version of the Bible. It is the only one that is literally true. All others are like "Cliff's Notes".

    When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. - John 19:30

    And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. - Luke 23:46
    Next, I sought out a secular, grammatical reference to help understand the use of the colon in these verses (not an accident). In my quick search, I grabbed the first reference kicked out by Google. From http://nh.essortment.com/grammarpunctu_rxjn.htm:

    The colon ( is most often used to formally or emphatically introduce series, lists, appositives, and quotations. Generally, a colon implies a "promise," and what follows the colon "delivers on" that promise.

    1. When extra emphasis or a degree of formality is desired, a colon can be employed to introduce a word, a phrase, or a clause used in apposition to a substantive (a noun or a noun substitute) in the introductory statement.

    EXAMPLES
    WORD
    There is one thing a human being simply cannot do without: hope.
    So, let's see these two verses using just secular, grammatical logic. Did the author use the colon properly? Is there a promise and then a delivery?

    From John: "It is finished" ...colon... "he gave up the ghost"
    From Luke: "I commend my spirit" ...colon... "he gave up the ghost"

    Nowhere can one imply that a colon means "...and nothing happens in time between events before the colon and events afterwards..." It doesn't follow proper English usage.

    Notice, faith doesn't even have to play a part here?


    In my daughter's elementary school handbook, it states in one section that students will have one recess. In another section, it states that students will have two recesses. One is for the 1st-8th graders, the other for Kindergarters. Is that contradictory? No. It just requires a little discernment to understand the differences.

    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  3. #123  
    It has been said "That by the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the truth be established". In any given situation, bystanders/witnesses to any event are at a different angle, moving around at different times, see and hear different things depending on where they are standing at any given time, perceive what they see and hear, remember the minute details, interpret the meaning of what was said due to voice inflections - common sayings - society meanings, etc.... in varying details. I don't think that it was a mistake that we have several accounts for many of the major events for this very reason. Because over a 6 hour time of such a tragic and probably chaotic event such as this, that the fact that several people only caught part of a quote or heard the same quote a little differently demeans the validity of the entirety of the book or the event. What is the purpose of having several witnesses? In order to get the entire account of an event. Because someone yelled right next to John while Jesus was talking doesn't make his account any less valid or necessarily in contradiction with Luke's.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 06/27/2005 at 02:03 PM.
  4. #124  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    What is truly frustrating is that christianity (which by the way is the faith of only 30% of the world population) continually battles science (going back to Galileo and beyond) instead of focusing on its true purpose - to provide a moral compass in a complex world.
    That's a pretty broad, and inaccurate, statement of Christianity in general. I would be willing to bet that if you entered 100 random Christian churches on any given Sunday, the focus of at least 99 of those meetings would be upon moral issues - not battling science.

    I don't think you should "demonize" Christians for things they just don't do. Do you have any scientific method in making that statement about the focus of Christians being on battling science instead of focusing on morals?

    Or are you just reciting the standard dogma of some scientists?
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  5. #125  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    That's a pretty broad, and inaccurate, statement of Christianity in general. I would be willing to bet that if you entered 100 random Christian churches on any given Sunday, the focus of at least 99 of those meetings would be upon moral issues - not battling science.

    I don't think you should "demonize" Christians for things they just don't do. Do you have any scientific method in making that statement about the focus of Christians being on battling science instead of focusing on morals?

    Or are you just reciting the standard dogma of some scientists?
    You're right - this was a little too much of a broadside - I agree that many churches do not waste their time on issues outside the realm of morality and faith (at least the ones I attend!). Also some of the best scientific minds have come from christianity (Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics comes to mind, among others).
    However the few that do waste their time have the support of the larger religious institutions (as in the current "debate" about evolution ) and they spend enormous amount of time and effort to push these anti-science agendas in the political and social arena. And historically many of the major christian institutions (mainly the catholic church) have actively suppressed scientific inquiry into many areas (ranging from astronomy to medicine) that the church deemed as their domain.

    Scientists, while still fallible as any other human beings, do not have a standard "dogma" - instead they use a standard operating paradigm. And sometimes there is a paradigm shift - and that does not come abruptly. Some of the critical paradigm shifts in science sometimes take years before it is accepted as the new paradigm. But this is an open process with much debate and new information coming to light, before there is general acceptance. And that is why the accusations of the creationists that the mainstream scientific community is "dogmatic" or close-minded is not true at all. The scientific community will challenge any new ideas, yes, but this resistance is misintrepreted as "dogma" instead of the fact that this is a routine method in science which forces any new ideas or theories to be truly robust and validatable.

    And it is unfortunate that some of the christian organizations are allowing themselves to be distracted from the larger issues by focusing in areas that should not affect morality or faith.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  6. #126  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    And it is unfortunate that some of the christian organizations are allowing themselves to be distracted from the larger issues by focusing in areas that should not affect morality or faith.
    Agreed.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  7. #127  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    First, I will provide the two verses from King James Version of the Bible. It is the only one that is literally true. All others are like "Cliff's Notes".
    The King James Bible is the only bible which is literally true? That's a really weird statement. Why would this be so? The King James Bible is just one edition in just one language among thousands of editions in hundreds of languages. When you look at the origins and history of the King James Bible, you will see that it is in no way special.
    Next, I sought out a secular, grammatical reference to help understand the use of the colon in these verses (not an accident). In my quick search, I grabbed the first reference kicked out by Google. (...)
    That's a really strange and far-fetched explanation. The kind of twisted logic I mentioned in my post. I bet you yourself would never, ever accept this as an explanation (excuse) in another field.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  8. #128  
    That's a really strange and far-fetched explanation. The kind of twisted logic I mentioned in my post. I bet you yourself would never, ever accept this as an explanation (excuse) in another field.
    Did you have this response pre-typed and ready to paste into your reply or did you actually read my response?

    The only logic I employed in reviewing the two verses was derived from Miss Truver's Sixth Grade English class. I provided a commonly-found URL to show that you didn't have to have incredible faith or "special glasses" to be able to read the verses.

    Yes, I would accept common English usage in any other field when I had to read something and discern its meaning. I think most of us would. Standard English is not twisted logic.

    My original thesis still holds: an educated, free-thinking man can read the Bible, believe it, and find no contradictions in it. (note the effective use of the colon?)
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  9. #129  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    Did you have this response pre-typed and ready to paste into your reply or did you actually read my response?
    I read your post, more than once, actually.

    However, I notice you did not answer my first question. Why is the King James Bible the only literally true version of the bible? Why is your bible better than that of Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Aramaic texts, etc.?
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    The only logic I employed in reviewing the two verses was derived from Miss Truver's Sixth Grade English class. I provided a commonly-found URL to show that you didn't have to have incredible faith or "special glasses" to be able to read the verses.
    You interpretation of what the the colon signifies seems extremely far-fetched to say the least. The meaning of the text is very clear to the unbiased reader, colon or not (many versions of the bible don't even have a colon there, it does not seem to be of any importance to those who translated the texts).

    However, there are tons of other contradictions, here a few additional examples (from the King James Bible ):

    "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20
    vs.
    "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5

    "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13
    vs.
    "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1

    "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen." Kings 1 4:26
    vs.
    "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem." Chronicles 2 9:25


    So, what what is true, in your view:
    Shall the son bear the inequity of the fathers or not?
    Does god tempt man or not?
    Did Solomon have forty or four thousand stalls?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  10. #130  
    I cannot begin to explain why the King James Version of the Bible is the true word of God. I can only demonstrate it through example. However, as I explained earlier, it's a book for believers. Otherwise, all of this will appear as foolishness to you. (as it seems to)

    I have no interpretation of the use of a colon. I provided a reference to show you that I wasn't making it up. Please search anywhere for the common, proper usage of the colon to learn for yourself. I quote the KJV as you never know what you're going to get with the other "bibles". You placed your interpretation into the verse. I didn't. I just applied commonly accepted English language practices.

    When you provide your second round of verses which appear contradictory, it is apparent that you are not looking to possibly change your mind (it's obvious that is already made up). Instead, you are hoping that I will give up and say "You're right! The Bible is full of contradictions and you've definitively shown me that."

    I will pick up the gauntlet for the first one and show you how God still knows how to write a book (best one I've ever read, too):

    Exodus 20:5-6
    5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
    Hate God? Prepare for some iniquity coming your way...

    Ezekial 18:14...20
    14 Now, lo, [if] he beget a son, that seeth all his father's sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like,
    (...more descriptions of sins of the father that the son doesn't do...)
    20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
    Don't sin like your dad? You've got nothing to worry about.

    I'm not going to pick up every supposed "contradiction" you throw my way as there are SOOO many things that your natural mind cannot possibly understand about this spiritual book. If you don't want to accept it, nothing I show you will change your mind. Faith doesn't start through the brain. You can't logically argue it. However, I haven't even brought you anything of faith to date. The challenges you've posted and I've answered have been interpretation-free.

    As I've written before, you don't have to accept the teachings. You don't have to accept my understanding that the KJV Bible is the infallible word of God. My faith is no threat to you or others.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  11.    #131  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    So, what what is true, in your view:
    Shall the son bear the inequity of the fathers or not?
    The iniquity will visit the sons, but if the son "hath kept all my statues, and hath done them, he shall surely live" (Ezekiel 18:19)
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Does god tempt man or not?
    James clearly makes a reference to tempting "with evil." Yes God proves Man as he did Abraham. However, evil is not a tool He uses to do such
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Did Solomon have forty or four thousand stalls?
    The Hebrew word from the "Chronicle" account could have been translated four or fourteen or fourteenth or fourth or forty (even in one case three score and fourteen). The Hebrew word in the Kings" account was only used for the term forty. (Referenced Strongs' Concordance for each). In light of that, it is reasonable to believe that Solomon had 40,000 stalls.

    At worst, this is a discrepancy of the english rendering.

    An interesting point this brings to light, is that the translaters were not conspirators. Without the Kings content in mind, the translaters would have to decide which use of the Hebrew term (four, forth, fourteenth, fortieth...) was most fitting. They went with Four.
  12.    #132  
    Pardon me. Some duplication. I guess that qualifies as 2 or 3 witnesses
  13. #133  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    I cannot begin to explain why the King James Version of the Bible is the true word of God. I can only demonstrate it through example. However, as I explained earlier, it's a book for believers. Otherwise, all of this will appear as foolishness to you. (as it seems to)

    I have no interpretation of the use of a colon. I provided a reference to show you that I wasn't making it up. Please search anywhere for the common, proper usage of the colon to learn for yourself. I quote the KJV as you never know what you're going to get with the other "bibles". You placed your interpretation into the verse. I didn't. I just applied commonly accepted English language practices.

    When you provide your second round of verses which appear contradictory, it is apparent that you are not looking to possibly change your mind (it's obvious that is already made up). Instead, you are hoping that I will give up and say "You're right! The Bible is full of contradictions and you've definitively shown me that."

    I will pick up the gauntlet for the first one and show you how God still knows how to write a book (best one I've ever read, too):


    Hate God? Prepare for some iniquity coming your way...


    Don't sin like your dad? You've got nothing to worry about.

    I'm not going to pick up every supposed "contradiction" you throw my way as there are SOOO many things that your natural mind cannot possibly understand about this spiritual book. If you don't want to accept it, nothing I show you will change your mind. Faith doesn't start through the brain. You can't logically argue it. However, I haven't even brought you anything of faith to date. The challenges you've posted and I've answered have been interpretation-free.

    As I've written before, you don't have to accept the teachings. You don't have to accept my understanding that the KJV Bible is the infallible word of God. My faith is no threat to you or others.
    Well said......to me, quotes are like statistics - the manner in which you present them makes all the difference.
  14. #134  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    I cannot begin to explain why the King James Version of the Bible is the true word of God. I can only demonstrate it through example. However, as I explained earlier, it's a book for believers. Otherwise, all of this will appear as foolishness to you. (as it seems to)
    Indeed it is rather surprising for me that at 1611, when the King James Version came out for the first time, all of a sudden the one and only true word of god was reveiled, and everything before that, as well as everything that followed, was just second class, "Cliff's Notes", as you put it. So even among your fellow Christians, you are among those who know the real truth, while all the others (namely all those who do not speak English), suffer from deficient bibles. Forgive me if I find this approach slightly narrow-minded and maybe even arrogant, namely towards those Christians who do not speak English. It seems that your god loves those who speak English more than those who don't...
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  15. #135  
    The KJV has been translated from English into every language on the globe. I never insinuated anything about exclusivity towards English.

    I'm not the only one who knows the truth; I just pointed out where it's written down.

    You've certainly worked hard to put a lot of adjectives on me while I have tried to remain as logical and objective as possible. I find it funny that these faith versus logic things are reversed stereotypically.

    My faith bothers you while your disbelief is no matter to me.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  16. #136  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    The KJV has been translated from English into every language on the globe. I never insinuated anything about exclusivity towards English.
    That is new to me. The King James Version is considered an English translation of the bible. It would be very strange to translate something from Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic or whatever into English and then into e.g. German. Can you show me a link to a German, French or Italian translation of the KJV?

    Which is the real, original word of god, that in the first edition from 1611, or the present ones typically based on an edition published at Oxford University in 1769, with slightly different wording and content? Do you consider the "Apocrypha" the original word of god because those were part of the early editions, or is it not the word of god because those parts were not considered Scripture any more in later editions?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  17. #137  
    I remember that somewhere in this thread there was talk about evolution - now it has devolved to splitting hairs about the bible!

    Again - I do not understand the point of all these arguments. As I see it, the bible is not meant to be a book of facts or a repository of wordly knowledge - it is simply about the word of god - or more accurately, a transcription (from the spoken word to the written word) and translation (from hebrew & aramaic to greek to english) of the word of god. However the intent and meaning of the original word of god is not lost - the bible has amazing clarity and simplicity. But come on folks, does the juxtaposition of the colon have anything to do with the actual message?

    Each of the specific passages within the bible and the overall message(s) are quite self-consistent - it is not fair to take a few statements out of context and "prove" that the bible is "contradictory".
    It is not that kind of document.

    That being said, there are unfortunately people of blind faith (and lord knows there are plenty of those!!) who hold up the bible as source of all knowledge, and use it to "prove" that science is "wrong" or misguided. On top of that, these misguided souls also tend to have the loudest megaphones with which they broadcast their "faith" and drown out all other voices (especially the voices of reason).

    And just because religion and science do not have anything in common, it does not mean that they are mutually exclusive. If you want to figure how to live your life and to be happy, you're probably better off reading the bible (or other scriptural texts depending on your faith) than reading volumes of scientific textbooks. However, if you want to figure how the world works - then you'll do well to put the bible aside and pick up a science book.

    True the bible attempts to describe how the world (and man) was created, but the intent of those narratives is to provide a referential framework (a placeholder so to speak) rather than to proclaim these narratives as "factual" knowledge. The fact that some people choose to accept these narratives as factual knowledge is an attestation to human fallibility - not to the fallibility of the bible itself.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  18. #138  
    French language KJV Bible:
    http://www.biblegateway.com/versions...o&vid=2&lang=3

    The KJV 1611 is the living, true word of God. It's not the original word of God. He was working with man long before 1611. It doesn't really matter to me what the original word of God said. I wasn't there and He wasn't talking to me. I'm here now and His word is here for me now.

    Here's a nod to the original purpose of this thread:
    Chapters in the Bible: 1189
    # dedicated to Creation: 2

    There is a lot more in the Bible than just creation. Go ahead and teach my kids evolution! I learned it and I'm still a Christian. Go figure! Exposure doesn't remove faith!

    I have a real hard time understanding why Christians get all wrapped around the axle over this evolution thing, ten commandments thing, abortion thing, etc. None of it makes my family less Christian. If reversed, none of it would make you more Christian. That's not the point and that's not what Christ taught.

    Lighten up, y'all!
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  19. #139  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    French language KJV Bible:
    http://www.biblegateway.com/versions...o&vid=2&lang=3

    The KJV 1611 is the living, true word of God. It's not the original word of God. He was working with man long before 1611. It doesn't really matter to me what the original word of God said. I wasn't there and He wasn't talking to me. I'm here now and His word is here for me now.

    Here's a nod to the original purpose of this thread:
    Chapters in the Bible: 1189
    # dedicated to Creation: 2

    There is a lot more in the Bible than just creation. Go ahead and teach my kids evolution! I learned it and I'm still a Christian. Go figure! Exposure doesn't remove faith!

    I have a real hard time understanding why Christians get all wrapped around the axle over this evolution thing, ten commandments thing, abortion thing, etc. None of it makes my family less Christian. If reversed, none of it would make you more Christian. That's not the point and that's not what Christ taught.

    Lighten up, y'all!
    right on!
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  20. #140  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    Each of the specific passages within the bible and the overall message(s) are quite self-consistent - it is not fair to take a few statements out of context and "prove" that the bible is "contradictory".
    It is not that kind of document.
    I agree with that view.

    However, some people feel the need of going much further than that and claim the bible is literally (word by word) true, that it is an accurate description of historical facts. That notion can only be upheld by explaining away numerous contradictions inherent to the bible by adventurous explanations. I don't feel comfortable with this literal, word-by-word truth form of believing because I think it paves the way for fundamentalism, or, more accurately, it is a fundamentalist world-view.
    That being said, there are unfortunately people of blind faith (and lord knows there are plenty of those!!) who hold up the bible as source of all knowledge, and use it to "prove" that science is "wrong" or misguided. On top of that, these misguided souls also tend to have the loudest megaphones with which they broadcast their "faith" and drown out all other voices (especially the voices of reason).
    True.
    However, if you want to figure how the world works - then you'll do well to put the bible aside and pick up a science book.
    If you believe the bible is literally true, you do not refer to science, because science (biology, evolution, etc.) totally contradicts e.g. the genesis. Two contradicting statements cannot both be true at the same time, so science becomes a threat for the belief system of those who believe in the literal truth of the bible.
    True the bible attempts to describe how the world (and man) was created, but the intent of those narratives is to provide a referential framework (a placeholder so to speak) rather than to proclaim these narratives as "factual" knowledge. The fact that some people choose to accept these narratives as factual knowledge is an attestation to human fallibility - not to the fallibility of the bible itself.
    Do you live in the US? 60 % of the US citizens believe the story of Noah is literally, word by word, true. That's extremely weird for me, given how weird the story of Noah is, and how full of contradictions.
    Last edited by clulup; 06/29/2005 at 09:28 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions