May be a waste of time, FL, as they have been 'indocrinated'.................

I'm not looking at it as a waste of time, because I'm not trying to convince anyone.

I just think I didn't communicate my point clearly, but am looking for some guidance on what wasn't clear, so I can take another shot at it.
I live about 90 miles from the U. of Chicago, which contains one of the best middle eastern history exhibits and museums in the country. So it is easy for me to hop in the car and go down there and use their secular history to verify certain claims in the Bible.

Now I'm not telling everyone to believe everything secular historians claim, either. It is just that most people DO.


I mean, I've never seen George Washington, either. Was he real? How do you know? Have you ever seen him? How do you know the history books weren't plagiarized? Did you know almost every country reports a military leader? A lot of countries report having military leaders WAY before this supposed George Washington was around.


I'm not telling anyone what to have belief in. But IF someone has faith in secular history, I can verify parts of the Bible as true, and the times those claims were made. That was my point. But I didn't make it clear, whether someone believes it or not.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: I'm not sure what you are saying. The book of Daniel is determined as being written, by SECULAR historians, as being 560ish B.C. To whom are you referring about Jesus dying "unexpectedly"? The old testament was finished 500 years before Jesus. And in that, it is full of predictions of the messiah dying. Please elaborate as I honestly don't understand what you are referring to or trying to say.

I think the general scholarly consensus is around 160BCE. It might be based on earlier legends or not. Hard to say, Good for a margin note if new facts come along.

As for Jesus' accident, when I read the NT, it's seems pretty clear that there wasn't an expectation of Jesus dying so soon. When it happened people went back to the older traditions to make sense out it.

Writers of the NT inserted the rationalizations to explain that it was prophesied all along. That is called "interpolation" and the NT is full of it. Today, we call it embellishment or 20-20 hindsight.

If you read the four gospels in parallel (a great way to study them), lots of things stand out. You can throw in Thomas if you want to get a sense of the possible earlier sayings documents which seems to be the core the first gospel of Mark (No, Thomas isn't that document but it shows that recording only the sayings of Jesus was something they did.) I am sure you are familiar with speculated Q document.

You can see a progression in the story. It appears to me that the authors of Mathew and Luke didn't know of each other since they clear missed the well known inconsistencies or they didn't care because the earlier books fell out of favor. Who knows on that one. Lots of room for discussion there.

Absolutely fascinating stuff.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: I'm not sure what you are saying. The book of Daniel is determined as being written, by SECULAR historians, as being 560ish B.C. The old testament was finished 500 years before Jesus. And in that, it is full of predictions of the messiah dying.

NO it is not
only thumpers believe dannyboy is old
real scholars data danny much later post al the G and the greeks
based on greek based words and stuff like musical instruments mentioned
and the fact that the predictions suddenly go wrong at a given date
that date a clue as the writer shifts from recorded history eazy to get correct
to predictions that are LOL WRONG

wiki quote
''The most widely accepted critical view posits that the author of the text was an anonymous writer living in the Maccabean period under Antiochus IV Epiphanes, during the 2nd century BCE,[2] who compiled ancient legends with a pseudepigraph of "visions."[3][4''

or 350 + years post claimed dates

lying for yoshowa again
and caught again too

btw the jews who's bible it was DO NOT include danny as a prophet

quote Originally posted by ray b: NO it is not only thumpers believe dannyboy is old real scholars data danny much later post al the G and the greeks based on greek based words and stuff like musical instruments mentioned and the fact that the predictions suddenly go wrong at a given date that date a clue as the writer shifts from recorded history eazy to get correct to predictions that are LOL WRONG wiki quote ''The most widely accepted critical view posits that the author of the text was an anonymous writer living in the Maccabean period under Antiochus IV Epiphanes, during the 2nd century BCE,[2] who compiled ancient legends with a pseudepigraph of "visions."[3][4'' or 350 + years post claimed dates lying for yoshowa again and caught again too btw the jews who's bible it was DO NOT include danny as a prophet

Sorry ray, liberal "scholarship doesn't hold up.

As a (completed) Jew, who studied at Yeshiva, I can directly refute your last statement. Daniel was, and is, indeed a prophetic book. It is talked about in synagogues as such, but it is not brought to the fore because there are some very sensitive issues that relate to its predictions.

And so,

Daniel correctly portrays life and culture of the seventh and sixth century BC, which a 2d century BC writer would find much more difficult to get correct. The Greek culture certainly existed (according to Wikipedia, beginning in the 8th to 6th centuries BC), and their musicians had certainly gained renown, so using Greek terms - a total of three words - for musical instruments would not be out of the ordinary. If the book were written in Hellenistic times, then there would have been far more Greek terminology. Even the Aramaic, which makes up almost half of the book of Daniel, is formal - or "imperial," the ligua franca of the near East - rather than the colloquial, regional dialect of intertestemental Palestine, so this is another proof against later writing. Fragments of Daniel found among the Dead Sea scrolls also argue against a late writing, as it would be highly unlikely that such a recent work would have such widespread acceptance so quickly.

The arguments for ben Sirah's authorship of this book are questionable, at best.

quote Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: Sorry ray, liberal "scholarship doesn't hold up. As a (completed) Jew, who studied at Yeshiva, I can directly refute your last statement. Daniel was, and is, indeed a prophetic book. It is talked about in synagogues as such, but it is not brought to the fore because there are some very sensitive issues that relate to its predictions. And so, Daniel correctly portrays life and culture of the seventh and sixth century BC, which a 2d century BC writer would find much more difficult to get correct. The Greek culture certainly existed (according to Wikipedia, beginning in the 8th to 6th centuries BC), and their musicians had certainly gained renown, so using Greek terms - a total of three words - for musical instruments would not be out of the ordinary. If the book were written in Hellenistic times, then there would have been far more Greek terminology. Even the Aramaic, which makes up almost half of the book of Daniel, is formal - or "imperial," the ligua franca of the near East - rather than the colloquial, regional dialect of intertestemental Palestine, so this is another proof against later writing. Fragments of Daniel found among the Dead Sea scrolls also argue against a late writing, as it would be highly unlikely that such a recent work would have such widespread acceptance so quickly. The arguments for ben Sirah's authorship of this book are questionable, at best.

There is much debate about the authorship(s) of Daniel. The earliest writings were that of common Aramaic at the time and doesn't reference anything or language that would indicate anything older than 400 BC. Especially that many portions of Daniel was actually written in Hebrew and with that it had completely different literary styles within it, strongly suggesting an multi-authorship and the language of that around 200BC or later (towards AD). Plus the Book does get a lot wrong, such as the Darius of Mede shows nothing in the historic record of ever existing at all. The Babylonian records were pretty complete, but everybody concludes that Darius the Mede doesn't exist at all, but was fictitious or the authors of Daniel simply mixed up oral history and therefore the error. Daniel also got wrong that Antiochus would invade Egypt and be killed by God and the dead would rise and a new age would begin. None of that ever happened.

The issue is that the more events supposedly Daniel predicted (around 200BC) tend to be more detailed but older >200BC events much more sketchy, wrong or vague would suggest that the authors of Daniel were writing the book of the time around 200 - 175 BC rather than something much older.

There are thousands of errors in the Bible. Christians do try their best to explain it away, but it isn't going to get any better for the Christians who view it as the absolute true history and the word of God, because the better the sciences and scholars get at uncovering the truth, the more the Bible looks like a great historical piece of fiction.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: There is much debate about the authorship(s) of Daniel. The earliest writings were that of common Aramaic at the time and doesn't reference anything or language that would indicate anything older than 400 BC. Especially that many portions of Daniel was actually written in Hebrew and with that it had completely different literary styles within it, strongly suggesting an multi-authorship and the language of that around 200BC or later (towards AD). Plus the Book does get a lot wrong, such as the Darius of Mede shows nothing in the historic record of ever existing at all. The Babylonian records were pretty complete, but everybody concludes that Darius the Mede doesn't exist at all, but was fictitious or the authors of Daniel simply mixed up oral history and therefore the error. Daniel also got wrong that Antiochus would invade Egypt and be killed by God and the dead would rise and a new age would begin. None of that ever happened. The issue is that the more events supposedly Daniel predicted (around 200BC) tend to be more detailed but older >200BC events much more sketchy, wrong or vague would suggest that the authors of Daniel were writing the book of the time around 200 - 175 BC rather than something much older.

There is much debate, just as there is here.

Again, the Aramaic in Daniel is Imperial Aramaic, not colloquial, 2dC BC Aramaic, so this leans against late authorship. Also, Persian is used in the writing of Daniel, as well, a more common influence in Jewish life in 6thC BC. Take note also that the kings in Daniel are often (not always) spoken of favorably. If the book were written later, as suggested, the writer would not be likely at all to render any of the Diaspora with fondness.

Darius the Mede seems troubling, but is not without a possible explanation. Darius "received" the kingdom of Babylon (9:1) after the Persian conquest, which is odd language for a conqueror. It is more likely that he is ruling with the consent of the true king, Cyrus, as more of a governor, certainly a subordinate. Gubaru, a personal name, is mentioned in cuneiform documents, including the Nabonidus Chronicles, as a governor appointed by Cyrus, and is a candidate.

The last comments show disregard for a change in style by the author (Be it Daniel himself or a close associate). Antiochus did, indeed, invade Egypt, but was unsuccessful. Daniel's predictions of the desecration of the Holy Temple end at 11:35, and he begins to prophecy about the End of the Age in verse 36. These prophecies mirror more closely the Revelation of John. When the "man clothed in linen" of 12:7 says, ""for a time, times and half a time," he may be speaking of the latter half of the tribulation (3.5 years), but this is purely speculation by me. I haven't studied it deeply enough to pass my own muster.

quote There are thousands of errors in the Bible. Christians do try their best to explain it away, but it isn't going to get any better for the Christians who view it as the absolute true history and the word of God, because the better the sciences and scholars get at uncovering the truth, the more the Bible looks like a great historical piece of fiction.

There are transpositional errors, there are occasional spelling errors; things that you'd expect over the years. However, there are so many early copies and fragments that they can all be compared against each other and we can put together a very accurate image of what the early originals looked like - much more accurately than any other book of antiquity. If we disregard the Bible because of these, then we must disregard first all of the great works of history, because they are all less documented and our existent copies are further removed from their originals by a factor of three or better.

quote Originally posted by TK: I think the general scholarly consensus is around 160BCE. It might be based on earlier legends or not. Hard to say, Good for a margin note if new facts come along. As for Jesus' accident, when I read the NT, it's seems pretty clear that there wasn't an expectation of Jesus dying so soon. When it happened people went back to the older traditions to make sense out it. Writers of the NT inserted the rationalizations to explain that it was prophesied all along. That is called "interpolation" and the NT is full of it. Today, we call it embellishment or 20-20 hindsight. Lots of room for discussion there. Absolutely fascinating stuff.

That is why I mentioned IF you believe secular historians, too. It isn't like they are infallible. And I don't fault them. Try to speak dogmatically of things that were going on just 300 years ago in the U.S. There is debate over some issues of that.


So the book of Daniel is an INTENSE argument as to the date of its writing and who the author is. MUCH of that debate is understandable because if it truly WAS written by Daniel, then you KNOW when the book was written as he lived in that 600bc to 500 bc time frame. However, had he actually written it, then that makes it pretty hard to ignore his claims. Not that people still wouldn't ignore them even if he DID write it.

But people like Wichita and rayb make DOGMATIC statements, and then someone like Patrick's Dad easily come along and refute their claims with their actual life experience.

So if this was a court case, then you have conflicting witnesses, with two of them being heresay, and one with actual eyewitness life experience. But people make their judgements.


Regarding the "accidental" death of Jesus, that is one the actual major THEMES of the New Testament. The jewish leaders were against Jesus because were he the true King of the Jews, it meant they were going to be out of a job and out of influence.

Jesus' own followers didn't WANT him to do what He came to do, which He told them all along, which was to purposefully come with the INTENT of DYING as a sacrifice to pay for their sins. They didn't want that. They wanted Him to skip that part, and just be King of the Jews, and get rid of the oppressive Roman government. They wanted a POLITICAL savior, not an eternal, individual savior.

So this was no 20/20 hindsight issue. It was there all along. The people just didn't want what they SHOULD have seen.
But as always, I appreciate the discussion. It is interesting to look at the same information, and then people can pass their own judgements to the interpretation of what it really means.

And I LOVE the glimpses you get during the discussion. I REALLY LIKE ray b, and don't care if he reciprocates it or not. "Indocrinated". Conned. Non-thinkers. American tali-ban. Well, that applies to many, many people that CALL themselves christians, and many people that actually ARE christians. (except the American tali-ban part. That applies to almost NO one.).

quote Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: There are transpositional errors, there are occasional spelling errors; things that you'd expect over the years. However, there are so many early copies and fragments that they can all be compared against each other and we can put together a very accurate image of what the early originals looked like - much more accurately than any other book of antiquity. If we disregard the Bible because of these, then we must disregard first all of the great works of history, because they are all less documented and our existent copies are further removed from their originals by a factor of three or better.

This is true.

you know better about the torah = law , prophets , Ketuvim =(Writings),
division of the jewish bible [old T]

lots of the dead sea finds were not old works


wiki again

''The Jewish Tanakh places the Book of Daniel with the Ketuvim (Writings), and Daniel in rabbinic literature is not counted in the list of Prophets of the Hebrew canon. By contrast, Daniel is included amongst the major prophets in the Christian canon of the Old Testament.''

quote Originally posted by ray b: wiki again ''The Jewish Tanakh places the Book of Daniel with the Ketuvim (Writings), and Daniel in rabbinic literature is not counted in the list of Prophets of the Hebrew canon. By contrast, Daniel is included amongst the major prophets in the Christian canon of the Old Testament.''

Fair enough.

As in any court judgement, testimony is evaluated with motive in mind.

The jewish religious leaders had (and have) a STRONG reason to ignore Daniel, and if they can't, to date it at a later date.

People trying to refute the Bible have a strong reason to date Daniel at a later date.

Christians obviously have a strong motive to have the writing of the book of Daniel to be by him during his lifetime, since the time he lived isn't in dispute.


I don't care what people decide. In the issue of fairness, people should have full disclosure to motive or "bias" when evaluating testimony. Not just in this situation, but in ANY such life situation about any topic.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: The jewish religious leaders had (and have) a STRONG reason to ignore Daniel, and if they can't, to date it at a later date. People trying to refute the Bible have a strong reason to date Daniel at a later date. Christians obviously have a strong motive to have the writing of the book of Daniel to be by him during his lifetime, since the time he lived isn't in dispute.

Quite true. Keep in mind also that Jesus, as one of the "Jewish leaders" quoted Daniel, just as He quoted Isaiah and David (Psalms).

quote [B] But people like Wichita and rayb make DOGMATIC statements, and then someone like Patrick's Dad easily come along and refute their claims with their actual life experience.

?
hint
dogma needs to be believed with out question
facts dates research dispute dogmas

[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 01-26-2012).]

Dogma?

Yes God exists. Yes His Son is Jesus. The whole purpose of our lives is a chance to use our free will to accept Jesus. Eternal health, wealth, and happiness were never promised. As for the kind of proof that a non-believer would need, conscider the stars and planets. Constantly in motion and yet their paths and positions are mathmatically predictable. That is how NASA can point a rocket into space and make it intercept its destination at the calculated time and place accurately. Because the motion of the stars and planets can be expressed in terms of constant mathmatical equations, you can also wind the clock back to see what the sky looked like in the past. This is exactly what was done in an effort to find "the Star of Bethlehem".

http://bethlehemstar.net/

I own the DVD offered on this site. I can recommend it and it is available for around $10. I would be happy to mail it to anyone who would like to view it and mail it back (or to the next person who may be interested). PM me.

Jonathan

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: But people like Wichita and rayb make DOGMATIC statements, and then someone like Patrick's Dad easily come along and refute their claims with their actual life experience.

Ummm. No he didn't.

The fact is that Daniel isn't in the Jewish Torah or that the Book of Daniel has erroneous errors and actually P-Dad basically admitted that the Holy Bible itself is full of errors proves our point.

Here it is. Christians try to explain away errors, wrongful dates and the fiction parts of the Bible as just human error in translation.

I would contend to say that your God, who supposedly handed down his word to the people in sections spanning hundreds and hundreds of years to then be canonized more than three hundreds years after Jesus was born into the Christian Bible, that somehow when translated, has errors. Don't you think that your God would deliver "his word" more appropriately in a single time period, or at least a generation and that it could be translated without errors or controversy?

Not only that, but to make the Holy Bible out of the reach of 99% of the population for so long, I'm talking about centuries, before people could become literate enough to even read it or have technology and logistics advance enough to even have it widely accessible, and the fact that most Christians don't even read it anyways? What kind of sense does that make? Why would your perfect God make it so unbelievably difficult, so erroneously error prone, such long time in the making, so incredibly splintered amongst the different religious sects, so extremely contradictory, the message so cloudy vague that it warrants the golden spire of God's Word?

If the Christian God was true and real, the understanding of God should be abundantly clear and so understandable that a 5-year old child should comprehend it. Why is it only theological scholars can interpret the Bible and communicate that meaning (although never really agreeing) to the rest of us? Why does it take over 31,000 verses to explain God?

I notice that many Christians talking about the WOW factor of nature in that it runs in order and mathematically and that can only explain God. How come your God doesn't? How come your God in the Bible doesn't run in order or that it cannot be explained by mathematics? Why is your God always excluded from the Physical laws of the Universe? Why is your God always was here, created a world before this one, got it wrong and therefore created another world?

You are asking people to have faith in an existence of God, to believe a story of Jesus and to worship and love him above all else and follow the rituals of baptism, circumcision, sabbath, sacrament of mass and etc, yet provide no simple answer to why. But just to have faith. And that blind faith is the true way to show your love to him?

All of this make no sense to a thinking person. It really doesn't. I know you Christians believe that us so called "non-believers" are just lost souls or we are posses by demons or the devil, but you have the weakest argument ever comprehended to make a case for the existence of God. The Bible? I'm mean, really?

Maybe I'm just a Vulcan or an alien. Your God needs to do a better job at delivering a clearer message of his existence.

[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 01-27-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Wichita: Why would your perfect God make it so unbelievably difficult, so erroneously error prone, such long time in the making, so incredibly splintered amongst the different religious sects, so extremely contradictory, the message so cloudy vague that it warrants the golden spire of God's Word? If the Christian God was true and real, the understanding of God should be abundantly clear and so understandable that a 5-year old child should comprehend it. Why is it only theological scholars can interpret the Bible and communicate that meaning (although never really agreeing) to the rest of us? Why does it take over 31,000 verses to explain God?

But the physical laws of the universe aren't even known. Black holes defy what we teach as factual physics and quantum mechanics for example.

I understand the difficulty but also to note God didn't make it difficult, people did.

What's an erroneous error?

quote Originally posted by 2.5: But the physical laws of the universe aren't even known. Black holes defy what we teach as factual physics and quantum mechanics for example. I understand the difficulty but also to note God didn't make it difficult, people did.

Then the religion of Christianity by your account is a complete manufactured product by people and that would include the Bible. So the Christian God really doesn't exist by your statement.

You can never produce enough facts to prove something DOESN'T exist. That is why we will always have searches for ET.

If God doesn't exist, why do the people who don't believe get so worked up about it? The non-believers, sadly, far outnumber the believers involved in this thread.

As for errors being proof of the non-existance of something, we all know that our Fieros were wired incorrectly at the factory. This was an error by the creator yet Fieros DO EXIST! GM also made a service manual that not only has errors but has been ammended to include things like using Syncromesh in the manual transmissions. There is a book, it is all about the health and wellfare of Fieros. It has errors and it gets updated and changed. Even with all the care that went into explaining the systems in this car, the car itself, still cannot understand the book.

Jonathan

quote Originally posted by Wichita: Then the religion of Christianity by your account is a complete manufactured product by people and that would include the Bible. So the Christian God really doesn't exist by your statement.

Its possible you misunderstand me and my previous posts.

I don't know where you got that. Maybe you are claiming again that "religion" is manmade. I guess we need to decide what we are talking about, all religions? religious acts? belief? The Bible? I think this may boil down to the truth question.
If you don't believe there is a truth out there, there is no way to progress. If you only believe that truth is what we want it to be, or that it is subjective then you cannot progress further. If you believe that there is a truth, that something actually happened, and peoiple just each have their own way of looking at it, their own interpretation, their own motives, then you can tread on with discovery.

Something I said to ray:

quote Originally posted by 2.5: You really think people would all come to a conclusion, is this based on us being able to come to a conclusion on which motor oil is best? Or maybe which climate is best to live in? Human nature is to be selfish. If we see something and don't like it because maybe it isn't what we prefer, or doesn't seem easy enough, or other people don't agree with it. Maybe it doesn't suit how we feel or how we have been treated in life so far. Maybe we choose not to choose which in itself its really a choice. These days we can even block all other points of view other than our own. Maybe for example joining forums or blogs where everyone thinks like me or agrees with me, only watching what we TIVO, never watching news, or only watching bias news..etc.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: ... The fact is that Daniel isn't in the Jewish Torah or that the Book of Daniel has erroneous errors and actually P-Dad basically admitted that the Holy Bible itself is full of errors proves our point.

Proves nothing, except that you don't know that the Torah is the first five books; the ones that Moses wrote by His guidance. Joshua is not the Torah. Ezekiel is not the Torah. Psalms is not the Torah, etc.

quote Here it is. Christians try to explain away errors, wrongful dates and the fiction parts of the Bible as just human error in translation. I would contend to say that your God, who supposedly handed down his word to the people in sections spanning hundreds and hundreds of years to then be canonized more than three hundreds years after Jesus was born into the Christian Bible, that somehow when translated, has errors. Don't you think that your God would deliver "his word" more appropriately in a single time period, or at least a generation and that it could be translated without errors or controversy? more circular arguments and straw men All of this make no sense to a thinking person. It really doesn't. I know you Christians believe that us so called "non-believers" are just lost souls or we are posses by demons or the devil, but you have the weakest argument ever comprehended to make a case for the existence of God. The Bible? I'm mean, really? Maybe I'm just a Vulcan or an alien. Your God needs to do a better job at delivering a clearer message of his existence.

To answer the first, how could Chronicles, Kings and Judges have been written before they happened? How could Micah, the last book of the OT, for that matter? The mere fact that the Bible, Old and New Testaments are so well preserved - again, the most accurate representation of any book of antiquity that anyone can produce, despite copying errors that are negated by the sheer volume of copies that are available to check against - that it is a "testament" to God's power that we have them *despite* our Human failings. I mean, for gosh sakes, there's Scotch tape on the Declaration of Independence!

Yes, lost souls. You fault us for trying to reach people, to rescue them from what you can't see, feel, hear or taste. Wichita, I'm not going to change your mind, and I'm not writing you off. Not now, not in the foreseeable future, but if your mind is to be changed, it will be an act of God in itself. Remember, even Spock had his epiphanies. I will, however, work to keep a balance on what I see are arguments made from preconceived conclusions not only that God doesn't exist, but that anyone who believes in Him is deluded and anyone who genuinely searches for Him is looking to be brainwashed.

Us non-believers remain open to to any evidence of a supernatural entity. Just don't bring us stick figures in crayon and then get pissed off when we reject it.

We are not rejecting a god - we are rejecting people's claims and unreliable evidence of a god. You should be thinking more about how you can prove your claim and less about why we reject it.

We tend to have the same standard of proof for all claims and are unwilling to bend those rules very much. We aren't willing to be selective in that scrutiny.

What you do and how you do it is your business.

[This message has been edited by TK (edited 01-28-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Wichita: Here it is. Christians try to explain away errors, wrongful dates and the fiction parts of the Bible as just human error in translation. Don't you think that your God would deliver "his word" more appropriately in a single time period, or at least a generation and that it could be translated without errors or controversy? the fact that most Christians don't even read it anyways? What kind of sense does that make? Why would your perfect God make it so unbelievably difficult, so erroneously error prone, such long time in the making, so incredibly splintered amongst the different religious sects, so extremely contradictory, the message so cloudy vague that it warrants the golden spire of God's Word? If the Christian God was true and real, the understanding of God should be abundantly clear and so understandable that a 5-year old child should comprehend it. Why is it only theological scholars can interpret the Bible and communicate that meaning (although never really agreeing) to the rest of us? Why does it take over 31,000 verses to explain God?

I can't answer for all people that CLAIM to be christians. So that disclaimer first.


But regarding "Christians try to explain away errors, wrongful dates and the fiction parts of the Bible as just human error in translation.", that is false. Of COURSE Christians try to EXPLAIN what people are PERCEIVING as errors or wrongful dates or fiction. Why would one not do that?

They also try to explain ATTACKS against it being true. Well, why WOULDN'T someone defend it. So that isn't some kind of unusual behavior at all.


But what is FALSE is that the explanations are "...JUST human error in translation..." I'm not saying no Christian has EVER done that. But that is a GROSS mischaracterization of what usually happens.

"...Don't you think that your God would deliver "his word" more appropriately in a single time period, or at least a generation and that it could be translated without errors or controversy?"

People want SOME proof or substantiation that the Bible is true. ONE of those cases can be made BECAUSE God didn't deliver his word in a single time period. 40 different humans used. WIDE variety of background-social, work, cultural, economic. VAST time span between the first and the last. And yet they can do all that without contradicting themselves, and can have one unified theme? THAT way to do it makes it HARDER to claim that it was just some human's idea.

Regarding could it be translated without errors? Not with humans being involved over that many years, and that many changes in languages. HOWEVER, the errors are ones that are NOT substantive to the MAIN THEMES. Does a clerical error in the reporting of the number of sheep a patriarch had render the main message difficult to understand?

Regarding could it be translated without controversy? No. Now with humans. Humans have controversy ALL THE TIME. Just had a presidential debate viewed by MANY. Any controversy on what REALLY happened?

"...the fact that most Christians don't even read it anyways? What kind of sense does that make?" That would be GOD'S fault?


"...Why would your perfect God make it so unbelievably difficult, so erroneously error prone, such long time in the making, so incredibly splintered amongst the different religious sects, so extremely contradictory, the message so cloudy vague that it warrants the golden spire of God's Word? "


It isn't unbelievably difficult. Not sure what you are getting at. It isn't error prone. That is your opinion. And the message isn't cloudy nor vague.

",,,incredibly splintered amongst the different religious sects..." That isn't God's fault. And regarding cloudy, the clouding has been done by humans in religions, not by God's message in the Bible.


"...If the Christian God was true and real, the understanding of God should be abundantly clear and so understandable that a 5-year old child should comprehend it. Why is it only theological scholars can interpret the Bible and communicate that meaning (although never really agreeing) to the rest of us? Why does it take over 31,000 verses to explain God?"
It DOESN'T TAKE theological scholars to interpret the Bible and communicate the meaning. And a 5 year old CAN comprehend it.

Here it is:

1. Are you a sinner or not? Is there a God who has certain requirements, and have you even not met one or more?
2. Since God is perfect, the penalty for sinning is you can't be with Him for eternity (whether one, ten, or a million).
3. If you pay for your sin(s) yourself, when your body dies, you would do that in Hell forever.
4. God doesn't want that and sent Jesus to pay for your sins for you (accomplished when He died).
5. Give Him permission to pay for your sins for you, and He will do it with no conditions attached to it.

A 5 year old can understand that easily.
"... Why does it take over 31,000 verses to explain God?"

Why were there MORE than that number of "verses" for me to get through to explain medicine and how to take care of patients? Highly complex and amazing topics require more volume to explain and really understand.

Well, what about the 5 year old understanding then???? I didn't understand medicine books when I was 5. There are some concepts that you need time to mature to understand. So a 5 year old can understand how to get to Heaven. But to fully understand God, who He is, on a deeper, more mature level takes time.

My question would be, why did we ONLY get 31,000 verses because I'm sure there is even MORE about Him I would like to know.
You are right that God's PEOPLE need to do a better job at explaining Him, INCLUDING representing Him.

But none of your points you brought up are not without a perfectly reasonable, and logical explanation. I don't care that you reject them. But that doesn't make them "non-thinking" and "non-sensical" just because YOU don't agree with them.

quote Originally posted by ray b: hint the american christian version of the tali-ban wants non-thinkers like you they are called the tea-party

Was it really necessary to drag politics into this?

I just wanted to add that I have really enjoyed reading frontal lobe's posts in this thread.

As TK is saying, it is not that we are not trying to disprove the existence of God. The issue is that many religions, in particular, Christianity has planks of beliefs that are beside the question of an existence of God, but one must believe in order to be a " true believers".

Is it not true that on order to be a true believe in God, you must accept and believe that Jesus was the son of God? It isn't enough just to believe in God or a higher power, you have to believe that Jesus was a god. If you don't, you don't believe in the right God and therefore you go to hell.

That is the problem. To me, Jesus was just a man. He wasn't god or the son of god. The bible does nothing to prove that claim also. Sorry, but I cannot believe in Christianity because I know it to be false. I don't make the claim that God doesn't exist, just Jesus and the Christian version of God is not what one would expect a god to be.

.

[This message has been edited by TommyRocker (edited 01-28-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Wichita: I don't make the claim that God doesn't exist, just Jesus and the Christian version of God is not what one would expect a god to be.

Exactly, but how does one get their expectations of what a god might be?
It sounds like you are saying Jesus didn't act like a god?
Along with this is much more Christian belief, the trinity for example. These are questions you can look up on many bible sites, including gotquestions.org.

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 01-27-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Wichita: As TK is saying, it is not that we are not trying to disprove the existence of God. The issue is that many religions, in particular, Christianity has planks of beliefs that are beside the question of an existence of God, but one must believe in order to be a " true believers". Is it not true that on order to be a true believe in God, you must accept and believe that Jesus was the son of God? It isn't enough just to believe in God or a higher power, you have to believe that Jesus was a god. If you don't, you don't believe in the right God and therefore you go to hell. That is the problem. To me, Jesus was just a man. He wasn't god or the son of god. The bible does nothing to prove that claim also. Sorry, but I cannot believe in Christianity because I know it to be false. I don't make the claim that God doesn't exist, just Jesus and the Christian version of God is not what one would expect a god to be.

Thanks for being open and patient, so I could more accurately understand where you are coming from.


To try to outline my thought process to get where I believe:

1. Does God exist or not?
2. Should He exist, what is He like.

I went into step 2 PRETTY unbiased and objective. I really didn't CARE what God was like. Whatever. You are who you are. So I wasn't trying to fit MY image of God into anything I wanted or was happier about or more comfortable with.

3. How in the world am I supposed to find out?

No actual physical confrontation, experience that I found available. No face to face.
So I considered the Bible. IF it is true, then reading it would give me a PRETTY DETAILED image of who God is and what He is really like. Not an absolutely complete image, but more than detailed enough.

So as I have given some few details in this thread of my attempts to as much as possible, verify or not the truthfulness of the Bible claims. Circumstantial case, absolutely. Best I had available. For me, the circumstantial evidence weighed heavily in favor of confirming the Bible is true.

4. If the Bible REALLY is God's word, my image of Him should be limited to that description, and not my imaginations, desires, likes.

So for me it isn't an option. If the Bible said God had a son in the flesh that was human and yet also God, and his name was Jesus, then that is what it is. In my world, if the studies come to a certain conclusion about certain treatments, I don't get to go by my feelings, or intuition. Placebo controlled, double blinded trials say do "this". OK. I have to trust the studies over my own feelings on what should work.

5. If the Bible REALLY is God's word, what is my responsibility, then.


The conclusion being that I'm not trying to make it my PERSONAL desire that decides who is a "true believer" or not, or how to become one. It isn't my intent to be personally insulting or demeaning to anyone else. It is just that my thorough, as objective as possible conclusions led me to where I am.
Regarding your assertions against "christianity" as a whole, what can I say? You are right. MOST people HAVEN'T done the diligence to investigating what they have told, like they should. Most DON'T live a daily life consistent with what they propose (and impose often). Many DO contort it to their own preferences for their own gain.


I know from previous posts that you (and others) HAVE really investigated things and have come to a different judgement on the evidence. I respect that.

Well, then why have yet ANOTHER thread about this?

I don't know. I didn't start it. But some people HAVEN'T really had much chance to hear both sides of the evidence, and haven't had much exposure to different viewpoints. If this helps them, great. If no one changes their mind, I don't care (I care about what happens to people. Don't get me wrong.). It still gave me ANOTHER chance to understand better what others are thinking, what their questions and issues are, how to possibly address those in a way that might make it clearer to them...REGARDLESS of what conclusion they make with the information.


So, seriously, thank you to all of you who have shared your viewpoints. I promise you my intent wasn't to "explain anything away", but was to accurately understand your viewpoint, and then if I had a way to look at the evidence, to present it how I see it.

A " + " for you, Frontal Lobe, for your time and patient analysis so that others may understand.

quote Originally posted by Xyster: Was it really necessary to drag politics into this?

I wish nut christians like mr rick should be in a sanatorium
would stay out of politic's
but they willNOT
and there are real tali-ban like plans coming from the christian rightwing GOP
their insane policys based on their befiefs are a real danger
and a big part of the religion problem

I have no fear of any god they are all man-made
but I do have a real fear of the followers
and the insane things they do have done and are willing to continue doing
if they never ever tried to inject belief in to laws
no need to mention their political agendas
but they do

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: I can't answer for all people that CLAIM to be christians. So that disclaimer first. But regarding "Christians try to explain away errors, wrongful dates and the fiction parts of the Bible as just human error in translation.", that is false. Of COURSE Christians try to EXPLAIN what people are PERCEIVING as errors or wrongful dates or fiction. Why would one not do that? They also try to explain ATTACKS against it being true. Well, why WOULDN'T someone defend it. So that isn't some kind of unusual behavior at all. But what is FALSE is that the explanations are "...JUST human error in translation..." I'm not saying no Christian has EVER done that. But that is a GROSS mischaracterization of what usually happens. "...Don't you think that your God would deliver "his word" more appropriately in a single time period, or at least a generation and that it could be translated without errors or controversy?" People want SOME proof or substantiation that the Bible is true. ONE of those cases can be made BECAUSE God didn't deliver his word in a single time period. 40 different humans used. WIDE variety of background-social, work, cultural, economic. VAST time span between the first and the last. And yet they can do all that without contradicting themselves, and can have one unified theme? THAT way to do it makes it HARDER to claim that it was just some human's idea. Regarding could it be translated without errors? Not with humans being involved over that many years, and that many changes in languages. HOWEVER, the errors are ones that are NOT substantive to the MAIN THEMES. Does a clerical error in the reporting of the number of sheep a patriarch had render the main message difficult to understand? Regarding could it be translated without controversy? No. Now with humans. Humans have controversy ALL THE TIME. Just had a presidential debate viewed by MANY. Any controversy on what REALLY happened? "...the fact that most Christians don't even read it anyways? What kind of sense does that make?" That would be GOD'S fault? "...Why would your perfect God make it so unbelievably difficult, so erroneously error prone, such long time in the making, so incredibly splintered amongst the different religious sects, so extremely contradictory, the message so cloudy vague that it warrants the golden spire of God's Word? " It isn't unbelievably difficult. Not sure what you are getting at. It isn't error prone. That is your opinion. And the message isn't cloudy nor vague. ",,,incredibly splintered amongst the different religious sects..." That isn't God's fault. And regarding cloudy, the clouding has been done by humans in religions, not by God's message in the Bible. "...If the Christian God was true and real, the understanding of God should be abundantly clear and so understandable that a 5-year old child should comprehend it. Why is it only theological scholars can interpret the Bible and communicate that meaning (although never really agreeing) to the rest of us? Why does it take over 31,000 verses to explain God?" It DOESN'T TAKE theological scholars to interpret the Bible and communicate the meaning. And a 5 year old CAN comprehend it. Here it is: 1. Are you a sinner or not? Is there a God who has certain requirements, and have you even not met one or more? 2. Since God is perfect, the penalty for sinning is you can't be with Him for eternity (whether one, ten, or a million). 3. If you pay for your sin(s) yourself, when your body dies, you would do that in Hell forever. 4. God doesn't want that and sent Jesus to pay for your sins for you (accomplished when He died). 5. Give Him permission to pay for your sins for you, and He will do it with no conditions attached to it. A 5 year old can understand that easily. "... Why does it take over 31,000 verses to explain God?" Why were there MORE than that number of "verses" for me to get through to explain medicine and how to take care of patients? Highly complex and amazing topics require more volume to explain and really understand. Well, what about the 5 year old understanding then???? I didn't understand medicine books when I was 5. There are some concepts that you need time to mature to understand. So a 5 year old can understand how to get to Heaven. But to fully understand God, who He is, on a deeper, more mature level takes time. My question would be, why did we ONLY get 31,000 verses because I'm sure there is even MORE about Him I would like to know. You are right that God's PEOPLE need to do a better job at explaining Him, INCLUDING representing Him. But none of your points you brought up are not without a perfectly reasonable, and logical explanation. I don't care that you reject them. But that doesn't make them "non-thinking" and "non-sensical" just because YOU don't agree with them.

That is just another lame attempt to try to explain away the discrepancies.

You can't make a case for one side of the coin and when it doesn't go your way, you explain it as the other side of the coin.

God is simple.... Oh I mean... God is so complex that he didn't give enough verses in the Bible to explain himself.

Your Lord Jesus Christ didn't tell his followers to go forth and create a Bible 300-years after my death so that 99% of the world wouldn't even have ever heard about it none less even be able to have the literacy to read about it for ohhh about around 1500+ years after I die sounds like a good number.

The Bible can't be explained to a 5-year old, because you need to be more mature to understand it? PEOPLE COULDN'T EVEN READ IT nor HAD ACCESS TO IT. So how are they able to believe?

Your Lord Jesus Christ said nothing about a Bible being canonized. But... Yeah.. He decided that the people needed it 300-years after his death as some real official form of it.. Oh yeah... He let a pagan Emperor be in charge of that. Though Jesus decided to change it a few times along the way, including up to now-a-days. So he isn't finished with the final version of the Bible yet.

Your Lord Jesus Christ decided that it was ok for Kings to kill women and children in his name under the Crusades, because it was non-believers. Your Lord Jesus Christ then decided that it was ok for the Catholics to start a Reformation and to purge non-believers. Then your Lord Jesus Christ decided that he wanted to change Christianity again and therefore sprinkled a diet of worms so that people no longer had to be good or conduct good deeds, but just believe in Jesus. A radical change of what Christianity was since it splintered itself off as a Jewish Sect.

Your Lord Jesus Christ then decided it was ok for Kings to re-write the Bible, three times until one name James became more popular. The earlier versions by other Kings weren't strong enough to fortify the Kingdom of England. So the King James Version was written so that they can begin the purge those pesky Puritans.

Your Lord Jesus Christ then decided that he would visit a man name Joseph Smith and told him to believe in Jesus and the Mormons then begin. Later on, Jesus told the Evangelicals, SIKE... I was joking with those folks. They aren't real Christians.

Your Lord Jesus Christ then decided that since more people became literate and started to read the canonized bible, that he was bring great faith to a true believers known as Jehovah's Witness. Later on, Jesus told the Evangelicals, SIKE... I was joking with those folks. They aren't real Christians.

You said that you want to know more about Jesus? That the Bible isn't enough? Then look outside the canonized Bible. There was much written about Jesus that didn't make it in the Bible. Because it isn't the word of God. Just a scribe wasting time so be the decision of later Christians, yet the Coptic and Gnostic Christians, the earliest Christians in history have written the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Phillp. Not good enough for later christians, because it failed to speak about the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. You have to have that for it to be real, although the canonized ones had different versions, but that's ok. huh???

Actually the first canonized New Testament was the Marcion Christian Bible (144AD)... oooohhh excommunicated by the Roman Church.... Sorry... Even though you were the 1st... Jesus said SIKE to you later on... You just weren't popular enough for the upper echelons. So Jesus hates you now.

The Shepherd of Hermas... Great book about Jesus... was considered to be a part of the New Testament... Ohh... Maybe not so fast... Jesus doesn't need anything pesky like that. We need blood, guts, disease and death...Something apocalyptic, something that can be stolen from the book of Daniel so we can scare people. Revelation... Yeah... That's Jesus. Yeah.. The Gospel of Epistle has some good stuff in it, but we needed dragon beasts and fire.... lots of fire... And a cage fight match between Jesus and the Devil.... And all these souls buried in the earth shall finally get their rise in heaven....

(You do know when you die... you don't automatically go to heaven right away, right? You do know that? You are in purgatory until Jesus comes back to create a heaven on earth. That is your Christian faith. So your love ones that have died, they are in the dirt. They aren't in heaven. That only comes after Jesus returns.)

So right now. Jesus has chosen the American Evangelical Christians to be the final authority of who are "true believers" in the spin off Jewish sect, known as Christianity. The only people to go to heaven. Catholics, Mormons, Jehovahs, Calvinist, Lutherans.... I'm sorry, but Jesus once believed in you. Not any more. You sucked and got it wrong. Now, be condemned in hell for entire eternity... especially the Muslim, they can really go to hell. It's ok to nuke them off the planet as far as I can see. They are evil non-believers.

Since Jesus evolves and changes his mind so many times since his death, I suspect that the American Evangelical Christians would also be abandon by Jesus for a new favorite flavor of the time, since that has been Jesus's way since he became a spin off Jewish religion.

So sayths the Lord,
AMEN!

Buzz kill

Could you please site the verses in the Bible where you found this information? I'm very interested in reading it for myself.

Jonathan

quote Originally posted by Wichita: That is just another lame attempt to try to explain away the discrepancies. You can't make a case for one side of the coin and when it doesn't go your way, you explain it as the other side of the coin. God is simple.... Oh I mean... God is so complex that he didn't give enough verses in the Bible to explain himself. Your Lord Jesus Christ didn't tell his followers to go forth and create a Bible 300-years after my death so that 99% of the world wouldn't even have ever heard about it none less even be able to have the literacy to read about it for ohhh about around 1500+ years after I die sounds like a good number. The Bible can't be explained to a 5-year old, because you need to be more mature to understand it? PEOPLE COULDN'T EVEN READ IT nor HAD ACCESS TO IT. So how are they able to believe? Your Lord Jesus Christ said nothing about a Bible being canonized. But... Yeah.. He decided that the people needed it 300-years after his death as some real official form of it.. Oh yeah... He let a pagan Emperor be in charge of that. Though Jesus decided to change it a few times along the way, including up to now-a-days. So he isn't finished with the final version of the Bible yet. Your Lord Jesus Christ decided that it was ok for Kings to kill women and children in his name under the Crusades, because it was non-believers. Your Lord Jesus Christ then decided that it was ok for the Catholics to start a Reformation and to purge non-believers. Then your Lord Jesus Christ decided that he wanted to change Christianity again and therefore sprinkled a diet of worms so that people no longer had to be good or conduct good deeds, but just believe in Jesus. A radical change of what Christianity was since it splintered itself off as a Jewish Sect. Your Lord Jesus Christ then decided it was ok for Kings to re-write the Bible, three times until one name James became more popular. The earlier versions by other Kings weren't strong enough to fortify the Kingdom of England. So the King James Version was written so that they can begin the purge those pesky Puritans. Your Lord Jesus Christ then decided that he would visit a man name Joseph Smith and told him to believe in Jesus and the Mormons then begin. Later on, Jesus told the Evangelicals, SIKE... I was joking with those folks. They aren't real Christians. Your Lord Jesus Christ then decided that since more people became literate and started to read the canonized bible, that he was bring great faith to a true believers known as Jehovah's Witness. Later on, Jesus told the Evangelicals, SIKE... I was joking with those folks. They aren't real Christians. You said that you want to know more about Jesus? That the Bible isn't enough? Then look outside the canonized Bible. There was much written about Jesus that didn't make it in the Bible. Because it isn't the word of God. Just a scribe wasting time so be the decision of later Christians, yet the Coptic and Gnostic Christians, the earliest Christians in history have written the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Phillp. Not good enough for later christians, because it failed to speak about the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. You have to have that for it to be real, although the canonized ones had different versions, but that's ok. huh??? Actually the first canonized New Testament was the Marcion Christian Bible (144AD)... oooohhh excommunicated by the Roman Church.... Sorry... Even though you were the 1st... Jesus said SIKE to you later on... You just weren't popular enough for the upper echelons. So Jesus hates you now. The Shepherd of Hermas... Great book about Jesus... was considered to be a part of the New Testament... Ohh... Maybe not so fast... Jesus doesn't need anything pesky like that. We need blood, guts, disease and death...Something apocalyptic, something that can be stolen from the book of Daniel so we can scare people. Revelation... Yeah... That's Jesus. Yeah.. The Gospel of Epistle has some good stuff in it, but we needed dragon beasts and fire.... lots of fire... And a cage fight match between Jesus and the Devil.... And all these souls buried in the earth shall finally get their rise in heaven.... (You do know when you die... you don't automatically go to heaven right away, right? You do know that? You are in purgatory until Jesus comes back to create a heaven on earth. That is your Christian faith. So your love ones that have died, they are in the dirt. They aren't in heaven. That only comes after Jesus returns.) So right now. Jesus has chosen the American Evangelical Christians to be the final authority of who are "true believers" in the spin off Jewish sect, known as Christianity. The only people to go to heaven. Catholics, Mormons, Jehovahs, Calvinist, Lutherans.... I'm sorry, but Jesus once believed in you. Not any more. You sucked and got it wrong. Now, be condemned in hell for entire eternity... especially the Muslim, they can really go to hell. It's ok to nuke them off the planet as far as I can see. They are evil non-believers. Since Jesus evolves and changes his mind so many times since his death, I suspect that the American Evangelical Christians would also be abandon by Jesus for a new favorite flavor of the time, since that has been Jesus's way since he became a spin off Jewish religion. So sayths the Lord, AMEN!