Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Top Ten Creationist Arguments Part 1 and 2
- Thread starter javaguru
- Start date
I argue that it's quite relvant. Just because something is difficult and time consuming doesn't negate its relevance.
In past days, people would devote their entire lives to their religion, transcribing and reading the scriptures, landing on new continents in the name of their religion, even warring and killing others who were different. Now they buy a book from Wal-Mart and listen to pastor billy a few times a year, then claim themselves as knowlegable followers of their faith. I know standards change, but c'mon.
It's perfectly resonable to contend that words, meanings, and interpretations of a single book will change over 2,000 years. There have been many, many different versions of the english bible over the centuries, especially in the days before the printing press.
Aren't you the least bit curious if and how they differ, by whom and under what circumstances they were wrote/published, different interpretations from hebrew to latin, latin to english, english to english?
Perhaps such things fall under the pure faith category that is so difficult for me to understand, especially in the modern age where so much is readily accessable by all... and where we have learned many hard lessons from deafly listening to the words of others without examining the source...
Yeah, it's definitely a difficult subject to debate with others, but I haven't done so in a while, so meh.
I argue that it's quite relvant. Just because something is difficult and time consuming doesn't negate its relevance.
In past days, people would devote their entire lives to their religion, transcribing and reading the scriptures, landing on new continents in the name of their religion, even warring and killing others who were different. Now they buy a book from Wal-Mart and listen to pastor billy a few times a year, then claim themselves as knowlegable followers of their faith. I know standards change, but c'mon.
It's perfectly resonable to contend that words, meanings, and interpretations of a single book will change over 2,000 years. There have been many, many different versions of the english bible over the centuries, especially in the days before the printing press.
Aren't you the least bit curious if and how they differ, by whom and under what circumstances they were wrote/published, different interpretations from hebrew to latin, latin to english, english to english?
Perhaps such things fall under the pure faith category that is so difficult for me to understand, especially in the modern age where so much is readily accessable by all... and where we have learned many hard lessons from deafly listening to the words of others without examining the source...
Some Muslim kids memorize the entire Koran in Arabic by the time they're ten years old, even ones who are not Arabic speakers.
HBO Film Follows Muslim Children In Quran Memorization Contest
All of those translations come from three different manuscripts. Three. There might be 400+ translations but you can only go back to three manuscripts. Two of those are as rotten as garbage left out in the sun. 
Anyone who has read and understands the book of Acts and understands church history isn't left in the dark. I personally think it is insanity to seriously think that it is reasonable for people to learn two ancient languages (a lifetime pursuit for each one) to think that the Greek and Hebrew are necessary to understand the mind of God or that you need a knowledge of those two languages to have a relationship with God. You know what that would make the rest of the world that couldn't learn those languages? Dependent on those small percentage of people that could.
Jesus talked about the originals like he did about his own mother. LOL think about that for a minute. I wonder why he spoke about his mother that way...but that's a different direction...lol... In the OT when Moses was speaking with Pharaoh they were speaking Egyptian but it was recorded in Hebrew. Either you think that God is able to inspire and preserve his word or you really have nothing. If you think the originals are all that is inspired then you've got a big problem you have to deal with eventually. I don't think that the bible has errors, no. That is a deep belief and conviction. I think people have errors, it is a user error. I don't care if people think I'm crazy, and I already know that people think I'm a fool. If someone wants to believe my philosophy or not is up to them. I won't berate anyone for thinking different. What other people choose to believe and think is their business.
I didn't think anyone was trolling me really... and Annie
I know you wouldn't troll me. People assume I've been a Christian for many years, I have not. My initial assumptions didn't include an infallible bible but that is where I'm at right now. I'm going to try my best to stop writing these long posts explaining my faith because I can't seem to find the words that give a clear, precise description to get my point across.
Anyone who has read and understands the book of Acts and understands church history isn't left in the dark. I personally think it is insanity to seriously think that it is reasonable for people to learn two ancient languages (a lifetime pursuit for each one) to think that the Greek and Hebrew are necessary to understand the mind of God or that you need a knowledge of those two languages to have a relationship with God. You know what that would make the rest of the world that couldn't learn those languages? Dependent on those small percentage of people that could. Jesus talked about the originals like he did about his own mother. LOL think about that for a minute.
I wonder why he spoke about his mother that way...but that's a different direction...lol... In the OT when Moses was speaking with Pharaoh they were speaking Egyptian but it was recorded in Hebrew. Either you think that God is able to inspire and preserve his word or you really have nothing. If you think the originals are all that is inspired then you've got a big problem you have to deal with eventually. I don't think that the bible has errors, no. That is a deep belief and conviction. I think people have errors, it is a user error. I don't care if people think I'm crazy, and I already know that people think I'm a fool. If someone wants to believe my philosophy or not is up to them. I won't berate anyone for thinking different. What other people choose to believe and think is their business. I didn't think anyone was trolling me really... and Annie
I know you wouldn't troll me. People assume I've been a Christian for many years, I have not. My initial assumptions didn't include an infallible bible but that is where I'm at right now. I'm going to try my best to stop writing these long posts explaining my faith because I can't seem to find the words that give a clear, precise description to get my point across.
Last edited:
javaguru
Banned
Histories are recorded in the language of the person recording it and they insert their biases and beliefs....All of those translations come from three different manuscripts. Three. There might be 400+ translations but you can only go back to three manuscripts. Two of those are as rotten as garbage left out in the sun.
Jesus talked about the originals like he did about his own mother. LOL think about that for a minute.
I didn't think anyone was trolling me really... and Annie
I've read multiple accounts of dog green sector of Omaha beach and they differ but not only can I trace every account to every person that wrote it but I can trace them to their birthplace with government records. I can also compare the accounts and find where they agree on almost everything when it comes to the facts of the battle to a certainty. The Bible should be considered no more historically accurate than the Iliad or the Odyssey.
You can not be serious. You have to be bullshitting me right now... do you take the time to sit down and think about what you say/believe...critique your own beliefs? Horrible comparison btw… you are taking something 65 years ago and comparing it to 2000 years ago REALLY? If you lived between 50-100 A.D. you would have been able to obtain Gov. records of Jesus' life, considering he was so popular, the Jews recorded his life and the Romans would have had records of his execution. You would have been able to obtain the original writings of the Apostles and the writings of Paul. You would have been able to conduct oral interviews...I thought that the community of “professional” historians were pretty much unmoved by postmodern relativists. Do you not see the utter unliveability of your views on almost everything? How do you get along in this world?
Last edited:
Yeah, you did a good job refuting that dismal comparison, you should have been a lawyer. According to his philosophy, 2000 yrs from now the Normandy Invasion will be as accurate as the bible is today. That's his persuasion, but I do have to give him a little credit for his last post, he did not plagiarize, that's a first. I can give an accurate account from Desert Storm too, considering I was actually involved, does that mean I can give an accurate account of the Hundred Years War. No... This is all relatively speaking of course.
Why in hell can't the Army do it if the Marines can. They are the same kind of men; why can't they be like Marines.
Gen. John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, USA; 12 February 1918
javaguru
Banned
There are two references to jesus outside of the bible, the josephus reference is likely plagiarized from the roman source but even if you accept that as legitimate it doesn't prove the veracity of the stories attributed to jesus. We know Alexander the Great existed because we have coins with his image and numerous sources but the story of the Gordian Knot is almost certainly fabricated. Likewise, mid eastern archaeology used to be called biblical archaeology until they realized the biblical accounts were unverifiable or completely contrary to the evidence.
