SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
1,134
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 15:
Line 15: + Line 20:
Line 21: + +
Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures? (view source)
Revision as of 07:48, September 5, 2012
, 07:48, September 5, 2012→Yes
:::God ''doesn't'' say that, it is Paul who says that. How can we accept this statement when it contradicts God's own word? (Exodus 20:3 - The First Commandment) Are you suggesting that Paul's word is more authoritative than God's? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 10:19, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:::God ''doesn't'' say that, it is Paul who says that. How can we accept this statement when it contradicts God's own word? (Exodus 20:3 - The First Commandment) Are you suggesting that Paul's word is more authoritative than God's? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 10:19, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::::HSDad is correct. Those "gods" referenced are demons, fallen angels being worshiped, as Paul said. The way you are defining gods is not how the Bible defines them. "Psalms 82:6-7 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes." --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 03:48, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
I will say this before and i will say it again, the bible is not a book that was written by a single person or even group of people who all attempted to accurately record historical events. The bible was written by hundred of people, none of whom knew each other, a lot of it was written from hearsay and word of mouth stories and myths, the vast majority was written hundreds of years after the events, and even when the whole lot was finally finished, it has been changed, translated several times by different people and finally 'improved' by other authors. To hold up a book like that and say that you can take parts of it literally is just plain silly. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:19, 22 April 2007
I will say this before and i will say it again, the bible is not a book that was written by a single person or even group of people who all attempted to accurately record historical events. The bible was written by hundred of people, none of whom knew each other, a lot of it was written from hearsay and word of mouth stories and myths, the vast majority was written hundreds of years after the events, and even when the whole lot was finally finished, it has been changed, translated several times by different people and finally 'improved' by other authors. To hold up a book like that and say that you can take parts of it literally is just plain silly. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:19, 22 April 2007
:No offense, but your point on the translation shows that you know very little on the issues of the debate. I encourage you to keep studying, but realize that we have the original language that it came in... the Greek and Hebrew. Now if you're talking about preservation, that's a miracle in and of itself. There are thousands upon thousands of manuscripts to compare. And the earliest ones that we have correlate very nicely to the later ones we have. Did you know that there is a whole field of science called ''textual criticism'' that deals with problems in the text and figuring out what the original might have been? For example, when a scribe was copying down something, and had been doing that all day, he would have been tired and might have accidentally looked at the word on the previous line and wrote that word in instead of the one he was supposed to.
:No offense, but your point on the translation shows that you know very little on the issues of the debate. I encourage you to keep studying, but realize that we have the original language that it came in... the Greek and Hebrew. Now if you're talking about preservation, that's a miracle in and of itself. There are thousands upon thousands of manuscripts to compare. And the earliest ones that we have correlate very nicely to the later ones we have. Did you know that there is a whole field of science called ''textual criticism'' that deals with problems in the text and figuring out what the original might have been? For example, when a scribe was copying down something, and had been doing that all day, he would have been tired and might have accidentally looked at the word on the previous line and wrote that word in instead of the one he was supposed to.
:Even I will be the first to admit that there are inconsistencies in the manuscripts ''that we have'', and thousands of them. However, that is a deceiving statistic because most of them have to do with either spelling a word differently or simply words put in a different order. In Greek, word order is not as important as it is in English, so it changes nothing about meaning. In case you're wondering, I am studying ancient koine greek, and know this. I'm not just repeating someone else's opinion. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 20:32, 4 December 2007 (EST)
:Even I will be the first to admit that there are inconsistencies in the manuscripts ''that we have'', and thousands of them. However, that is a deceiving statistic because most of them have to do with either spelling a word differently or simply words put in a different order. In Greek, word order is not as important as it is in English, so it changes nothing about meaning. In case you're wondering, I am studying ancient koine greek, and know this. I'm not just repeating someone else's opinion. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 20:32, 4 December 2007 (EST)
::As seen at [[Bible manuscript evidence]], we know the entire Old Testament we have today was preserved unchanged for 2,000 years of history because of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Your claim that it was changed and translated differently is false, because we have 2,000 year-old documents showing what the original text is, and can see that it has not changed, and has been reliably preserved. We have over 100,000 scroll fragments and complete versions of all Old Testament books dating from 300 B.C. to 50 A.D. There is no longer a credible basis for claiming the Old Testament was shoddily preserved because we now have strong evidence the Bible we have today was preserved reliably for 2,000 years of history, and was organized in its current form by that time. To have been accepted as fact all books had to have been written a good 500 years earlier or so, too. Many of the claims that critics have made over the years, that Nineveh could not have existed (we've excavated it), that the Canaanites didn't exist (steles show otherwise), and that a code as Mosaic Law couldn't have existed so early (we found the Code of Hammurabi and at least one other ancient law as well even older in Mesopotamia) have all shown to be demonstrably false. Critics are just making ridiculous, off-the-wall criticisms of the Bible that get debunked by archaeology time after time, yet expect people to keep believing their newest anti-Biblical conspiracy theories. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 03:48, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
The bible isn't like that. Prodestant canon was written by far fewer people than even ONE hundred. The bible has 66 books, and several books were written by one person. Moses wrote 5, Paul wrote 13[http://www.conservapedia.com/Paul]. To say they didn't know each other is also false. Psalms was written by David, Proverbs was written mainly by Soloman, David's SON. In the New Testament, there are EVEN MORE connections. Matthew and John, both part of the 12, wrote gospels, and they certainly knew eachother. Mark knew Peter, and Luke travelled with Paul.
The bible isn't like that. Prodestant canon was written by far fewer people than even ONE hundred. The bible has 66 books, and several books were written by one person. Moses wrote 5, Paul wrote 13[http://www.conservapedia.com/Paul]. To say they didn't know each other is also false. Psalms was written by David, Proverbs was written mainly by Soloman, David's SON. In the New Testament, there are EVEN MORE connections. Matthew and John, both part of the 12, wrote gospels, and they certainly knew eachother. Mark knew Peter, and Luke travelled with Paul.