Religion and the truth

[Thefoundation]

I just read a version of shakespears hamlet. it started with a paragraph how many things in old English could be misinterpreted. And that a lot of the printings had miscopies. I seen a program about Nostradamus, (old fortune teller) How the parts of the text where miscopied by printers. Just remove a letter, miss a space bar. And old or ancient words have a very different meaning.

the bibble was completed between 300-650
the koran was completed between 700-1000

So we can truly say we should inter-per books from the 13th and 17th century, but people live, and even go to war for way older books. Can anyone explain this?

[vampire_lestat]

and the point of this is...

[Thefoundation]

Originally Posted by vampire_lestat

and the point of this is...

people state that hamlet and nostradamus his work is very unstable, and misinterperted. As a fact.
While a lot of people state way older books as facts, which influence there lives greatly

this is wrong

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Thefoundation

Just a red aversion of Spear's ham. Let it start with a parp! How many things in a cold dish could be misinterpreted. Sad that a lot of the printings had Miss Copes. I seen a program about Nostrils (bold rune teller). How is sex where miscopied by printers? Just remove a better, Miss A. Spacbar. And old or ancient floors have a very different leaning.

Sorry, not sure I understand you.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Thefoundation

I just read a version of shakespears hamlet. it started with a paragraph how many things in old English could be misinterpreted. And that a lot of the printings had miss copies. I seen a program about Nostradamus, (old fortune teller) How the parts of the text where miscopied by printers. Just remove a letter, miss a space bar. And old or ancient words have a very different meaning.

the bibble was completed between 300-650
the koran was completed between 700-1000

So we can truly say we should inter-per books from the 13th and 17th century, but people live, and even go to war for way older books. Can anyone explain this?

I'm not sure that any man can explain what you want to say.

EDIT: now i am not happy with the red blobs i see by your name. I do think that you need to know more about history. but then so do a lot here.

[Thefoundation]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

I'm not sure that any man can explain what you want to say.

EDIT: now i am not happy with the red blobs i see by your name. I do think that you need to know more about history. but then so do a lot here.

I need to know more?

There are 2 things i stated, not in perfect english. But the best i can come up with at this time. Now i stated 2 books that so called experts call "many different meanings, without a clear awnser what the writer was trying to say" (just like my late nigth strange questions topics like these)
Then i named 2 books that around 50% of the world; lives and act by, and truelly believe. I also stated the times these books where writen. Now we can proof scientificly that the first 2 books arnt fact based due to different copies of the book. Then why do so many people believe these so called holy books? why are there so many problems due to these books? which propably arnt the real intentions of the writers.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Thefoundation

I need to know more?

There are 2 things i stated, not in perfect english. But the best i can come up with at this time. Now i stated 2 books that so called experts call "many different meanings, without a clear awnser what the writer was trying to say" (just like my late nigth strange questions topics like these)
Then i named 2 books that around 50% of the world; lives and act by, and truelly believe. I also stated the times these books where writen. Now we can proof scientificly that the first 2 books arnt fact based due to different copies of the book. Then why do so many people believe these so called holy books? why are there so many problems due to these books? which propably arnt the real intentions of the writers.

what would joshua bar joseph say

WWJBJS

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by Thefoundation

I just read a version of shakespears hamlet. it started with a paragraph how many things in old English could be misinterpreted. And that a lot of the printings had miscopies. I seen a program about Nostradamus, (old fortune teller) How the parts of the text where miscopied by printers. Just remove a letter, miss a space bar. And old or ancient words have a very different meaning.

the bibble was completed between 300-650
the koran was completed between 700-1000

So we can truly say we should inter-per books from the 13th and 17th century, but people live, and even go to war for way older books. Can anyone explain this?

You need to take a nap.

[Monroe]

Originally Posted by Thefoundation

I just read a version of shakespears hamlet. it started with a paragraph how many things in old English could be misinterpreted. And that a lot of the printings had miscopies. I seen a program about Nostradamus, (old fortune teller) How the parts of the text where miscopied by printers. Just remove a letter, miss a space bar. And old or ancient words have a very different meaning.

the bibble was completed between 300-650
the koran was completed between 700-1000

So we can truly say we should inter-per books from the 13th and 17th century, but people live, and even go to war for way older books. Can anyone explain this?

Well in terms of accuracy I can't speak to the Koran, but they have complete texts of some of the books of the Bible (Isaih specifically) that are dated to 1200 BC and historians believe they were likely written by the origional authors. When those texts are compaired to the modern versions the only significant differences are the ones you mentioned, spaces, minor gramatical issues (missing the's ands, ors, ect) which in no way change the overall message. In addition they have plenty of manuscripts of the new testiment dating to within a generation of the origional texts. All of the texts of the New Testiment were written before 100 AD, and they have manuscripts of from within 100 years of the origional for most of them. So while there is never 100% certanty in these matters of all of the ancient texts the texts of the bible have the most evidence for their accuracy. For example there are only 7 'source' texts for Homer's Illiad that can be dated to a reasonably close date to the origional but by and large scollars agree that we have an accurate version of the story Homer told.

As to why people follow any religous text, but then use it to justify evil acts, that has far more to do with evil people then it does with any particular religous texts (with the exception of cults that teach evil as good). The simple fact of the matter is people will use any means they can to justify their evil actions, even to twist and distort 'good' beliefs to justify their actions.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by Monroe

In addition they have plenty of manuscripts of the new testiment dating to within a generation of the origional texts. All of the texts of the New Testiment were written before 100 AD, and they have manuscripts of from within 100 years of the origional for most of them. So while there is never 100% certanty in these matters of all of the ancient texts the texts of the bible have the most evidence for their accuracy.

From what little I can remember from the documentary 'Who wrote the Bible?' there are several differing versions of certain stories existing today and these were moulded to create a version which has bits of each. this is hardly conclusive proof of the truth of the Bible.

[Ste]

sorry Monroe - there are massive interpretation errors in the bible.

Just compare the difference between the King James bible and the more recent editions - some of the passages read very differently.

Seeing as the OT has many different authors, and was written over 1000 years, it's understandable that there are translation errors.

Which makes the fact that some people take the English version literally even more laughable.

[Monroe]

Originally Posted by Ste

sorry Monroe - there are massive interpretation errors in the bible.

I have heard many people claim this but never had seen anyone prove it. There are many passages that apear to be in contridiction on a quick reading of the english, but on careful study of the Hebrew or Greek the issues have been resolved. I took a class in college taught by an aithest on the old testement as literature and the first day he challenged anyone in the class to find an contridiction in the text and over the course of the semester no one could find a single error that couldn't be reasonably explained with a proper understanding of the hebrew or the context.

Originally Posted by Ste

Just compare the difference between the King James bible and the more recent editions - some of the passages read very differently.

This has mostly to do with translation, and of course there are people who write their own versions which are not literal translations, or are altered to fit their personal beliefs, in which case I would agree with your main point.

Originally Posted by Ste

Which makes the fact that some people take the English version literally even more laughable.

I would agree with this in the sense that any time you deal with a translation (of any text) you have to be very careful with what you take literaly and what you do not.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Monroe

I have heard many people claim this but never had seen anyone prove it. There are many passages that apear to be in contridiction on a quick reading of the english, but on careful study of the Hebrew or Greek the issues have been resolved. I took a class in college taught by an aithest on the old testement as literature and the first day he challenged anyone in the class to find an contridiction in the text and over the course of the semester no one could find a single error that couldn't be reasonably explained with a proper understanding of the hebrew or the context.

Deuteronomy 25:5 and Leviticus 20:21

It appears that no one in your class was particularly hard working or bright.

[Monroe]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

Deuteronomy 25:5 and Leviticus 20:21

It appears that no one in your class was particularly hard working or bright.

And you prove my point 100%. When those two verses are taken out of context they do indeed apear to be incontridiction. But when you look at the context of those two verses they are not in contridiction in the least. The verse in Deut is about when the husband is dead, the verse in Lev is about while the husband is still alive and you are therefor comitting adultry, which is against the bibles teaching. Cheers.

I really don't intend to get into a defense of the bible arguement either, I just like offering other perspectives on things. The only real good arguement I've heard so far is from JonnyBGood about the bible defying the laws of physics. There are plenty of good and interesting arguements both for and against the truth of the bible. In the end it is up to you to make your own choice about the validity of any spiritual text. My only challenge to this group is to do your own research and to not to rely totally on the words of others, or what you see on TV. While these sources are sometimes right, other times they are most certainly wrong. Only by careful and honest study can the truth be determined.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Monroe

And you prove my point 100%. When you look at the context of those two verses they are not in contridiction in the least. The verse in Deut is about when the husband is dead, the verse in Lev is about while the husband is still alive and you are therefor comitting adultry, which is against the bibles teaching. Cheers.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ml#good_to_all

I especially liked "Is it folly to be wise or not?", "Which first--beasts or man?" and "Righteous live?"

"Do you answer a fool?" is pretty cool as well considering the fact the contradictory phrases are right next to each other.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Monroe

And you prove my point 100%. When those two verses are taken out of context they do indeed apear to be incontridiction. But when you look at the context of those two verses they are not in contridiction in the least. The verse in Deut is about when the husband is dead, the verse in Lev is about while the husband is still alive and you are therefor comitting adultry, which is against the bibles teaching. Cheers.

Well, apart from being an exercise in disingenuous PR, that simply is not true.

Dueteronomy
3 "When brothers live together and one of them dies without a son, the widow of the deceased shall not marry anyone outside the family; but her husband's brother shall go to her and perform the duty of a brother-in-law by marrying her.

Leviticus
20:21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.

Leviticus applies regardless of the brother being dead or alive. It is an absolute prohibition.

The reason these verses are irreconcilable is because they are two different codes of laws written at different times dealing with entirely different socio-economic situations.

I admire your suicidally courageous audacity in claiming that the two verses of the bible which split the Western world and lead to the deaths of thousands are now suddenly reconcilable. However your glib point is unconvincing, naive and incorrect.

[Alessio]

I've even noticed differences between an English and Dutch translation of the bible
and since in latin certain words are mixed into one, it only seems logical that alot of things are translated quite freely

If you can translate it better feel free to publish your own holy book tho


EDIT: to add to the fun, the old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic and the New Testament in Greek

[All Systems Go]

It's called Fundamentalism (or Evangelicalismas Christians prefer to call it when refering to themselves, to distance themselves from the proper religious nutters) .

I was watching a documentary about fundamentalism in the five major religions. One of the Christians said something along the lines of 'if you start questioning which bits of the Bible are true or not then you just pick make your own religion. Either it's all true or none of it is. that is why I believe in Genesis.'

[Dante Hicks]

I'm going to have to echo T&F's comments here : Looking for mistranslations or possible misinterpretations in the Bible seems to be missing the point somewhat. The main claims of most holy books are so patently absurd it's not like we have to look for spelling mistakes when considering their weaknesses.

[JonnyBGood]

Trying to ad hominem a book which purports to contain records of events which defied the laws of physics is pretty cool but a slight waste of time guys.


I echoed an echo of an echo but it's okay because my summation was way funkier.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Trying to ad hominem a book

"you may give an accurate account of the civil war but your cover is purple" ?

EDIT: and i'm not entirely sure that like the rest of you I want to live in a world where libraries are full of nothing but physics text books and all other forms of scholarship are looked down upon.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

"you may give an accurate account of the civil war but your cover is purple" ?

EDIT: and i'm not entirely sure that like the rest of you I want to live in a world where libraries are full of nothing but physics text books and all other forms of scholarship are looked down upon.

Did you just claim the bible is a piece of scholarly research?

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Did you just claim the bible is a piece of scholarly research?

no

but i did point out that you can't 'ad hominem a book'

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

no

but i did point out that you can't 'ad hominem a book'

This book was written by biased people/people who weren't present at the time ergo it's incorrect. Obviously you're not actually ad homineming the actual inanimate object in question but anyone pointing that out would have to be some spectacular pedant.

[Mistwraith]

the bible isnt a history book its a collection of stories written by those who could write after hearing stories handed down thro a fair few generations, was written initially in 100AD (.. you were lucky to reach 50 in those days)

it was a guide thro story of how to lead a better life, few people read it way back then, it was read aloud, and how those who read the stories interpreted and translated those stories lead to the changes.

some monks - dunno when, rearranged our calendar a few hundred years ago and got the math wrong, so basing any dates in it now has to be done on the old timeline then add some years.

if you have ever read the witnessstatements of two people in the same place watching an accident and wondered if they were watching the same thing ... now base that on the stories that are written in the bible, ofc there are errors.

it doesnt make it a bad book, but imo people should realise that to live a life to religous text without wavering should not be done.
As a general guide, used as an example .. not a diagram of how to live, it stands up pretty well.

[vampire_lestat]

what inside the bible, new or old testament, makes you think you can openly flaunt many of the rules contained within it?

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by vampire_lestat

what inside the bible, new or old testament, makes you think you can openly flaunt many of the rules contained within it?

blah blah this guy called jesus you might have heard of him blah blah

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Boogster

blah blah this guy called jesus you might have heard of him blah blah

you wrote this reply in response to this question:

Originally Posted by vampire_lestat

what inside the bible, new or old testament, makes you think you can openly flaunt many of the rules contained within it?

how on earth can you claim to know anything about this guy called jesus from any source other than the bible???

vampire lestat's question was a good one and you have not answered it (nor have you answered my original point)

you can not treat logic as a help yourself buffet

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

you wrote this reply in response to this question:

how on earth can you claim to know anything about this guy called jesus from any source other than the bible???

vampire lestat's question was a good one and you have not answered it (nor have you answered my original point)

you can not treat logic as a help yourself buffet

I think you misunderstood my point. I did not claim to know anything Jesus from any source other than the Bible.

Vamp_L asked:

what inside the bible, new or old testament, makes you think you can openly flaunt many of the rules contained within it?

I should have answered it properly but my answer remains the same, essentially. Jesus offered a radical, revisionary interpretation of the Scriptures including many of the rules contained in them.
For instance, the Beatitudes offered a new attitude (or a new emphasis at least) to godly life: an attitude of humility and need (Matthew 5:1-12). Some aspects of Old Testament Law seem to have been intensified (Matthew: 21-31; anger, adultery); some appear to have been revised in full (Matthew 5:38-48; revenge, love for enemies); Jesus gives new insight into the character of God (Matthew 6: 5-15; God the Father, forgiveness).
Perhaps I was unclear. Vamp_L's question was, as you have said, a good one, and I should have answered more helpfully. I do not (should not) ignore the rules contained in the Old Testament, nor do I wish to openly flaunt them them. Jesus is clearly offering revision and annotion but he makes it clear that the Old Testament is not being discarded (Matthew 5:17-20) but rather that he is the fulfilment of the old covenant: in him the purposes and intentions of the Law reach their climax and final fulfilment. He gives a condensed, intensified, open exposition of the Law: 'So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets' (Matthew 7:12).
I've kept myself to Matthew here. I've not discussed (what Christians believe to be) the nature and implications of who Jesus was and why he came, but please excuse my laziness. Frankly I don't have too much hope that you'll read this far anyhow.

[KaneED]

Boogster, does God love you?

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by KaneED

Boogster, does God love you?

Only after I sacrifice 8 bulls.

[KaneED]

If God is so great why didn't he write his book himself?

[Boogster]

Because Moses asked kindly.

[Alessio]

Why replace your old posts with shit?

You were so close to making a few good points, but you didn't

[Boogster]

Just got a bit infuriated. Not an uncommon occurrence in discussions such as these, I'm afraid.

[Ste]

The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark -- is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem -- a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ' father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.

Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these:
1. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD - which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...

2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b", so they decide there was "a" AND "b" -which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b". But it doesn't say there was "a+b+litle green martians". This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e. only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.

3. "It has to be understood in context" I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set is suppose to be taken as THE TRUTH when if you add more to it it suddenly becomes "out of context". How many of you have goten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown up at you?

4. "there was just a copying/writing error" This is sometimes called a "transcription error", as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or that what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said when he thought it was said. And that's right - I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the bible itself is wrong.

5. "That is a miracle". Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.

6. "God works in mysterious ways" A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.

[Alessio]

I don't see the bible contradicting itself that much, almost everything is about respecting eachother
Even those 'contradicting' examples about taking care of your brothers wife

The only reason that I don't believe is that it contradicts to much with reality
I shall give a few examples..

It's not so much the stories itself that I doubt but the basic idea of a 'caring' god, while it doesn't shows
And setting certain rules that go against human nature

We 'are' killing machines, and we are build for sex, make no mistake about it
We are fkin monkey's for crying out loud, why can't we simply shag a stranger senseless
According to the bible we are not even allowed to grab a neutral object because someone else tagged it
"That stone is mine, don't touch or you will go to hell"
I don't even understand why god wants some people to put glasses on their heads to make them see like their supposed to
Does that add a certain flavour to their lives that is needed in their test?

It doesn't makes much sense to me



Yes, I don't know what started all this, how earth was created, or what the deal is with the big bang if that even happened
but my lack of knowledge doesn't justify believing in a good god
A god that tests the creations that he created himself, and gave a predestined path, directly or indirectly
A god that even tests religious old people by letting them live like a plant in pain and suffering for 20 years, before dieing an weeklong painfull death
In a state where they cannot affect anything, but somehow will make them regret their non existant sins

God works in mysterious ways?
What is 20 years of pain and suffering when they get an eternity of [something] afterwards?

Sorry, my logic fails me here, but if god exists he will surely forgive my ignorance, caused by the inferior brain that he gave me
I don't think even the pope can explain this god thingy to me
I know that I will have to think towards 'free will' and 'selfless love' if I want to understand it
Feel free to try and explain all this if you think your know something I don't

[Travler]

I have been spending way too much time fighting with my wife. A juicy little Bible discussion is going on and my brand of illogical nonsense nowhere to be seen. Going to have to change that.

The Bible must be taken literally provided you have the context and the translation right. The reason most of the Bible does not make sense to most reasoning people is because many of the events that happened are supernatural or “Of God” and therefore do not fit the man made molds of science and logic.

A comedian once said “the Bible has got a lot of wine drinking and then a bunch of stuff you just can’t believe, and usually the wine drinking comes right before the unbelievable stuff.”

If you don’t want to believe the Bible then don’t. If you want to debunk the Bible then best of luck to you. Neither the average believer or Christian Scholars can be convinced that the Bible is not mostly true. The reason I say mostly is because not all of it either can be proven or disproven or has not been found to be proven yet.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Travler

The Bible must be taken literally provided you have the context and the translation right.

and who is in charge of that context?

Originally Posted by Travler

The reason most of the Bible does not make sense to most reasoning people is because many of the events that happened are supernatural or “Of God” and therefore do not fit the man made molds of science and logic.

it does not make sense because it self contradicts. miracles are as nothing to that.

[Travler]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

and who is in charge of that context?

Scholars, theologists, lawmakers, religious leaders, interpreters.
Ultimately God would be the one in charge.

Originally Posted by Yahwe

it does not make sense because it self contradicts. miracles are as nothing to that.

The Bible is not a law book. It cannot make logical sense because it ultimately is a spiritual teaching. It may seem to have contradictions but further examination will show there are none.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Travler

It may seem to have contradictions but further examination will show there are none.

I just ****ing demonstrated a ****ing huge contradiction in this ****ing thread!

I demonstrated a contradiction in the bible that was so big it tore the civilised world apart.

IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE to vacuously claim that there aren't.

[Travler]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

I just ****ing demonstrated a ****ing huge contradiction in this ****ing thread!

I demonstrated a contradiction in the bible that was so big it tore the civilised world apart.

IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE to vacuously claim that there aren't.

Look again. You have almost got it. Then you will understand.

[pyirt]

Even God gets lonely these days. Thats why the universe happened.

[Ste]

Ooh look - my post earlier has just been proven by Travler.

He's used excuse number 3

3. "It has to be understood in context" I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set is suppose to be taken as THE TRUTH when if you add more to it it suddenly becomes "out of context". How many of you have goten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown up at you?

Mixed with a bit of excuse number 5

5. "That is a miracle". Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.

And no doubt is thinking a bit of excuse number 6

6. "God works in mysterious ways" A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.

[jt25man]

The main problem is that the Bible starts off saying, "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth." Yet scientist have very compelling evidence that the Earth and the known universe is older than the Bible scholars would admit. The scientific data takes away the faith aspect of religion and creates doubt. So then you get people saying, if scientist can prove that the Earth has been around for millions of years by studying it, then how can we believe the Bible when the first thing it says is false.

I told someone who asked me that one time, maybe it's not false, maybe it's true, maybe the Earth was created in 6 days by a higher being (God), and he made it so perfect that the scientist would find evidence that the Earth is older than it is so that we humans would have to choose to have enough faith to believe the Bible.

[Travler]

Originally Posted by jt25man

The main problem is that the Bible starts off saying, "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth." Yet scientist have very compelling evidence that the Earth and the known universe is older than the Bible scholars would admit. The scientific data takes away the faith aspect of religion and creates doubt. So then you get people saying, if scientist can prove that the Earth has been around for millions of years by studying it, then how can we believe the Bible when the first thing it says is false.

I told someone who asked me that one time, maybe it's not false, maybe it's true, maybe the Earth was created in 6 days by a higher being (God), and he made it so perfect that the scientist would find evidence that the Earth is older than it is so that we humans would have to choose to have enough faith to believe the Bible.

It is believed that diamonds take billions of years to form. The Bible does not say that the earth is a specific amount of time old. The first 7 "days" in the Bible could have taken billions of years to come about. The Bible was started at a time when electric light bulbs would have been seen as a miracle and nuclear technology is mostly feared even today, just look at Iran for instance.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Travler

It is believed that diamonds take billions of years to form. The Bible does not say that the earth is a specific amount of time old. The first 7 "days" in the Bible could have taken billions of years to come about. The Bible was started at a time when electric light bulbs would have been seen as a miracle and nuclear technology is mostly feared even today, just look at Iran for instance.

So where exactly did seven days come from? So like god says to whatever muppet wrote the book of genesis "the universe is fourteen billion years old" and the interpreter guy just goes "sounds a bit weak to me" and the first guy goes "a week eh, that's pretty quick!"



Okay guys I think I've solved the mystery.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by Travler

It is believed that diamonds take billions of years to form. The Bible does not say that the earth is a specific amount of time old. The first 7 "days" in the Bible could have taken billions of years to come about. The Bible was started at a time when electric light bulbs would have been seen as a miracle and nuclear technology is mostly feared even today, just look at Iran for instance.

If that bit of the Bible is incorrect then why not the rest of it?

Also, if you can reinterpret that bit why not the rest?

"It said that 'though shalt not kill' but what God realy meant to say was that 'though shalt not kill, unless your bored.' Where's my gun?"

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Travler

The Bible does not say that the earth is a specific amount of time old.

You are in error, the bible is quite specific in the amount of time that has passed since the creation. The Bible provides an unbroken line of lineage from Adam through to Solomon, including ages of birth and death and childbirth. With this it is a matter of simple arithmetic to figure out the time that has passed.

There is a break in the Lineage around the time of the destruction of the Temple and the Babylonian captivity, however at that point the chronology is advanced enough to be able to use known historical dates for Kings and events.

Thus, unless there is a mistake in the Bible, the world was created on October 23rd, 4004 BC, as dated by Bishop Ussher in 1650.


As an aside, whomever made up the story about how; "they knew a guy who had a friend who was dating the sister of some guy whose uncle was a priest, and THAT priest dared everyone to find errors in the bible and nobody could!", don't be an idiot.

Of course there are errors and contradictions in the Bible, dozens of them. You know who acknowledges errors and contradictions in the Bible? The Roman Catholic popes and Bishops. Even the aforementioned Bishop Ussher had to choose which book to follow when different books of the Bible gave different ages for the same person. Many, many debates, statements and ecumenical councils were convened in the early days of the Church to try and sort out these errors and contradictions. NOBODY in the RC hierarchy would ever claim there are 'no errors or contradiction in the Bible', as they are not so foolish. They would also be denying several thousand years of debate and questioning which had occurred to resolve these outstanding issues.

Seriously, if you are GOING to be a fanatic religious type, do yourself the favour of finding out at least a LITTLE bit about your own religion.

[demiGOD]

Religion is Christianity.

Truth is Mary had sodomy and sweaty hot sex with next-door neighbor Bob and got pregnant. To avoid being stoned to death for adultery, Mary told Joseph of her "Immaculate Conception."