The validity of the Christian Bible

[Demeisen]

thriller you must admit sandman shows great imagination in coming up with convenient and weak answers to your biblical historical errors

almost on par with the 'time is undefined' argument which was 'Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:01 am.' that hints that time is defined dont you think?

this is quite an interesting link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical ... l_Councils

it describes how christianity was changed and set up.

eg

1. First Council of Nicaea (325) repudiated Arianism and adopted the original Nicene Creed, fixed Easter date; recognized primacy of the sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch and granted the See of Jerusalem a position of honor.

[n3M351s]

Yes, historians and archeologists have got it all wrong and miss translated the bible and the contexts about which it speaks...... . The only evidence you gave was hearsay and conjecture, no solid proof. I gave contemporary analysis of the understanding of history as it is today. SO take your pseudo historical analysis and pseudo scientific ideas and go put your tinfoil hat on and sit in the corner please. Grown people are talking.

You asked the questions and you got your answers. If you don't like being proven wrong maybe you should take some of your own advice.

@nemesis
The only time i ever here you congratulate anyone on their posts is when they agree with your POV. My guess is you only like to be told your right and have never researched a counter viewpoint to anything.

I suggest you open your eyes a little wider. By the way I was just going to congratulate you on your wonderful analogies, prejudice and jargon, genius posts indeed. FYI, I have researched counter viewpoints for many a topic.

"My guess is you only like to be told your right and have never researched a counter viewpoint to anything." - I could say the same to you.

My guess is that you refuse to accept the possibility of anything you don't understand, whether there's evidence or not.

[n3M351s]

almost on par with the 'time is undefined' argument which was 'Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:01 am.' that hints that time is defined dont you think?

2. Time is undefined. You cant understand it more than you can understand God.

Time is a component of a measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects. Time elapses at different rates relative to different observers in motion relative to one another.

So how long is time Thriller? I think you took his statement out of context.

Therefore time, by itself, is undefined unless assigned to something.

How long is time? It is undefined as I have not given it a context.

[Mister Sandman]

Yes, historians and archeologists have got it all wrong and miss translated the bible and the contexts about which it speaks...... . The only evidence you gave was hearsay and conjecture, no solid proof. I gave contemporary analysis of the understanding of history as it is today. SO take your pseudo historical analysis and pseudo scientific ideas and go put your tinfoil hat on and sit in the corner please. Grown people are talking.

I would like to point out that the evidence you point out gives no certainty on the matter. It is common knowledge that empires hid imperfections in their history books. For an example, take Egypt they have the evidence that they enslaved God's people, however, there hasn't been shown in their texts that they let the slaves go and/or the slaves left. Where as evidence proves that the people left Egyption rule.

A modern example can be seen in WWI and WWII. This is when the history books are written they omit war crimes such as concentration camps. Where, it has been shown, that both sides during the war. Has committed war crimes.

In light of this we can assume that history documentation by man is bias.People want to hide their weaknesses and only present their strengths. However, the Bible on other hand is transparent. It states history as is without putting a gloss over the top.
For example, the sins of great men such as David are not omitted. And it is plainly set with an objective view point.

You may claim that, "The Bible omits Jesus sins", however, your claim is faults as we know that Jesus was perfect. And he committed the perfect sacrifice thus giving us the chance to be saved.


I am not giving pseudo historical analysis and pseudo scientific ideas, its far to the contrary. I am just giving you historical evidence to prove the existence of God and the validity of the Bible. I may be young however, my ideals and beliefs are strong and I can clearly decipher right from wrong. Age has nothing to do with this argument.

Many people, such as yourself, have misinterpreted the bible and misinterpreted others, you even misinterpret yourself. And you only have to blame your arrogance and pride for that.

Honestly, you are giving weight to smoke.

Is that an insult?

That's why it's healthy to argue with yourself.

It is good to challenge your own beliefs and why you believe. I agree.


I personally keep a dungeon handy at all times. It reminds me of how well the Spanish Inquisition could show God's love.

On the topic of Spanish Inquisition, and even the Crusades. I have addressed this issue already. People, humanity, the fall of man, is to blame.

No sin can be justified.

In addition, the Spanish Inquisition was a means of control imposed by the Catholics. And, as I have already establish. I am not a Catholic. Also, the people at fault for these, atrocities have had their judgement.

this is quite an interesting link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical ... l_Councils

it describes how christianity was changed and set up.

1. Wiki is not a reliable source.
2.Ecumenical council does not apply to me.
3. The Ecumenical council has no matter.
4. The set up of the church does not matter.
5. All matters is solely the core of the religion.

almost on par with the 'time is undefined' argument which was 'Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:01 am.' that hints that time is defined dont you think?

I still havn't seen the verse saying " The earth is 10,000 years old."

In addition, the time is undefined argument is still valid.

It has not been given a context.

Read the articles I gave you. You will understand.

[agapooka]

You can't dismiss an article because it is on wikipedia. Most often, Wikipedia lists its sources and you can check THOSE for reliability. It is a very weak argument to simply state that wiki is unreliable.

As for Roman councils, they are the very reason why the Bible exists as it is known today. The canon did not exist prior, although a loose repertoire of texts is said to have existed based on the apostles' letters circulating at the time.

There are, however, cases where books were added that are now no longer considered canonical and books that were left out that are now considered authoritative. Who decided this and why did decisions change?

Furthermore, there is much evidence to support that the creation of the canon was nothing more than a political move. Emperor Constantine saw that this new religion was drawing more and more people and he saw it fit to create a canon and a standard to reduce religious division within his empire, thereby ensuring a level of stability.

I'd also like to point out that Rome and Alexandria had been the ancient world's centres of occult knowledge. After Alexandria's great library was destroyed, Rome was left, whence the Universal Church came. The Roman system is at the root of the canon, which it created through various councils.

One of the most influencial manuscripts used in (especially modern) Bible translation is the Septuagint, which was translated by Alexandrian scribes. Very often, Fundamentalist Christians make the claim that the Alexandrian manuscripts are heretical. Most, if not all new translations are reportedly based upon them.

You cannot say that the Roman Catholic Church has nothing on you. You read and believe their book*. This alone is what got me to question my belief in the Bible. I have said before that I was raised a Christian. Heck, my dad was a pastor.

*On a side note, you may argue that they (the Catholic Church) did not create the Bible's contents. In fact, there are many truths in the Bible, many of which could not have been conceived of by them alone. Keep in mind that a little lie can distort the truth to such an extent that one's understanding thereof WILL be fundamentally flawed. Of course, "a little lie" may be an understatement when it comes to the Bible...

[Thade]

this is quite an interesting link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical ... l_Councils

it describes how christianity was changed and set up.

I personally keep a dungeon handy at all times. It reminds me of how well the Spanish Inquisition could show God's love.

What is being argued here? The validity of the Bible? or the validity of the Church (too many versions to be done)?

As to the validity of the Bible I don't see how either of these are involved; perhaps someone could explain that for me?

[agapooka]

It's funny how *people* are responding to the relatively irrelevant points and ignoring the ones that matter...

It's a good debating technique if nobody's the wiser, but then again, debatng was never about finding the truth, was it? *feels redundant* Debating is the art of making something look like the truth. *ooo, I already said that recently... déjà vu *

Now, if the point were to discover the truth, your argument would be irrelevant of what you believe. I'm making my own point and I use arguments with others (and with others) to test my arguments and come closer to the truth.

[Thriller]

Yes, historians and archeologists have got it all wrong and miss translated the bible and the contexts about which it speaks...... . The only evidence you gave was hearsay and conjecture, no solid proof. I gave contemporary analysis of the understanding of history as it is today. SO take your pseudo historical analysis and pseudo scientific ideas and go put your tinfoil hat on and sit in the corner please. Grown people are talking.

I would like to point out that the evidence you point out gives no certainty on the matter. It is common knowledge that empires hid imperfections in their history books. For an example, take Egypt they have the evidence that they enslaved God's people, however, there hasn't been shown in their texts that they let the slaves go and/or the slaves left. Where as evidence proves that the people left Egyption rule.

A modern example can be seen in WWI and WWII. This is when the history books are written they omit war crimes such as concentration camps. Where, it has been shown, that both sides during the war. Has committed war crimes.

In light of this we can assume that history documentation by man is bias.People want to hide their weaknesses and only present their strengths. However, the Bible on other hand is transparent. It states history as is without putting a gloss over the top.
For example, the sins of great men such as David are not omitted. And it is plainly set with an objective view point.

You may claim that, "The Bible omits Jesus sins", however, your claim is faults as we know that Jesus was perfect. And he committed the perfect sacrifice thus giving us the chance to be saved.


I am not giving pseudo historical analysis and pseudo scientific ideas, its far to the contrary. I am just giving you historical evidence to prove the existence of God and the validity of the Bible. I may be young however, my ideals and beliefs are strong and I can clearly decipher right from wrong. Age has nothing to do with this argument.

Many people, such as yourself, have misinterpreted the bible and misinterpreted others, you even misinterpret yourself. And you only have to blame your arrogance and pride for that.

Your entire posts shows clearly that you know nothing about how modern historians go about analyzing the past. You really think they take every piece written count in the past at face value, are you that naive? They always look for multiple written sources, archaeological and scientific evidence, especially when concerning something as controversial as the bible.

Honestly, you are giving weight to smoke.

Is that an insult?

dare pondus idonea fumo (Persius-was a Roman poet and satirist )

[lordernest]

OK people who believe in atheism are not necessarily dumb but rather in my personal opinion blinded by their own foolishness and envy.
I in the real life am a Christian and I do believe the bible to be true and since it was never edited from its original production, I see that the believers then and now believe in the same GOD. Also another question to all people who want to argue for atheist's; WHY DO YOU CHOOSE A LIFE WITHOUT SPIRITUAL GUIDANCE WHEN EVEN AT A YOUNG AGE YOU NEEDED GUIDAnCE FOR THE MOST SIMPLE THINGS AND NOW THAT YOU CLEARLY NEEDED GUIDANCE YOU PEOPLE REJECT AND BECOME ENEMIES OF THOSE WHO CHOOSE THE TRUE PATH?

[semper]

OK people who believe in atheism are not necessarily dumb but rather in my personal opinion blinded by their own foolishness and envy.
I in the real life am a Christian and I do believe the bible to be true and since it was never edited from its original production, I see that the believers then and now believe in the same GOD. Also another question to all people who want to argue for atheist's; WHY DO YOU CHOOSE A LIFE WITHOUT SPIRITUAL GUIDANCE WHEN EVEN AT A YOUNG AGE YOU NEEDED GUIDAnCE FOR THE MOST SIMPLE THINGS AND NOW THAT YOU CLEARLY NEEDED GUIDANCE YOU PEOPLE REJECT AND BECOME ENEMIES OF THOSE WHO CHOOSE THE TRUE PATH?

That post is wrong in so many ways. I dont think I actually have the time to list them all...

[lordernest]

dude what is the prob wit me post?

[semper]

OK people who believe in atheism are not necessarily dumb but rather in my personal opinion blinded by their own foolishness and envy. [color=red] Why?
I in the real life am a Christian and I do believe the bible to be true and since it was never edited Are you sure? from its original production, I see that the believers then and now believe in the same GOD Really? You do? ARE you SUREEEE????. Also another question to all people who want to argue for atheist's;What about Agnostic people? WHY DO YOU CHOOSE A LIFE WITHOUT SPIRITUAL GUIDANCE Spiritual? Is christianity and the catholic faith the ONLY means of spiritual guidance? WHEN EVEN AT A YOUNG AGE YOU NEEDED GUIDAnCE FOR THE MOST SIMPLE THINGS Thats a laughable point...of course we needed guidance, we knew nothing, we were incapable of existing a lone in the material world, some ofus may still be, but most of us do not need guidance in the same context you express on an equally regular basis..this comment really is completely out of context AND NOW THAT YOU CLEARLY NEEDED GUIDANCE YOU PEOPLE REJECT AND BECOME ENEMIES OF THOSE WHO CHOOSE THE TRUE PATH?Not at all.. how do we need guidanc? If your going to say it, at least explain WHY we need it for heavens sake! Enemies? You throw this word about too readily in this instance...[color]

[Mister Sandman]

Your entire posts shows clearly that you know nothing about how modern historians go about analyzing the past. You really think they take every piece written count in the past at face value, are you that naive? They always look for multiple written sources, archaeological and scientific evidence, especially when concerning something as controversial as the bible.

Well lets look at this, I always find history books omit important facts. Especially when it comes to war and being "honourable". White washed so to say. They hide things, many things. Take a look at a Chinese history text book, An American history text book and a English history text book. They show the sides of only one coin. Rarely two sides. Even more rarely a objective point of view. Note the huge differences.


I do agree that they may look at more than one source. However, they are yet to disprove the Bible.

You asked the questions, I gave the answers. Pointing the fallacy in your arguments. History, science, and morality prove the validity of the Christian bible.


In addition, scientists and historians are paid to omit certain facts and distort other facts. For example, smoking. Companies paid scientists to show that smoking is not harmful to ones health. However, the truth ,one day, got out.

[Mister Sandman]

OK people who believe in atheism are not necessarily dumb but rather in my personal opinion blinded by their own foolishness and envy. Why?

They are not open to new ideas and try to prove everything scientifically, In fact not all things can be proven scientifically. This is also to say that the Bible and science are supportive of each other. If you have contradictions you either have bad theology or bad science.

I in the real life am a Christian and I do believe the bible to be true and since it was never edited Are you sure? from its original production, I see that the believers then and now believe in the same GOD Really? You do? ARE you SUREEEE????.

The Bible is inspired by God. Simple.

Also another question to all people who want to argue for atheist's;What about Agnostic people? WHY DO YOU CHOOSE A LIFE WITHOUT SPIRITUAL GUIDANCE Spiritual? Is christianity and the catholic faith the ONLY means of spiritual guidance?

They are not the only means of "spiritual guidance" however, it is the only means that will give eternal life.

In addition, other so called relgions have many contradictions and have been proven to be wrong on many accounts.

WHEN EVEN AT A YOUNG AGE YOU NEEDED GUIDAnCE FOR THE MOST SIMPLE THINGS Thats a laughable point...of course we needed guidance, we knew nothing, we were incapable of existing a lone in the material world, some ofus may still be, but most of us do not need guidance in the same context you express on an equally regular basis..this comment really is completely out of context

Eveyone needs guidance, a sense of purpose. Atheism in a nut shell says " your life is random chance" thus saying "Whatever you do on this world doesnt matter, you live, you die, your life is worthless." thus showing Atheism is not ethical and promotes shallowness.

AND NOW THAT YOU CLEARLY NEEDED GUIDANCE YOU PEOPLE REJECT AND BECOME ENEMIES OF THOSE WHO CHOOSE THE TRUE PATH?Not at all.. how do we need guidanc? If your going to say it, at least explain WHY we need it for heavens sake! Enemies? You throw this word about too readily in this instance...[color]

How do we need guidance aye? We need to know how to rightfully, ethically, spiritually, physically, and mentality live.

Without guidance we are blind. However, with over guidance, just following a leader without knowing why and if it is right, blinds us. Christianity shows that we can still be guided and not be blinded for we still retain our sense of freewill.

In addition, if one goes against the truth, one will never win.

[Thriller]

Your entire posts shows clearly that you know nothing about how modern historians go about analyzing the past. You really think they take every piece written count in the past at face value, are you that naive? They always look for multiple written sources, archaeological and scientific evidence, especially when concerning something as controversial as the bible.

Well lets look at this, I always find history books omit important facts. Especially when it comes to war and being "honourable". White washed so to say. They hide things, many things. Take a look at a Chinese history text book, An American history text book and a English history text book. They show the sides of only one coin. Rarely two sides. Even more rarely a objective point of view. Note the huge differences.


I do agree that they may look at more than one source. However, they are yet to disprove the Bible.

You asked the questions, I gave the answers. Pointing the fallacy in your arguments. History, science, and morality prove the validity of the Christian bible.


In addition, scientists and historians are paid to omit certain facts and distort other facts. For example, smoking. Companies paid scientists to show that smoking is not harmful to ones health. However, the truth ,one day, got out.

Who are you to decide that important facts are being omitted? were you alive back then? DO you hold a history degree?

Your argument boils down to: Historians purposely omit and make up information as part of some conspiracy.

If i was an archeologist i would knock your block off.