A Book You Can Trust

Post Reply New Topic

Evidence, please.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm

But not to worry. Since it is now very clear that earth turned not to be flat, then all those verses are metaphores! Everything is fine.

I guess that with time, even evolution will become such common language that churches will have to adapt into saying that the bible never argued against evolution. In fact, they will try to look passages that seem to agree with evolution. All so that they don't look lame anymore.

Trying to beat Inuyasha's centibeck count, are we?

The Christian scriptures are extremely reliable and useful in many areas, most of which were not in the intentions of the individual writers and the various stage compilers. It is NOT reliable or useful for some of the purposes to which certain Christian-titled organizations put it, and the antitheists generally choose to critique it by those standards - since they cannot attack or perhaps comprehend the valid uses.

I happen, Angelrho, to prefer the KJV, as stated and for the reasons stated - but there are different preferences for different purposes.

It is not, however, based on trhe Vulgate, though a number of errors and oopses sneak in from the tradition. At least the parts they did not copy from Wycliffe and Tyndale. That was part of the problem, and the reason for the Douay Bible.

[x] Apparently thinks the main reliable use of the bible is toilet paper.

Maybe mooncalf is better than jobbernowl after all.

I will happily discuss with any reasonable inquirer what I see as the reliable uses of the Bible.

You however are a bottomless pit, and -

hey - there is that bit where everybody yells if you mention Nazis, the Godwin thing.

So what do we call it when a person automatically assumes that anyone who objects to something he says must belong to the WRONG party?

You claimed that the relevant uses of the bible are some mysterious uses that are NOT what religions or skeptics think. If we discard the uses religions and skeptics give to it, what is left adds up to a total of 0 possible relevant uses.

We have gotten pretty genre savvy already about your methods. In case you haven't noticed yet. Obscurity does not magically increase the value of what you 'contribute' to the discussion, it actually does the opposite. You may now return to your dictionary and look for more funny names to say the next time you reach a crisis for not being able to convince anyone with your dull arguments, which seems to happen once every hour lately.

One more time - and I am NOT talking to Vexcalibur, I am calling to witness anybody knows how to read:

I have not here - and only rarely elsewhere - tried to convince anyone of anything.

number 15:38 - the four corners of the earth Arbah confot ha'aretz

Oblate spheroids do not have corners. Flat rectangles (a planar figure) do.

ruveyn

Tassels at the corners of garments has nothing to do with the earth being flat.

We know that certain groups of Homo Sapiens bred with Neandertals and Denisovans and their descendants carry those genes today. People from New Guinea carry the genes of all three sub-species.

Seems like the bible omitted a few details regarding human origins.

I think the Biblical account of human origins is interesting.

First of all, Genesis 1 merely says God created man in His image, male and female. It doesn't specify the mechanism for how human beings were created.

Second, Genesis 2 details that Adam was given special attention because God formed him out of the dust of the ground and breathed life into his nostrils. Note the difference between Adam in Genesis 2 and "man" in Genesis 1. So if it displeases God for man to commit incest, especially His chosen special creation, from where would Cain get a wife and build a city? Human beings had to have predated Adam, and the Genesis account after the fall of man would certainly explain how it is you'd find that different races of human beings would mix. It really is quite simple.

Now, I don't think of the Bible as a science textbook, but neither do I see how it is that science and the Bible are necessarily incompatible.

Odd, I thought you were a literalist who felt the Earth was only a few 10s of thousands of years old. Non literalists can take the biblical accounts to mean whatever they like.

As for human origins and the complex route that human evolution took, it's just strange that the bible didn't mention it. It's almost as if the bronze age people who made up the stories didn't know what they were talking about. You know, like in all the other bronze age mythologies with their magical stories?

If one is a literal literalist the earth is a little of six thousand years old.

ruveyn

+The concept that Adam was special and not the first human is fascinating to me and carries a host of odd implications. And since that concept indicates that Adam was deficient in his respect for God how is it that the rest of humanity is punished by death and that long lived curse that could only be relieved by Jesus' sacrifice? Wouldn't the rest of humanity be innocent? Odd.

@Chrissyrun,

If God was superintending the translation of the Book of Mormon and he said it was correct why are there so many copyist mistakes, misspellings and subtractions and deletions necessary? Why has the LDS church made almost 4000 changes to a book that Joseph Smith himself said God told him it was perfect?

Note what Joseph Smith said about the accuracy of the Book of Mormon,

"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth. . ." ( Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg 194)

Joseph Smith said that as the Book of Mormon was translated from the golden tablets, and that each letter and word was shown to him as he looked into a hat which contained a seer stone. The words would appear and remain until they had been correctly written down by Smith's scribe. Why then have close to 4000 changes been made in the Book of Mormon since the 1830 version?

The LDS church claims these changes are minor ones of spelling, grammar, etc, but do not affect doctrine. However, some of the changes do affect doctrine such as the following examples:

1 Nephi 11:18
------1830: "Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God...." (page 25)
------Modern: - "Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God..."

1 Nephi 13:40
-----1830 - ". . . the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world." (page 32)
-----Modern - ". . .the Lamb of God is The Son of the eternal Father, and the savior of the world."

1 Nephi 11:21
------1830 ". . .behold the Lamb of God, ye, even the Eternal Father!" (page 25)
------ Modern ". . .behold the Lam of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father."

1 Nephi 11:32
------1830 ". . .the Everlasting God, was judged of the world."
------Modern "The Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world."

Did you note that in each of the above changes the LDS church has changed these verses that refer to Jesus Christ as God the Father so that they now refer to Him only as a Son. How could Joseph Smith have made such an error if the Book of Mormon as given to Joseph Smith was "the most correct" of any book ever written? The bottom line is that the original Book of Mormon recognized the Deity of Jesus Christ and the modern copies do not!

There are many flavors of creationism, with many dates invoked. They all view themselves as literalists, as AngelRho has self-identified himself. They simply disagree on the counting of begats and the spacing of the gaps.