23 Dec 06
Originally posted by sonhouseAn interesting website.
Hey christians, why don't you think about these entries:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm
Could we select a book and discuss it? There is so much to go over!
One of my concerns is that this website seems to have a bad translation. I spotted several inconsistencies in the website's supposed translations. Was this on purpose to mislead opponents of the Bible?
I also noticed that the website seems to pick on books that have little literal meaning (Revelation, Genesis)
From reading Genesis, a correct translation, one should view the book as holding basic religious teachings such as God's transcendence, and His preexistence, God making man in the image and likeness of him etc. Genesis is not meant to be read literally. Unfortunately for the website, they base literally all their attacks on literal interpretation making their attacks meaningless to Christians.
Any person who has a little, real, understanding of the Bible knows that you cannot literally translate it and read it. Certain parts we do take literal although other parts we do not. We do not choose one over the other for convienance, but for practical understanding.
As I previously said, an interesting web site.
If one of the supposed "inconsistencies" was valid to determine the Bible as a piece of fraud, why not write about only one?
When Einstein was asked to respond on a book that was titled "One Hundred Authors Against Einstein", he replied, "Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough. ..."
The Bible is about 2000 years old and still strong. Fraudualent works do not last. I think its longetivity is a testament to its true message.
Does anyone have a real arguement to talk about rather than a web site that has an incorrect translation with literal accusations for an non-literal Book of the Bible?
23 Dec 06
Originally posted by eagleeye222001But as you read many of the posts by Christians on this site, they fully support a literal reading of Genesis and Revelation.
An interesting website.
Could we select a book and discuss it? There is so much to go over!
One of my concerns is that this website seems to have a bad translation. I spotted several inconsistencies in the website's supposed translations. Was this on purpose to mislead opponents of the Bible?
I also noticed that the website seems to pick o ...[text shortened]... an incorrect translation with literal accusations for an non-literal Book of the Bible?
23 Dec 06
Originally posted by eagleeye222001how are you supposed to know what parts are literal? you could be wrong about which is literal and which is not
An interesting website.
Could we select a book and discuss it? There is so much to go over!
One of my concerns is that this website seems to have a bad translation. I spotted several inconsistencies in the website's supposed translations. Was this on purpose to mislead opponents of the Bible?
I also noticed that the website seems to pick o ...[text shortened]... an incorrect translation with literal accusations for an non-literal Book of the Bible?
24 Dec 06
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomWe could be wrong about the way we interpret somthing although that is why people study the Bible extensively.
how are you supposed to know what parts are literal? you could be wrong about which is literal and which is not
What we do is we read the subject, in this case Genesis, and we figure out the points of the stories we read. From reading the Creation story we see the point that God is all powerful, he creates man in his own image, etc.
We also read the story of Noah and how the flood lasted for 40 days and for 40 nights. What is more important? That the flood was 40 days or 40 nights (a long time) or that Noah listened to God and built the ark?
In this case we understand the importance of listening to God even when we receive ridicule from others, and whether the flood lasted exactly 40 days and nights or 41 days and nights is irrelevant. The important thing is to realize that the flood lasted a long time.
Yes I'll admit there always is a possibility for error but that is why we carefully read such works and that is why it took awhile before the Catholic Church brought books together to get what we know as the Bible.
25 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by eagleeye222001Catholic Church selected the bible chapters? I thought Christianity was legitimized in 313 CE by the Edict of Milan and the bible chapters selected by the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE.
We could be wrong about the way we interpret somthing although that is why people study the Bible extensively.
What we do is we read the subject, in this case Genesis, and we figure out the points of the stories we read. From reading the Creation story we see the point that God is all powerful, he creates man in his own image, etc.
We also read took awhile before the Catholic Church brought books together to get what we know as the Bible.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
25 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseWasn't the Council of Nicaea Catholic?
Catholic Church selected the bible chapters? I thought Christianity was legitimized in 313 CE by the Edict of Milan and the bible chapters selected by the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE.
EDIT: You will find that chapters in the bible vary depending on translation. Do you perhaps mean the bible books? Canonized at the Council of Trent.
26 Dec 06
Originally posted by Conrau KThe Council of Trent was a direct result of the 'heresies' of Martin Luther, 1200 years after the books of the bible were formalized at nicaea. It was the Emperor Constantine who organized that council not the catholic church.
Wasn't the Council of Nicaea Catholic?
EDIT: You will find that chapters in the bible vary depending on translation. Do you perhaps mean the bible books? Canonized at the Council of Trent.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
26 Dec 06
Originally posted by sonhouseI'm not to sure about that. To my knowldge the books in the bible were not formally canonized until the Council of Trent in response to the protestant movement introducing more books.
The Council of Trent was a direct result of the 'heresies' of Martin Luther, 1200 years after the books of the bible were formalized at nicaea. It was the Emperor Constantine who organized that council not the catholic church.
The Council of Nicaea was convoked by the bishop of Alexandria at the suggestion of Emperor Constantine to resolve the dispute over the heresy of Arianism. The Council involved bishops and was lead by a pope. Sounds like the Catholic Church to me...
26 Dec 06
Originally posted by Conrau KNot only Ariansim, but to formally discredit the Gnostics. I guess it was the same kind of thing that happened to Islam, the splits later.
I'm not to sure about that. To my knowldge the books in the bible were not formally canonized until the Council of Trent in response to the protestant movement introducing more books.
The Council of Nicaea was convoked by the bishop of Alexandria at the suggestion of Emperor Constantine to resolve the dispute over the heresy of Arianism. The Council involved bishops and was lead by a pope. Sounds like the Catholic Church to me...