Yet another biblical error

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Well the scientific part is one aspect. A pretty poor aspect too.

It is my contention that the bible has been 'fiddled' with. Possibly some parts have been omitted,(and/or addded), as well.
If the bible was not tampered with in this way I believe our world would be a better place. (Primarily the western world-which affects the whole world in the end.)

The true word of god has been tampered with, because the words of the bible is not true in its entirety. If we define the word of god as Truth, then the word of the bile s not the word of god.

One reason that I think we should take the current version of the bible with a large pinch of salt is the fact that every translation differs from any other translation. Only the texts from where the translations are translated from can be the most accurate version of the bibles. Not the translation itwelf. But who can read the bible in its original form? Very few of us. Therefore we shouldn't treat the bible as the ultimate truth.

I've said it before (and been critizied for it) that the bible is written by man, not as the word of god, but as an political instrument.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
The true word of god has been tampered with, because the words of the bible is not true in its entirety. If we define the word of god as Truth, then the word of the bile s not the word of god.

One reason that I think we should take the current version of the bible with a large pinch of salt is the fact that every translation differs from any other tran ...[text shortened]... it) that the bible is written by man, not as the word of god, but as an political instrument.

Its hard to argue that the bible has been used as a 'political instrument'. I wonder if anyone would try? (anyone?)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
It is my contention that the bible has been 'fiddled' with. Possibly some parts have been omitted,(and/or addded), as well.

The Bible is a collection of books. Some of the books have more than one author. There is no single 'original Bible' except possibly the set of books as chosen at some council in Nicea.
So when you say it has been 'fiddled' with, you need to be a bit more specific.

If the bible was not tampered with in this way I believe our world would be a better place. (Primarily the western world-which affects the whole world in the end.)
Why would our world be a better place? Is that view based on good reasons or is it just a 'feeling'?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I've said it before (and been critizied for it) that the bible is written by man, not as the word of god, but as an political instrument.

The Bible is a diverse set of books written over a long period of time by a large number of writers with different backgrounds religions and political opinions and intentions. To make the statement that the Bible was written for a specific purpose - political or otherwise - is clearly untrue, or a claim that the Bible was written or dictated by God.

What political ends do you think the author of Song of Songs was after?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Its hard to argue that the bible has been used as a 'political instrument'. I wonder if anyone would try? (anyone?)

Well, my *opinion* says that was an political instrument. Of course, noone knows who wrote what (Some believes that Genisis was writtten by Moses himself, but it's only tradition that says that, no more.) so the opposite is also very hard to argue.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
The true word of god has been tampered with, because the words of the bible is not true in its entirety. If we define the word of god as Truth, then the word of the bile s not the word of god.

One reason that I think we should take the current version of the bible with a large pinch of salt is the fact that every translation differs from any other tran ...[text shortened]... it) that the bible is written by man, not as the word of god, but as an political instrument.

most of the idea of jesus revolves around the fact that jesus was a very nice dood and that he died and resurrected after 3 days. that is an important, common point between the gospels. how many doodz or dudettes went to his tomb the day of his resurrection, whether the angel speaking with them wore black or green or pink, whether they had sandwiches or a stew for breakfast that morning is not important.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
most of the idea of jesus revolves around the fact that jesus was a very nice dood and that he died and resurrected after 3 days. that is an important, common point between the gospels. how many doodz or dudettes went to his tomb the day of his resurrection, whether the angel speaking with them wore black or green or pink, whether they had sandwiches or a stew for breakfast that morning is not important.

Well, he might very well be a nice dude. I don't argue with that. I haven't met him so I don't know. Everything I know fof him is hearsay, nothing more. He didn't write his gospels with his own hand, I don't know if he wrote anything, I don't even know if he could read. ("Of course he could!" "Hearsay!"😉

One important point is that the first being he met when he was resurrected was a woman. He didn't tell her to bring a man, instead he told her to spread the word. The christian community doesn't see the importance of this. The Pope should be a woman.

Originally posted by 667joe
Jesus was buried in the tomb. According to Mark 16:1 Mary Magdale, Mary mother of James, and Salome were the 1st to visit when the sun had risen (Mark 16:2.) Yet according to John, only Mary Magdalene visited when it was yet dark (John 20:1) Again they can't both be right so obviously, the bible made another error.

This is fun.......using the bible to prove that it is incorrect!

It doesn't say that only Mary Magdalene was present. All you're proving is that you're reading comprehension is no better than my fourth graders', but they have an excuse.

Originally posted by pawnhandler
It doesn't say that only Mary Magdalene was present. All you're proving is that you're reading comprehension is no better than my fourth graders', but they have an excuse.

You have ignored my statement and resorted to a personal attack which has nothing to do with my statement.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The Bible is a collection of books. Some of the books have more than one author. There is no single 'original Bible' except possibly the set of books as chosen at some council in Nicea.
So when you say it has been 'fiddled' with, you need to be a bit more specific.

[b]If the bible was not tampered with in this way I believe our world would be a better ...[text shortened]... our world be a better place? Is that view based on good reasons or is it just a 'feeling'?

I do get a feeling that it has been 'fiddled' with in a sinister way. To mix such amazing universal truths as Jesus expoused in with other 'laws' and ideas,such as 'hell' for one, is intended to retard and distract the general population and to cradle their fragile egos rather than build them up to be powerful and beautiful reprsentatives of 'Spirit'.

After the local power at the time realized that misinformation was no longer viable to 'keep humanity under chains', they moved onto disinformation-mixing lies and half-truths in amongst genuine universal truths. This type of tactic has been repeated up until this very
day and has continued to hold sway , confusing the general population , rather than trying to simplify their lives so they can first of all know what it truly means to be human-and then go on from there...

Why would the world have been a better place if the bible was not tampered with? Because we could have evolved much quicker 'out of darkness' and broken the bonds of 'satan'-or 'alien oppressors' that have dominated this planet for too long. They may have slowed it down ,due to their devious and cunning ways, however mother Earth Herself has chosen to evolve , which means that all life forms must evolve with Her. The 'parasite(s)' who has been in control for so long already realizes that it is just a matter of time before people 'wise up' and take (back) control of this planet in the name of 'Spirit'. And not in the endless line of human failures,(idols), that pretend to be better than their followers,etc,etc....(do you want me to go on?)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I do get a feeling that it has been 'fiddled' with in a sinister way. To mix such amazing universal truths as Jesus expoused in with other 'laws' and ideas,such as 'hell' for one, is intended to retard and distract the general population and to cradle their fragile egos rather than build them up to be powerful and beautiful reprsentatives of 'Spirit'. ...[text shortened]... nd to be better than their followers,etc,etc....(do you want me to go on?)

===============================
I do get a feeling that it has been 'fiddled' with in a sinister way. To mix such amazing universal truths as Jesus expoused in with other 'laws' and ideas,such as 'hell' for one, is intended to retard and distract the general population and to cradle their fragile egos rather than build them up to be powerful and beautiful reprsentatives of 'Spirit'.
====================================

How do we know that this suspicion does not simply reflect your personal preferences?

"What I agree with in the Bible, that is authentic. What rubs me the wrong way is a sinister tampering with of the original message."

How do we know you have not simply employed your personal tastes to suspicion those portions of the Bible which go against your individual tastes, preferences, inclinations, moral opinion?

Why would you assume, for example, that I as a believer in the inspiration of Scripture, would "like" everything I read in this book ? Should I expect that a book inspired by God would never offend me?

Originally posted by 667joe
You have ignored my statement and resorted to a personal attack which has nothing to do with my statement.

No, read again. I pointed out that your statement is in error. You are inserting the word "only" when it's inappropriate and inaccurate. If I say that Obama won the election in one document and then say in a later document that Obama and Biden won the election, am I in error? Nope. Saying that Obama won isn't saying that only Obama won. A whole lot of people were elected to offices that day. Talking about one of them doesn't mean the rest didn't happen. Find a quote that says ONLY Mary Magdalen was there and you have a conversation starter. Misquoting and adding the word "only" means you have a comprehension problem.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Well, he might very well be a nice dude. I don't argue with that. I haven't met him so I don't know. Everything I know fof him is hearsay, nothing more. He didn't write his gospels with his own hand, I don't know if he wrote anything, I don't even know if he could read. ("Of course he could!" "Hearsay!"😉

One important point is that the first being he m christian community doesn't see the importance of this. The Pope should be a woman.

What is so significant about the fact that eyewitness accounts (hearsay, as you put it) are relied upon to piece together the ministry of Jesus Christ? Do we question the knowledge we have of Socrates' career as it has been related to us in Plato's dialogues? Rarely, if ever, that I know of.

If we consider that the most trustworthy of Alexander the Great's biographies wasn't written until several centuries after his death and, further, consider the premium placed upon the accounts of his personal history and conquests, historically speaking, by comparison it really is somewhat absurd to deride the eyewitness accounts recorded in the New Testament, especially considering that most of the books of the New Testament were written within the eyewitnesses' lifetimes. The significance of this fact becomes apparent after we consider that the Gospels, as well as Paul's letters, were circulated among the earliest followers of Christ, a body of believers partially made up of those who had sat at the feet of Jesus Christ during his ministry. If there were ever any glaring inaccuracies to be found in the eyewitness accounts, there is no doubt that the eyewitnesses themselves would have pointed them out. Yet, there is nothing in the historical record of any contention whatsoever with the veracity of what the Gospels and epistles attest to. This fact cannot be ignored.

The New Testament is rightfully considered an historical document without peer. One may disregard the New Testament based on its incredible claims, but certainly not based upon its reliability as an historical document.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
What is so significant about the fact that eyewitness accounts (hearsay, as you put it) are relied upon to piece together the ministry of Jesus Christ? Do we question the knowledge we have of Socrates' career as it has been related to us in Plato's dialogues? Rarely, if ever, that I know of.
...
The New Testament is rightfully considered an historica ...[text shortened]... its incredible claims, but certainly not based upon its reliability as an historical document.

Sokrates teachings are not the foundation of a religion, where its prime dogam is that everything Sokrates said was the very Truth, and that Sokrates is gods son. That's the difference.
Whenever I hear of someone starting a war because the words of Sokrates, then I will rethink.

I don't think the gospels are read within the witnesses lifetime:
The gospel of Mathew, author unknown, written in the 80'.
The gospel of Marc, author unknown, written in 60's.
The gospel of Luke, author unknown, probably an assistant to St Paul, inthe 80's.
The gospel of John, author unknown, written arount the year 100.

Now, let's say that one of the same age as Jesus saw Jesus in action, then he would be 90 yeas of age at the year 60. Probable? Don't think so. Rather than he told someone else while adding and subtracting facts. Therefore I call it 'hearsay'.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Sokrates teachings are not the foundation of a religion, where its prime dogam is that everything Sokrates said was the very Truth, and that Sokrates is gods son. That's the difference.
Whenever I hear of someone starting a war because the words of Sokrates, then I will rethink.

I don't think the gospels are read within the witnesses lifetime:
The ...[text shortened]... he told someone else while adding and subtracting facts. Therefore I call it 'hearsay'.

The year of Jesus' crucifixion is roughly 32 A. D., therefore it is completely conceivable that his biographies were circulated among those who had witnessed his ministry. Also consider that Paul's letters, which assume the listener's familiarity with Christ's Lordship, divinity, death, and resurrection, etc., predate Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.