the_interactionist

You have just made my point. I am fully aware that you cannot provide such manuscript evidence. That is I why made the request. It highlights the fact that you really don't know what you are talking about. You are putting forth, as FACT, that the Bible is a book wriiten by men, changed again and again. Yet when asked for the mauscript evidence to support your allegation, your response is that I am completely unreasonable to ask you to provide the only conclusive evidence that would support your assertion which is completely out of your reach. So the truth of this matter is that you speak as an authority about something which you have not really researched. You don't actually KNOW anything. You have no way to support with meaningful evidence that your assertion that the Bible was written by men is really true. It just sounded good to you and so you, like so many unbelievers and atheists who jump on here, are just really just parrotting something which has no basis in demonstratable fact, at least nothing you can provide. Therefore your assertion about the Bible being altered repeatedly or having its source as purely human in orgin should not be taken seriously by any thinking person. You simply lack the intellectual credibility to make such assertions. As for my evidence, it is the text itself. As I have already stated, the fact that the Bible is so offensive to human intellect and human nature, precludes its source as being human. Mankind, left to his own, would never have produced the Bible as we know it today. This is evidenced by the fact, that the Bible, more than any other piece of religious literature is subject to in ordinate criticism and disparagement. Relatively speaking, the writings of other religions, are not held up as public objects of scorn, ridicule, and contempt anywhere close to the degree the Bible is. The Bible, and the claims it makes are, far more often, the brunt of jokes and those who believe the Bible are often belittled as stupid, blind, mentally disturbed. While I understand that those (particularly atheists) who reject the Bible equally reject the writings of other religions as well, no other religious text endures the same posture of belligerence as does the Bible. That fact alone shows that while other religious writings are given a greater degree of tolerance, the Bible is not afforded respect nor an honest treatment of the claims it makes. That may not prove that the Bible is true per se, but it does present a valid and defensible rationale against the origin of the Bible being purely human. It doesn't prove the Bible is true. There is no proof of anything. We only have what we call "facts" based on consistent or anecdotal experience. There is no more rationale in the idea that the Bible wasn't purely human simply because you claim that it's not afforded respect or an honest treatment of the claims it makes. It's more widely accepted than any other religious work. It's accepted all over the world. In comparison to other religious works, it takes the cake in total sales and distribution. So you believe that it's intellectually credible that you believe in the Bible's absolute truth and inerrance, that it is written of a Divine hand, simply because you claim that it has suffered more ridicule than any other religious work? Where's the evidence for that? And even if there is evidence that the Bible has endured more ridicule than any other religious work, how exactly does that prove anything about its divinity or inerrance. HOW can that be considered rationale simply because it's been ridiculed. By today's standards Hitler's works and travesties would be far more ridiculed than the Bible... does that make his utopian ideologies and the results they produced touched by divinity as well? There are tens of millions of Christians who would say the same thing about another highly ridiculed manuscript. Would you or any other Christian be offended by the words written in The Book of Shadows? Or any other Pagan or non-Christian religious book? Chances are you would. If this is your argument than any other religious book fits the criteria for being inerrant and inspired by God if the only prerequisite for facts are the statistics behind a book's criticism. And your argument falls far too short there since the Bible is the most widely accepted religious work of all time. It's suffered a fair share of belligeence, that's fair to say; however, to say that it isn't given the same degree, especially a lesser one, that other religious works have been given, you're way off target. I figured you'd know that if would be erroneous to state something as fact, since the Bible is bought more than any other religious book - especially in our own country - as well as in other major countries, and missions hand it out to foreign natives as if it were food they were desperately in need of. Please. The Bible isn't offensive because it hurts the delicate ego of so-called "sinners." It's not offensive because it makes me feel guilty for living in "sin." It's offensive because it is inconsistent and the authors of the Bible contradict themselves. In my KJV Holy Bible, Zondervan publishers made a point to amend the known history behind each book and chapter, as well as an outline providing what the author's primary objectives were for writing each book. Whether you want to admit it or not, whether I can actually provide you with the original manuscripts or not, unless you believe in fairy tales and Greek mythology, God didn't reach down from the Heavens and write the Bible. Zondervan publishers even said that the Bible was written by men and women. Human beings. Either you believe EVERYTHING your Bible says, or you believe nothing. Isn't that your creed? I EXPECT ANSWERS FOR THESE QUESTIONS; NOT CIRCUMVENTION: Is it not common sense that the Bible must have been translated? Do you honestly believe that any version we have available to us today - including the so-called original King James Version - was the original? How could the Bible not have been translated considering the known languages of the time certain books within it were written, were done so in languages other than English because they were written hundreds of years before James' hands and translators were all over them? What you're doing here is completely hypocritical. If I can't proclaim it's flawed nature as a translated manuscript without the evidence that supports my claim (that being the original texts/ manuscripts) you can't proclaim it as inerrant and having never been translated or touched by man either. This is what's known as a double-standard. You're telling me to do something you can't do yourself, to prove a point that can't be proven on either side. So if one side of the argument is expendable so is the other. If my argument falls prone to lack of evidence, so does your's. You can't proclaim it as something that hasn't been tampered with because, like me, you don't have access to the original manuscripts either. And if you do, where's your proof?

This is something that is always stated as fact, but is rarely ever actually supported with fact. It seems you expect to simply be accepted as fact withou any objective corroboration. The onus is on you to provide evidence of these alleged changes. The onus is on you to produce the necessary manuscript evidence to show that the Bible was written by men. The truth is, if the Bible WERE written merely from human intellect, it would not be as offensive to human intellect. The very fact that human intellect rejects the claims of the Bible pretty much torpedoes the notion that the source of the Bible is purely human in origin. The Bible completely offends human nature, pride and intellect making your assertion implausible. As for the alleged contradictions, most of these can be chalked up to a proactive attempt to discredit the Bible and not the product of any credible knowledge of the Bible itself. Amen brother! Then is the onus not on you, to do the same? Where's your proof and factual evidence that reveals a Bible written or created by God, not by the hands of men? I'd like to know how you can ask me to prove it by providing you with manuscripts that are locked up in a vault, controlled by... oh, here's a surprise... The Catholic Church!? Please, come up with something better. How else did the Bible get to where it is today? It had to have been reinterpreted (and poorly at that). You and that word. . . onus. I still have to look it up.

Ah, so you believe in Paul's experience on the road to Damascus. That's a good start IA! So these alleged contradictions aren't standing in the way between you and the Lord. How exciting! You too are on a road of discovery my friend. Pray that the scales are removed from your eyes, like Paul. Put your trust in Jesus, like Paul. Never said I believed in Paul's recorded experience. I just used it as an example. One doesn't have to believe in the legitimacy of an alleged, possibly mythological, experience in order to use its story as an example; to compare one's own perception of his/ her enlightened state to that relevant of how Paul's eyes were - according to the story - opened in an instant by the hands of the Divine. However, I believe it was possibly true. I believe in the contradictions of the Bible because 1) they're blatantly obvious. What's been rebutted by anyone on here hasn't been completely resolved (unless it's in your own minds, a resolution. If you're trying to "win" me for the Lord, then the resolution has not been accomplished.) 2) the Bible was written by men. I don't know why this is so difficult for Christians to accept. I use to be a Christian who boldly proclaimed, "The Bible is not the work of man, but the living, eternal Word of God!" And that was that so far as I was concerned. Then one day, my eyes were opened to a different understanding, a new paradigm of what the Bible really is. In reality it's a book that was written by men. The original texts have been changed, amended, and changed again so many times since their conception there's no possible way to tell what is accurate and what's not. Hence, this leaves the great possibility that they are indeed erroneous and contradictory. You may not have said this, but someone did earlier, so I'm addressing it now, but if you or any Christian believes that the Bible is God's Word, and not man's, or that man was inspired by God to write it, why then do you reject the doctrine of other religions that proclaim the same thing - that their scriptures and doctrines are the one true ways inspired by God. Adolf Hitler claimed to be inspired by a divine purpose, too; by God himself, when he wrote Mein Kampf and paved the way for one of the world's greatest and most abominable mass genocides ever recorded in history. Hitler was a man who errored greatly in the eyes of anyone with a sense of morality. He punished people who had done nothing wrong. He punished them because he had his own ideas of what was right and what was wrong. Millions of people agreed with Hitler and supported his interests and agenda. The more numbers of followers a system of beliefs has (whether it Nazism or Christianity or even Paganism) doesn't necessarily make it right. I am convinced more now, than ever, that what is right and what is wrong may be found within. We don't need to look towards sacred texts and doctrines to find truth. I believe that only a few of those writers/ authors who contributed to the Bible, really knew the truth that God wants us to follow. Paul stated it perfectly when he stated we need not worry about the letters written on tables of stone, in ink; but be lead by those letters written in the heart, by the Spirit. It's perfectly clear. I do believe that Paul's eyes were opened by God's divine touch. My entire belief of what Christianity should be revolves around the teachings of Jesus. If it's not of or from Christ, it simply isn't Christian. Christianity wasn't even around when the books of the Old Testament were created and taught and lived by originally. It wasn't until after Christ that Christianity was born. You can't have Christianity without first having Christ. Christ didn't even create it himself. Man created when he wrote the words of Christ, about the lessons he gave, what he taught and preached, how he lived and treated others. Christ was nothing like those of the OT. Christ Himself challenged the OT doctrines because he came to give us a new doctrine, a New Testament. One which he did. That New Testament was what Paul spoke of when he proclaimed that the letters written in ink (OT, Biblical doctrine) was not to be treated as spiritual truth, but that there was a "new covenent,"one that was written on the heart, by the Spirit: INTUITION. Conscience. God within. This is how I interpret Paul's words. Others may disagree, but I guarantee I won't be dissuaded from this belief. I've already lived by your beliefs and they're ineffective. They sow seeds that produce grief and sorrow for others who are condemned for their so-called "sinful" natures. God created us to be what we are. We are to lead people to a realization that they are unique individuals of the human race, all with something significant to contribute. Our dogma is what pushes people from Christ. It has nothing to do with them accepting what is deemed right by modern-day Pharisees. The reason people reject God is because they are first rejected by the ones who falsely represent God. If someone is deemed a sinner and does things that don't align with the sytem of beliefs embraced by one who is self-righteouss, that person is told they are a sinner; a heathen. That they're going to Hell. Told they must change their ways. Often, they're made fun of, sometimes even harshly, for their beliefs. Ridiculed and judged, you name it. This has been the Christianity I've seen. People ("sinners") aren't rejecting God, they're rejecting dogma. They're rejecting something that limits who God created them to be. This brings me to evidence of such ridicule in this very forum: replying to my posts, ruck1b, says, "I smell a wolf, in sheeps attire." Following that, undone, asks, "Is there a full moon tonight?" This is funny, I have to admit, and I'll not take offense to it because I'm better than that. But the fact remains is this type of invective sarcasm has detrimental effects on those with far more delicate psyches and hearts. Perhaps people don't feel like you really want them to be "saved." Maybe if you listened with a heart full of compassion and not skepticism about our beliefs, some non-believers would accept your ideology and choose to live for Christ, according to your beliefs. I stand steadfast in my belief that God did not create us only to allow some of us to thrive for eternity, while the rest of us perish. All because we didn't make a choice that he liked. God is not a child who doesn't have a moral or ethical maturity. God is a God of grace. Of unconditional love. That love is what reaches out to all of his creations. Regardless of who they are and how they live. If someone wants to try to change my mind, please do. I love to listen to everyone's point of view. All I ask is that you don't reject mine before spending substantial time considering at least the possibility of its truth. Like I said, I've considered your views and beliefs. I use to believe them, too. Just as you feel you've been shown the light, the one true way - I believe the same for myself concerning my own ideas of God and spirituality. I accept everyone for what they believe. This doesn't mean I have to accept their beliefs. I accept the person. I believe they will be taken care of by their Father. I believe we are ALL God's children, not only a few of us. When I say, Blessed Be, this is a Pagan's way of saying God bless you. Ultimately, it may be considered the same thing. However, we believe that you are already blessed because God created you exactly how He wanted you to be. A perfect God doesn't make mistakes in his creations; therefore, he wouldn't allow our nature's to become flawed, free will considered or not. God is powerful enough to stop us from falling for eternity. I believe He will. As I say this, I truly and deeply mean it... Blessed Be.

1) God has perfect justice and therefore must punish wrongdoers in order to stay perfect. Your definition of fair and unfair is your opinion, but God's definition is fact. 2) We have peace within but there is a time for war. There's no conflict here. 3) I have no idea what you're asking here. 4) If I said anything else, it would be a lie. The fact is that you are too proud to admit that you don't have a perfect ability to think and reason. None of us do. 5) Considering the two verses weren't written at the exact same time, you don't have to have a lot of common sense to realize this. 7) Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. (Acts 2:29) 8) Sins of the fathers are passed on to the sons. That's why everyone has a sin nature, and men are wicked in their natural state. 9) Again, early English grammar was different. That verse simply states that God created those creatures and brought them to Adam. I should add that sin has a huge impact on the way people think and reason. Non-believers leave the Christian God out of the equation, and because of that, their reasoning will always lead to falsehood. This means you too. If I could get God to reveal Himself to you, you would think it's either a mirage or a projection. There is no way to convince anyone of the Christian God, except for God choosing that person to be convinced. So you admit God chooses some and not others? Guess it's convenient for you, huh? Guess that's why you're not really worried about us "heathens." The real issue is that the way we see the problem here is the problem. You seem exactly as I see you. We both believe the other is "blind" to some extent. You believe my spiritual blindness is because I don't accept or embrace your Judeo-Christian doctrine and dogma; mine is because you are dogmatic and vain enough to believe that you possess the ultimate truth because God has "revealed" it to you, almost as if you were Paul on the road to Damascus. Blessed Be. (And, yes, there is a wolf in sheep's attire roaming around here - we're called Pagans. We were here first, anyways

Absolutely... con-text (n.) - the part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning OR the circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting. If you're trying to say that I've taken this scripture out of context, then please "enlighten" me on the matter. Nothing has been taken out of context. Maybe what you mean to say is that I've interpreted it in my own way; however, one cannot deny (at least not honestly) that the verses listed do indeed conflict. How could someone possibly deny that? Unless they were, of course, delusional. According to the definition of context, I took NOTHING out of context; however, I did emphasize the context - that is, the part of the texts that surrounds particular words (which were emphasized in bold, italics, or underscore by me) and gave the passage its true meaning. I changed no words in the process of reading them straight out of the KJV and typing them onto this page. I manipulated nothing. I twisted and contorted absolutley nothing. I can't possibly make it any clearer. If you choose to believe that it's been taken out of context, that's fine. But, please: how do YOU decipher the meanings of each verse. If they're not conflicting, then please show me how. If I'm wrong, I deeply apologize and will accept my ignorance. But I was a Christian (according to the popular idea of what a Christian is) for over 20 years. I use to be a fundamentalist. I use to believe the exact same way you believe. I use to believe Christ was the one and only way and truth. I use to believe that the Bible was inerrant. Then I actually read it. Most Christians have a limited knowledge of the entire Bible, especially its history. I use to as well. Then I took the liberty to actually read it. There are so many verses in the Bible, nobody could possibly have them all memorized, nor could they be the perfect interpreter for all of them. Ultimately, I use believe the same things you all believe. My faith was lost a long time ago. But it is back now and is stronger than ever. I just don't "see" God in the same light you do. No matter how many times one may use Scripture to sway me or change my heart or enlighten me, it simply doesn't work. Scripture is man's written word. Man can claim to have been inspired by God when he wrote it. That doesn't justify it. That is NOT to say that I don't agree with some of it. I don't believe all of the Bible is flawed. Just that which comes from the heart is truly believable and aligns with those principles that cause peace and happiness in life. Verses like the ones in Exodus clearly fall short of peace and happiness (the accounts of Moses' orders to his captains to "keep the little women for themselves"). God's Word lives inside our hearts, in our conscience. It's our intuition, our own natural, inner-knowing. I have a deep, internal conviction that is even backed by Scripture. I believe in this scripture. I have faith that it reveals the essence of God within us. I believe it reveals the truth behind my conviction that we must not look towards words written by men, but into our own hearts that reveal truth, because God is there when we earnestly seek: 2 Corinthians (v. 3) Forsasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in the fleshy tables of the heart. (v. 4) And such trust have we through Christ to Godward; (v. 5) Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; (v. 6) Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. This is why I believe that the Bible is not inerrant. Paul's ministry in his letter to Corinth clearly states that written word is not the authority of God ("not in tables of stone" or words written by man), but the authority of God's will is written "in the fleshly tables of the heart"; our hearts reveal the way. This is called consience and intuition. Saying that the Bible is imperfect does not take anything away from God. It simply takes away from dogma and fundamentalism. God still lives on and penetrates that heart of man just as deeply as ever. Again, this is my own internal conviction of God's truth.

This seems to be a recurring issue that is never settled. Likewise, I'm sure it won't be settled here either. A while back, on one of my previous posts, I was asked to provide examples of Biblical and scriptural contradictions. I failed to do so then. Sorry I'm so late with these. It takes a lot of time and research, but it cane be done. Here

I have a recommendation for every single person who reads these discussions or involves themselves with them. My recommendation is a book titled, Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science And The Biology of Belief. Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science & The Biology of Belief (by Andrew Newberg, M.D., Eugene D'Aquili, M.D., Ph.D., and Vince Rause) is an exceptional book which I very highly recommend. This is very fascinating exposition of the relationship between religious experience and brain functioning. Topics like "The Science of Perception," "How the Brain Makes the Mind," and "The Biology of Transcendence" are among the fascinating topics explored and explained in a manner that is very comprehensible by the layperson. You don't need to be a doctor, scientist, or a yogi to understand this book and it offers immense value to anyone who is looking for a better way to look at the little "war" between science and religion. The authors get into some very profound issues. These guys are scientists who buy the whole "materialistic science" viewpoint, which encompasses a strict belief in evolution and that consciousness comes from matter; the brain. However, they are open enough to include data and thoughts that maybe there are other possible explanations. Ultimately, the book is straightforward, honest, and I found it to be a "must read". They conclude that science and religion do not have to be incompatible. They conclude that our brain is structured to include "mystical experiences" which, from the point of view of a neurophysiologist, are just as "real" as non-mystical experiences. What I liked about the book was that the authors were very clear about laying out the limitations of science and the scientific method. Bottom line is this: Why God Won't Go Away should be read by every Christian, every atheist, every agnostic, and by any other belief system in the world.

Dr. Stephen LaBerge (the same doctor mentioned on the Wikipedia link) has an excellent book on the subject. You should check it out. I've read it an duse lucid dreaming myself. There's nothing "new-agey" or "pseudo-intellectual" about the info in his book or the practices. Nor is there anything that would conflict with Christian doctrine or beliefs. You can find it on Amazon.com.

At the end of 2007 I want to be able to look back on the year and see that I accomplished more important and worthwhile goals than I did in 2006. If I did better this year than last, it will have been worth the resolve.

I'm thinking this all ties in with the same arguement that Christians vs secular world will always be in conflict with. Naturally, the secular would like to "believe" that they don't have to be responsible for their actions. How else can they continue to live a life of sin and justify it? Same is true if "scientist" can disprove the theory that the world was "created" by a "supernatural" being. Premise is , if you can disprove one then the other couldn't possibly exist as well~~~ Boy will they all be in for a "culture shock!" The secular "world" proudly proclaims responsibility for their actions. The vast majority of intelligent atheists or secularists won't be found committing crimes against humanity. The statement that one is "living in sin," doesn't have anything to do with personal responsibility or morality - it has to do with YOUR idea of right and wrong projected onto those who choose to conform to your dogma and ideology. How do YOU define sin anyway? Most likely, you define it according to a passage from the Bible. I define something that is bad enough to be considered "sinful" according to how it affects other people. Not everything Christians, or other religions, define as sinful has a negative or harmful affect on anyone. I mean, if you're going to bomb an abortion clinic to save innocent life, that's pretty "sinful", regardless of whether you're a Christian or an atheist.

There are bound to be innumerable men of good character and integrity that could be found outside of a conservative church as well. There are how many billion people on this earth? You'll find someone. Someone is bound to meet your expectations, possibly even exceed them. Unless you've met every single man on the face of God's green earth, I don't think you can rule them out as extinct just yet!