DeletedUser
Blondie, what translation of the bible do you use? Also, do you know any Greek or Old Hebrew, so that you may personally translate original manuscripts?
- Status
DeletedUser
Wow , after all this time being away from the forums Blondie still thinks he/she knows what is actually in the Bible.
The original language the manuscripts were written in actually have quite a bit of things different then what you would read in the English. Blondie uses a translation of a translation of a translation. Epic Fail.
I am a Christian and I know the Earth is billions of years old. The Bible speaks of this fact.
All in all , be what you want to be , believe what you want to believe. Its your walk through this life. Blondie I really wish you could get it through your thick head you are doing more bad than good.You are pushing people away from Christianity by telling them things that simply are not true.
As far as men in this world , they might have been self proclaimed Christians but you can't blame that on Christianity or God. They were just stupid men.
Besty I absolutely applaud you for your post women are not meant to be trophies, most have a stronger backbone in character and personality than the majority of men. As far as the opinion of a "soul" , I think the stronger souls are women. Plenty of examples in the Bible about women being a better teacher of the Word.
Nice to read all of the comments , it was entertaining
Incorrect, you consuse yourself with what i say. And misinterpret what the scriptures say. You look at one scripture and draw a conclusion on it without considering other verses. I interpret a scriptures meaning by comparing it with other scriptures and even other translations.
Some may say the main translation of the Bible that Jehovah's Witnesses use is changed to fit what we want to believe. Incorrect.
Although we use the New World Translation more than other translations. we compare wih others, and see if we get the same meaning from a scripture.
Here's my opinion: if one interpretation of a scripture fits one translation and not another, then it wouldn't be the right interpretation.
However, if an interpretation fits several translations, then wouldn't that one be the truth?
And also, No other Bible except the New World Translation uses "Jehovah" in over 7,000 places in the Hebrew scriptures. To me, that would seem like a very large flaw.
But unless someone will actually pose a decent question, im done with this forum. All that's here is prejudiced and religion bashing.
It was fun!
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser8950
Your bible also uses Jehovah in places where they have admitted this translation is incorrect. That is tailoring your translation to your belief system.
But us worldy people are all devil-influenced and trying to stray you from the path with our evils, so be careful.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser14029
I read the Good News Bible. It has notes regarding which part might have been interpreted otherwise, so its quite nice. I have to agree upon the fact during the course of translation there might be some misunderstandings
I understand that some people do not believe in religion. Its a sad truth to some but as we believe you all got a choice. All I ask is, even if you're disagreeing religion, Christianity, as this thread is base on, you can put your words nicely. Leave conflicts in the region of facts, not wordings ^^
I understand that some people do not believe in religion. Its a sad truth to some but as we believe you all got a choice. All I ask is, even if you're disagreeing religion, Christianity, as this thread is base on, you can put your words nicely. Leave conflicts in the region of facts, not wordings ^^
DeletedUser
Religion is bull-crap, and so's the bible.I read the Good News Bible. It has notes regarding which part might have been interpreted otherwise, so its quite nice. I have to agree upon the fact during the course of translation there might be some misunderstandings
I understand that some people do not believe in religion. Its a sad truth to some but as we believe you all got a choice. All I ask is, even if you're disagreeing religion, Christianity, as this thread is base on, you can put your words nicely. Leave conflicts in the region of facts, not wordings ^^
We've already covered why in multiple threads.
DeletedUser14029
. . .
I just said even if you disagree so you can do so more politely.
I just said even if you disagree so you can do so more politely.
DeletedUser
I should begin with: I believe the Bible is the God breathed and inspired word of God.
There were a number of years where I was uncertain as to whether God began the universe through a big-bang and an evolutionary process which took billions of years, or if He created it all in six days.
A couple of key things came into focus which helped me come to my conclusion. Firstly, Liberal deism became known to me. It is not a presupposition that is oft discussed. But it is taken for granted by evolutionary Darwinists and most every person in the West. Liberal deism is about 500 years old. Isaac Newton, although not a deist, succinctly describes deism as he likens the universe to a clock. The clock maker builds his clock, sets the gears, winds it up, and then, sends the pendulum swinging. The clock runs without the maker. So too for the universe for Liberal deists and for those who build upon its foundation, like evolutionary Darwinists. The language of physical laws, like the law of gravity, the law of entropy, the law of thermodynamics, etc. has its etymological roots in deism. Deism is theistic, for what law exists without a law giver? Atheistic Darwinists have yet to make the necessary changes to their language, by the way. But the clock maker, in the West anyway, for many, has been exchanged for something called "chance" - whatever that is?
In contrast, the Bible tells us that God holds all things together. Every breath we owe to God. As we can articulate words and ideas, we too, owe this to God. He gives us our bread, our daily bread. In sum, "In Him, we move and live and have our being." Frederick Nietzsche helps put God's imminent maintenance into perspective with his oft quoted dictum, "God is dead." So, while God is alive we are held together, breathing our breaths, speaking our words, eating our bread. The moment God dies, so do we. We cease to be held together. We cease to breathe, eat and be. I began to wonder: Can I prove that laws govern our physical universe? I could not. How do I know that it is not God who is imminently sustaining and maintaining everything within the universe , including me, any more than I could know that there was a clock maker who put a bunch of laws into place to govern the universe?
Secondly, the evolutionary progression of "things" has always been a significant bewilderment to me. Evolution, as a theory, starts with the conclusion and works backwards to formulate the formula. It takes the present reality of where we are now and views history through a materialistic, deist, and atheistic lens, and attempts to explain how we came to the state to which we find ourselves. According to evolution, man is currently at the pinnacle (although debated of course)of evolutionary biology. The Guinness beer commercial portrays the devolutionary process of man back into primordial muck well (youtube Guinness beer evolution). Once it works out the formula from the present to the past, it then can go from the past to the present. However, this is problematic. Evolution fails to answer some very difficult questions and glosses over some serious obstacles. Consider the following: How can something come from nothing? How can life come from the inorganic? How can the non-conscious come to consciousness? Evolution is far from being considered a "settled science."
My two bits, for whatever its worth.
There were a number of years where I was uncertain as to whether God began the universe through a big-bang and an evolutionary process which took billions of years, or if He created it all in six days.
A couple of key things came into focus which helped me come to my conclusion. Firstly, Liberal deism became known to me. It is not a presupposition that is oft discussed. But it is taken for granted by evolutionary Darwinists and most every person in the West. Liberal deism is about 500 years old. Isaac Newton, although not a deist, succinctly describes deism as he likens the universe to a clock. The clock maker builds his clock, sets the gears, winds it up, and then, sends the pendulum swinging. The clock runs without the maker. So too for the universe for Liberal deists and for those who build upon its foundation, like evolutionary Darwinists. The language of physical laws, like the law of gravity, the law of entropy, the law of thermodynamics, etc. has its etymological roots in deism. Deism is theistic, for what law exists without a law giver? Atheistic Darwinists have yet to make the necessary changes to their language, by the way. But the clock maker, in the West anyway, for many, has been exchanged for something called "chance" - whatever that is?
In contrast, the Bible tells us that God holds all things together. Every breath we owe to God. As we can articulate words and ideas, we too, owe this to God. He gives us our bread, our daily bread. In sum, "In Him, we move and live and have our being." Frederick Nietzsche helps put God's imminent maintenance into perspective with his oft quoted dictum, "God is dead." So, while God is alive we are held together, breathing our breaths, speaking our words, eating our bread. The moment God dies, so do we. We cease to be held together. We cease to breathe, eat and be. I began to wonder: Can I prove that laws govern our physical universe? I could not. How do I know that it is not God who is imminently sustaining and maintaining everything within the universe , including me, any more than I could know that there was a clock maker who put a bunch of laws into place to govern the universe?
Secondly, the evolutionary progression of "things" has always been a significant bewilderment to me. Evolution, as a theory, starts with the conclusion and works backwards to formulate the formula. It takes the present reality of where we are now and views history through a materialistic, deist, and atheistic lens, and attempts to explain how we came to the state to which we find ourselves. According to evolution, man is currently at the pinnacle (although debated of course)of evolutionary biology. The Guinness beer commercial portrays the devolutionary process of man back into primordial muck well (youtube Guinness beer evolution). Once it works out the formula from the present to the past, it then can go from the past to the present. However, this is problematic. Evolution fails to answer some very difficult questions and glosses over some serious obstacles. Consider the following: How can something come from nothing? How can life come from the inorganic? How can the non-conscious come to consciousness? Evolution is far from being considered a "settled science."
My two bits, for whatever its worth.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
not worth much, mainly because most of your suppositions are wrong.
DeletedUser
....one day, All forks will pierce and all tongues will caress the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so just make sure you put your Faith in al dente.
DeletedUser8950
Expand, please.
DeletedUser
Why don't you politely show that book of lies up your backside?
One day you will all know the blessed tears of the Onion.
It's layers with you my children, may you live in ignorance no more.
DeletedUser
It's ok to speak your mind, John. You can go ahead and tell him to go ahead and wipe his ass with that book of lies, and then just go ahead and shove it in, it doesn't matter.
Go ahead, Im making a song called go ahead now :laugh:
DeletedUser
If you want a contradiction to explain?
1. God is pure good
2. God created the universe and everything in it
3. Evil exists
There may have been a time when sacred parchments offered a best guess at explaining the world, but we've moved on since then.
1. God is pure good
2. God created the universe and everything in it
3. Evil exists
There may have been a time when sacred parchments offered a best guess at explaining the world, but we've moved on since then.
DeletedUser14029
If that's the way you expect people to believe in you you're a complete failure >.<
It interests me where you gained such a strong, ah, hatred for religions. Forced to go to the Church when you're a child perhaps?
DeletedUser
To atheists: No one is forced to go to church. If you do not believe in God or what was written in the Bible, why make so make so many complaints and rants against it like if you are threatened???? You have your own life now, why would you try to mingle on what others believed in??? That will be arrogance.
To believers: You cannot force others to accept your religious ideology. Forcing your ideology will be arrogance. You cannot force them to believe either. If you believe you are doing good for God, it is shown through speechless actions not words and not debates.
To all: Why don't you guys refrain on these debates and live a peaceful life in your own will and do not let this come in between you??? Debates, rants and sometimes arguments like this and that make me think this is the unfriendliest forum I have ever been. Each of us has a choice... and we should not force others to choose our own choices or ruin them just because they chose another path???? Live in peace brothers.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
I kind of expected your post to make some sense, but I saddened to say your incoherent rambling does not. If you had however managed to succesfuly string together a sentence we could have had a debate.
Why should I respect your ignorance and superstitions?
DeletedUser14029
. . .
Ok Bill, first of all, I am not forcing anyone. I am not a member of the Inquistion, this is not the Middle-Age, I don't burn heretics on sticks...
To John Rose & Bill altogether: I am just curious why even when people are disagreeing they have to resort to insulting wordings. Doesn't help proving their point other than alienating themselves. My apologies to John Rose if you find my post offending. I am REALLY curious if its some unhappy childhood memories that brought you this hatred for religions, or in this case, Christianity.
And why should we be nice and 'respect my ignorance and superstitions' - For the sake of being nice to others... Is that really so hard >.<
Ok Bill, first of all, I am not forcing anyone. I am not a member of the Inquistion, this is not the Middle-Age, I don't burn heretics on sticks...
To John Rose & Bill altogether: I am just curious why even when people are disagreeing they have to resort to insulting wordings. Doesn't help proving their point other than alienating themselves. My apologies to John Rose if you find my post offending. I am REALLY curious if its some unhappy childhood memories that brought you this hatred for religions, or in this case, Christianity.
And why should we be nice and 'respect my ignorance and superstitions' - For the sake of being nice to others... Is that really so hard >.<
DeletedUser
Okay, i can't leave that one alone, Jesus is not God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say so. All evidence found in the Bible point to Jesus being a seperate person than God. And Greek word Stauros, which you guys say is the "Cross" translates into "stake" The Cross is a Pagan symbol that Constantine introduced as Christian to easier establish Christianity as the religion of the land so he could unify the people and rule them much easier. He used te Pagan Cross to make Pagans convert easier.
And to say what you just said here, has got to be the biggest fail on the forums.
DeletedUser8950
That's already taken by a certain Blondie14.
On topic, this arguement is getting circular and annoying.
- Status