how did someone determine the 99.5% degree of accuracy between 5600 copies of the new testament.. thats alot of reading to do
how would anyone determine the accuracy of any written text? comparison between the older text and the newer translated text -- WORD BY WORD. alot of reading, indeed. -^_^
damn soo much new arguments haha....big smizzle gonna have to bring out all those answers. You probably don't care but to add to my point lol, i think God can be "influenced" i mean the so called teachings of god could always be altered by the followers with authority. They just need to have influence and the power, after that they just mention: I had a dream from God last night....this is what he said....... there you go, new beliefs are easily added as that. Yea i was surely more speaking towards the first definition cause the second one i'm not sure i even get haha. anyways i think the term "religion" is can be used universally right now. like to represent beliefs, i think agnosticism and atheism can be considered to be "religions" nowadays lol, so basically everyone is religious no matter what. and all religious people are hypocrites, including yours truly (me) lol....so yea restating for like the 5th time...i'm an hypocrite for insulting certain religions, while people who call my insults to be wrong or should be prohibited are basically hypocrites themselves. it's just a hypocritical world haha...fuck how do i un-believe if i'm alive and if there is a afterlife, i can never un-believe, we are trapped in this neverending hypocritical cycle of life and death haha...
that .5-5% was probably used to change from jesus walking accross a lake to walking on water and other little details like that amen , it only takes 1 word to change an entire meaning.
did you read the whole post? i am NOT stating this to be rude -- but your misguided conception was answered.
i was gonna edit my posting and say even if the bible wasn't touched i still find it a fairy tale. It was probably written by someone who really admired jesus and mixed reality with fantasy just to put him up on par with god.
even if it is 100% written the same as before, it proves nothing. I could write my own book and call it the word of god. Time does not in any way confirm the accuracy of its contents. If Harry Potter was read 1000 years later, would that mean that wizards existed? what makes you so sure that the bible was not in fact a carefully written story people made up years ago? another possibility( and this is gonna piss off a lot of religious people but someone has to say it ) is that these people were just following the ideas of a schizophrenic self-proclaimed messeger of god. Im sure uve seen that post in the "lounge" about the sex cult. Anyone can say they're a prophet but nowadays, we have medicines to treat these delusionals. alright, i understand that these words i have posted are quite harsh and u may be quite pissed upon reading them....but...its possible is it not? right now ur probably thinking: oh boy this kid is going straight to hell, but i think its better to questions things than follow them blindly. I
i dont believe in hell, im determined to go to Valhalla when i die. im pretty sure those vikings knew how to party hard, should be a good time. ^solid arguments there too.
okay. there can a be chance of what you've stated to be true. however, the evidences tells another story. The Bible spans over thousands and thousands of years. With over 40 different authors (most of whom are not even in the same generational span of their predecessors). However, all of the texts and prophecies coincide and complements with one another. how can it be? -pondering- it must be a conspiracy of some sort. i can see, the reasoning of falsified writers creating such a conspiracy within one generation of writing or even two to three. However, to have a conspiracy to run for thousands and thousands of years -- it is very unlikely and not logically-sound. So, one can assume that either it was long-falsified conspiracy of texts or it is the truth being written down. As Occam's razor states, "the simplest explanation is the best explanation" -- therefore supporting the latter of the reasonings. However, I think your statement is more direct toward the NT and the writings of the disciples of Christ Jesus. Let me ask you, do you have an ideal that you would stand for (against all odds)? If yes, is that ideal the truth or a lie? The disciples of Jesus Christ -- were killed in the thousands: men, women, children, and even the elderly were not sparred from the cruel punishment of death. Were all of the first and second generation of persecuted Christians within the Roman Empire crazy? Since, death was sentenced not only for the Christians men and women but also their families. So, their answers for their belief in Christ is not only to risk their only lives -- but also their families' lives. Such ideals and strength can only come from the truth. Especially when historically speaking, almost to none of the Christians resisted their arrests or their deaths. Now, if you have noticed, I did not limited these example to the 12 disciples, whom all died under the ruling of the Roman Empire. Some died with punishment so grotesque and evil -- that even the standard of horror movies of today would be consider censorial materials. So, one can only question that authenticity of the Bible and the authors of the Bible on the basis that the authors were all either crazy/part of a large conspiracy and lie -- or they all simply spoke the truth of Jesus Christ. that is for you to decide. and ps. -- it is not an oxymoron for a Christian to value logic.
ok im too lsleepy to research arguments against the first paragraph right now. but as for the second one, yes i do have ideals that i would stand for, is it truth or a lie? im not sure, and iwill never know and that is exactly my point. There is simply no way for me to find out if im right and wrong. it is all subjective, and it will always be. the same holds for jesus. Is he really the son of god? or is that just what he thinks he is. ( see dann's post on his apple thing) Another thing i would likie to point out is that paranoid schizophrenics believe wholeheartedly that someone or soething is out to get them. Would you conclude that just because they stand for these beliefs, that what they believe is the truth? The thing is, just because someone believes in something, it doesnt make it the truth. the same can be said about religion. as for ur argument about billions of people being killed for standing for their beliefs, ive heard this many many many times before from my friends, and i do not see the logic in such a statement. Because they stand up for their beliefs, those beliefs must be real? thats absurd. Millions of people supported the invasion of iraq because they believed BUsh's propaganda about weapons of mass destruction. At the end, they found out it was false. Im sure that many people at one point, believed in santa claus and were willing to defend the possibility of his existence against doubters. I am not saying that all those who died for their belief in christ are crazy. They don't HAVE to be crazy to follow these beliefs. Like ang said in an earlier comment, we used to believe that the world is flat. BUt this is only because of their ignorance and lack of exploration. WIth science, many things can now be explained. Ok im really sleepy so im gonna stop at that. But anyways, the main point here is the fact that these people risked their lives does nothing to prove that it is the truth.
True, time does not validate the existence of any written narrative for any literary work. However, time does validate the work's accuracy and authenticity -- and i believe that was what ang was asking about. but that's true for any written work -- without exterior research and evidences, the basis of literacies can be debated on whether it written in a fictional-sense or a non-fictional sense. Lets take your example that in a 1000 years -- people would read Harry Potter and would believe in the existences of wizards and such. True, if it was the only reasonable evidence for the existence of wizard. However, other evidences speaks otherwise -- even Rowling, herself, spoke in a press conference that witchcraft and the black arts are debatable and the book is pure fiction. But has external evidence contest otherwise for the Bible? If it has -- this debate and topic ends now. Since, if there is evidences that the Bible is nothing more than a fictional storyline, then there is no reason for anyone to believe in it. However, there is no current evidences to prove the Bible was written for fictional purposes -- but there are evidences that the Bible is an account of historically events. Historians would agree that the Bible -- speaking specifically on its historical issues, not religious issues -- is not false but accurate according to our historical time-line. Giving an account of events happening during a crucial time that otherwise without the Bible would have been unknown or unavailable for historians to investigate and learn. on your second point -- which i thought was quite rude -- but i guess you wanted to make a point. -_-2 no, it is not possible that any of the OT prophet were anything like the Family International cultists. You not only insulting the Christian, but also the Jews. But must ask, where is your proof that the prophets were delusional? What is your defense on making such an accusation? source: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/two.html
im too high for this but lets not put harry potter for a bad example i believe the bible to be mearly an exaggerated (fairy tale) historical document.
subjective? not at all -- the earliest Christian were questioned on their beliefs not because someone told them this is what they should believe -- but their own first-hand experience with truth (they saw Jesus Christ's death and resurrection) and they are defending for that truth. their beliefs were not based on opinionated views -- like do you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity? No, they were questioned whether they believe that Jesus Christ rosed from dead. And for the first generation of Christian (which is thoroughly written in the Bible) -- Jesus Christ did physically showed himself to thousands of old followers and new followers alike. (Why he did not simply just prove himself to the whole world -- the time has not come for that yet.) So, their belief is not subjective at all, but objective in nature. Since, it is factually based for their belief. Like if, you are questioned on who you had over for dinner? Therefore, they were not dying for an ideology that they simply believed in as doctrines or prophesied views. But they died for understanding they truly believed in and they witnessed. So, the significance of multitude dying under this questioning and reasoning -- would be validate and correct. since, only the crazy and the truthful would die for their beliefs, especially if their beliefs and views were supported by facts. Now, were these facts, the early Christian defend, truly "facts" or were they a series of fallacies? Such a question - retorts back to my explanation of Christian families (husband, wife, children, and more) killed under the Roman Empire. Did they all believe in this fallacy? And were all of them so determined to defend it till the end? Or were they speaking the truth?
i made a post concerning the accuracy of the Bible in another thread, ill post it here too seeing that the same question was asked again. >.< i think its much better when people say they simply don't believe in the bible instead of trying to justify it through trying to convince themselves the bible is not accurate or true. sooo if i stop believing in the existence of prisons and commit a serious crime then i wont end up in prison?...
aw man... you people had a debate when i was asleep.. anyways which reminds me.. i heard on th radio yesterday.. they found proof that there was someone who did all of which Christ did, but a millenia before him.. just an fyi.. but if thats the case, why didnt that person receive super status like Christ did?
^ exactly, did they say who this guy was? you hear silly things on the radio nowadays like how paedophiles are not to blame because there born like that.....
^ some guy in egypt.. didnt hear the whole thing cuz i was already home and getting out of the car lol anyways it IS plausible to have another person do the same thing as Christ.. you cant say for sure it is true, or false, therefore its a possibility. even so, what stops us from thinking that Jesus may not be the only one? in addition, what stops us from thinking Jesus didnt exist in the first place? hypothetically speaking of course.. for the sake of argument, lets call Christ a "Master". there are other "Masters" out there: "Buddha", "Prophet Mohammed" just to start off. but there are no evidence that shows the existence of these Masters, as well as there are no evidence to show they did not exist. so my point is, we cant be certain of the existence of a religious being, nor its converse. so would you agree that it is plausible that other "Masters" might have existed as well?
