"Take the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (Gen., Exo., Lev., Num., Deut.) for instance. The first four of show evidence of having been written by three distinctly different writers, based off of word usage and stuff such as that."

Okay no, the first 5 books of the Bible (Gen., Exo., Lev., Num, Deut.) are called the Torah. And they were written by Moses. Even non-believers know that...

quote:

worthwaitingfor- what do you mean i think the bible is full of contradictions? i know the bible is full of contradictions and scientists have proven that its not all translation errors and using a book as "guidelines" is letting it govern you... laws for instance are guidelines that govern us... and by the by at least i have read the entire bible and know enough that you are too ignorant to realize when you are being lied to... have fun with false hope... is that insulting enough? are you going to go crying to your rosary and your saint statues now? (people I am not really this mean... I am only mean to the christians that are closed minded to just about everything and I do have the utmost respect for christianiy... I think jesus preached nice things that could help people, but c'mon raising the dead?? how is that believable?)

You obviously have not read enough of my 600+ posts because I am definitely not a close-minded Christian. I am pro-choice and support gay marriage unlike many of my fellow Chirstians who are close-minded. This is what I meant when I said the Bible is more like a set of guidelines. I don't follow every verse word for word...I look at the Bible as a whole and I look at the history behind the passages before I make my own decisions about what I should do. I use it as a tool to help me make my decisions but I don't let it make my decisions for me.

Give me the scientific proof. Give it to me word for word with a direct source. I don't understand how science can prove a religious text is false. Did they go up to Heaven and talk to God to ask Him about these supposed contradictions?

I haven't had time to read the entire Bible though I do plan on doing it one day. I've read enough to know how to read it....which, obviously, you haven't done. And I have no idea what you're talking about with "false hope." The only hope I carry with me is real.

I'm not going to cry because some dick*head like you said a few nasty things to me. Catholics use rosaries and saint statues. I am not Catholic. Great job with knowing your material there.

You certainly don't sound like you have the "upmost respect for Christianity" by calling all those who follow it gullible.

A valid point. I will check into this book and give it a look over, see what I think.

According to the Bible, "there was evening and there was morning," implying that the seven days of creation did indeed have earthly time, most likely the 24 hours of our days now. However, the billions of years before Adam had to occur somewhere, so that brings up the problem of how several billion years fits into a week. The solution to this is relativity. Time here is not the same as time elsewhere. So what was seven 24-hour periods on Earth would come out to be several billion years at some other point in the Universe.

This is just one of many theories out there (yours is another), but I like the relativity idea the best. It was outlined in Gerald Schroeder's book "The Science of God". It actually makes quite a lot of sense.

As for the dinosaurs, perhaps they were included in that time before Adam, perhaps not. People ask why the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs and my answer is always, "Why would it?" The Bible is a history book and a religious text, not a biology textbook.

Alright clpo, here is my take on the Genesis. If Heaven and Hell are not bound by time, and the Creation took place in seven days, could not the days as well not had time? If scientists will not back down from their facts that the world is billions of years old, and the Bible dates the age of the earth to be several thousand years old, could not have creation been timeless? Maybe seven days to God were those several billion years? They date back dinosaurs several million years old, and suddenly dying out. What if God created them and decided they weren't what he was looking for, and just destroyed them all? Some say it was the flood that killed the dinosaurs, but what if they were all dead before man was even created? What if all the periods or prehistoric life took place before the seven days was up? I think that would explain all the lost time between carbon-14 dating and Biblical dates. Just a theory.

quote:

You are thinking that heaven and hell must be large, but you are thinking in man terms. God is something that man's mind cannot comprehend, so why would heaven or hell be any easier to guess at size, heat, number of souls, etc.

True. I guess I got caught up in the anthropomorphic trend. I guess if God can take the billions of years from the creation of the Universe to the dawn of modern man and cram it into a 144 hour period of time, He can fit all the souls from Adam to the Rapture in Heaven, if there is a Heaven. I still like my recycling idea, though.

quote:

Originally posted by Barkid:
As for Aguagon's reference of christians "conveniently" using translation and metaphor to chase away criticism, what would you rather we do? It is known that the bible has been translated and retranslated in many different forms and languages.

Poor phrasing on my part. What I mean to say is, I'm sick of Christians selectively choosing to acknowledge that much of the Bible was lost in translation and cannot be taken literally. As I stated in my example, whether Bible passages are taken literally or metaphorically is entirely dependent on the society they're implemented in. Hence, religion-based prejudices are only allowed to survive because they're validated by the Bible, and they're only validated by the Bible because so many of those "spreading the word of Christ" choose to take certain parts literally rather than metaphorically. The reason they're allowed to do that is because we live in a society in which many people live by religious prejudices, mainly because they believe their prejudices are validated by the Bible. It's a vicious cycle.

My point is that we need to either accept the text, as a whole, as literal and concrete or symbolic and metaphorical. We can't have it both ways. Obviously the former choice is riddled with problems, so I'm for the latter. What I can't stand in those who are for the latter except for when the former is validating their prejudices.

CLPO13: I find your views on the afterlife intriguing. While none of us know what is going to happen other than what is written, you have to take into consideration that man has no knowledge or comprehending of that thing called "the soul". You are thinking that heaven and hell must be large, but you are thinking in man terms. God is something that man's mind cannot comprehend, so why would heaven or hell be any easier to guess at size, heat, number of souls, etc.
As for Aguagon's reference of christians "conveniently" using translation and metaphor to chase away criticism, what would you rather we do? It is known that the bible has been translated and retranslated in many different forms and languages. There is still speculation that the vatican archives may even be hiding extra parts of the bible that would hurt the catholic church's stranglehold on christianity. God makes things perfect and man corrupts them, why would the bible be any different? From the first time it was written down it probably started containing errors and bad grammar, as it was man trying to convey the thoughts of God.
As for 3rdeyecure and his funny statement about living in hell... I hope you feel that way when You BURN in FIERY CONDEMNATION. well, not really but you get the idea. Worshipping Satan is about worshipping yourself, of course it's probably fun, but you'll pay if christianity is right, which you must believe if you worship satan...

I'm sure I'll take all kinds of crap for this, but frankly, I'm getting fed up with the "translation and metaphors" argument. I'm not saying it doesn't have logical merit, I'm just saying it's one big convenient excuse to constantly re-shape Christianity to accomodate a changing world.

And what's so bad about that? Well nothing, I suppose, if you recognize it for what it is. But what bothers me to no end is that a large number of Christians seem eager to present the "translation and metaphors" argument regarding some issues, while sticking to the Bible as if it were to be taken literally on others. Take, for example, an imaginary America in which Civil Rights issues progressed entirely differently. What if right now, nearly all Americans supported fully equal rights for homosexuals (socially and legally), but less than half were set against slavery? In such a situation, I can guarantee you the parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality would be accepted as either metaphorical or lost in translation, while the parts that approve slavery would be screamed from conservative churches along with such catchy slogans as "every time a slave escapes, baby Jesus weeps."

My point is that if we accept that some parts of the Bible are metaphorical, lost in translation, or just plain incorrect, then we have to accept that the same could just as easily apply to any part of the Bible. As a result, all of us have to give our views a thorough look-over from a secular viewpoint. In other words, we all have to be willing to keep the good parts, ditch the bad parts, and expose the senselessly bigoted parts.

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
That's rich. Well, you'd better ditch your half-polyester half-cotton shirts and socks and exile yourself outside your town every time you have a wet dream. (see Leviticus)

Nice. I bet the whole metaphor argument is looking pretty good about now, eh, BushFan?

I wouldn't mind at all, Jenos. Ask whatever comes to mind.

I have already been there, interesting views I must say.

Clpo, you have interesting views on Christianity, much outside the norm. Would you mind discussing it a bit more, or should I bring it up in your other thread?

quote:

if anyone is actually daring enough to check it out its churchofsatan.com and go to theory-practice to find what it is all about.

I love how you say that "daring enough". Hah. I'm more scared of nuns that of satanists.

quote:

actually i wish i could be satan if the after-life existed... get to live in a nice warm place, always decorate in reds and oranges and blacks, take revenge on people that are cruel... that'd be the absolute satanic shizznit man

Hehe.

quote:

do you only believe in an after-life because you truly have faith in it or is it simply because you want to believe it and can't stand the thought of ceasing to exist?

Afterlife? I actually don't believe in the afterlife that most Christians do. Yes, I am Christian, but I have slightly different ideas about the Big Deal, and I've gotten burned as much as any atheist or pagan. My afterlife is more of a non-existence where is there is no suffering, yet it's not a paradise. It's just there. After a certain amount of time, your soul (which has been in deep slumber since your death) goes back into the world into a new body, yet remembers nothing about the previous life. This way, you can account for a sort of Divine Recycling. It just seems foolish to have all these billions and billions of new souls that are born and die every day. Heaven (and by rote, Hell) would have to be e-flippin-normous.

actually i wish i could be satan if the after-life existed... get to live in a nice warm place, always decorate in reds and oranges and blacks, take revenge on people that are cruel... that'd be the absolute satanic shizznit man

-e

what are you talking about? are you being serious or just kidding?

-e

quote:

i am satanic

Oh. So you are Satan.

worthwaitingfor- what do you mean i think the bible is full of contradictions? i know the bible is full of contradictions and scientists have proven that its not all translation errors and using a book as "guidelines" is letting it govern you... laws for instance are guidelines that govern us... and by the by at least i have read the entire bible and know enough that you are too ignorant to realize when you are being lied to... have fun with false hope... is that insulting enough? are you going to go crying to your rosary and your saint statues now? (people I am not really this mean... I am only mean to the christians that are closed minded to just about everything and I do have the utmost respect for christianiy... I think jesus preached nice things that could help people, but c'mon raising the dead?? how is that believable?)

clpo13- i was thinking of metioning those things in the bible, but thought it would be pointless to put them in.

if anyone wants to go to an interesting site the church of satan is really cool... it's not at all what most people think it is... it definitly is not anti-christianity, even though it started like that it has now gone down a more "pagan" path to its original roots. i am satanic, but i do not really believe in a higher being. i just think the satanic rules are good to live by... if anyone is actually daring enough to check it out its churchofsatan.com and go to theory-practice to find what it is all about.

this is just a thought... do you only believe in an after-life because you truly have faith in it or is it simply because you want to believe it and can't stand the thought of ceasing to exist?

-e

quote:

I'm sorry, but that's not right. You have to believe everything or nothing at all

That's rich. Well, you'd better ditch your half-polyester half-cotton shirts and socks and exile yourself outside your town every time you have a wet dream. (see Leviticus)

3rdeyecure: Frankly, yes, the Bible has many errors and contradictions. This is for a few reasons. One, as Barkid said, is translation error. Another is the fact that the Bible was written by many different people, not, as some people erroneously say, God. Take the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (Gen., Exo., Lev., Num., Deut.) for instance. The first four of show evidence of having been written by three distinctly different writers, based off of word usage and stuff such as that.

For instance, Genesis chapter 1 says that man and woman were created at the same time, yet Genesis 2 states that Adam was created and got lonely, thus God created Eve a while later. And Deuteronomy...a completely different person. Thus, there would naturally be contradictions.

However, there are rarely any lies in the Bible. It was written by highly educated men, even if it was millenia ago. They knew what they were talking about.

Point out a contradiction (and it's location in the Bible), and I'll gladly explain it to you.

First of all, thank you for saying I'm gullible for believing in the Bible.
I agree with Barkid, about the different translations. But seeing as you obviously don't believe in the Bible, why should it matter to you what it says? Half the things you said were completely stupid, and they were things that people who believe in God would know. As for the comment about how someone can believe in the Bible, all I can say is that's what it's all about. Blind faith, or believing without seeing. I don't need proof to know that God is real and the things in the Bible happened.
As for the people that said you don't believe in certain parts of the Bible, I'm sorry, but that's not right. You have to believe everything or nothing at all. How can you believe in God, or Adam and Eve, without believing in Satan? How can you not believe in the Judgement Day? That's a big part of the Bible...
And Celtic...sin is what the Bible is mostly about. Jesus died on the cross to save people from their sins...
So basically what I'm saying is you can't say, "Well I believe in God, but not this part of Him or that part of Him." That's not what Christianity is about.

3rdeyecure

It would've been nice if you'd actually bothered respecting Christians and Christianity while saying you think the Bible is full of contradictions. I don't appreciate being called gullible for what I believe in. I would like to know what you believe in so I can say something equally condescending to you.

That being said, the Bible, to me, is more of a history book. It tells about the Earth being created, God's teachings, and Jesus's teachings. It's supposed to explain why we're here and what we're living for and partially how to live it. By the way, I guarantee most of those so-called "contradictions" were between the Old Testament and New Testament, which slightly discredits them. You say the Bible lies because you don't believe in it. That's all there is to it.

I do think for myself and I don't let some book govern my life. That comment was very insulting. To me, the Bible is more like guidelines. I try to lead a good life (which is what the Bible teaches Christians to do) and do what I'm supposed to do (which doesn't mean every word the Bible says---it simply means knowing right from wrong). Christians are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves.

I haven't read the entire Bible. But I've read enough and know enough about it to know that you don't know what you're talking about. You're obviously not Christian so how can you argue about the Bible lying when you don't even believe in it in the first place?

Could ya try arguing this topic without the rude, gratuitous comments?