Political opinions

Unedited? More like edited for 2000 years untill it was ready for massive publish in 1460 or around it... Untill than the whole bible was changed numerous times. You can see it all in the book. I've spent almost 11 years in school studying that stuff...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures

One such edit.


Any religion that needs to alter it to back its beliefs is a crap one in my opinion.

So you're an atheist ? . You dont have to search for truth in religion you wont find it. It may teach you important things if you know how to read it.

The old testament has been around for about 2000 years:

The following is a list of the oldest Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament that are still in existence.

The Dead Sea Scrolls: date from 200 B.C. - 70 A.D. and contain the entire book of Isaiah and portions of every other Old Testament book but Esther.
Geniza Fragments: portions the Old Testament in Hebrew and Aramaic, discovered in 1947 in an old synagogue in Cairo, Egypt, which date from about 400 A.D.
Ben Asher Manuscripts: five or six generations of this family made copies of the Old Testament using the Masoretic Hebrew text, from 700-950 A.D. The following are examples of the Hebrew Masoretic text-type.
Aleppo Codex: contains the complete Old Testament and is dated around 950 A.D. Unfortunately over one quarter of this Codex was destroyed in anti-Jewish riots in 1947.
Codex Leningradensis: The complete Old Testament in Hebrew copied by the last member of the Ben Asher family in A.D. 1008.

And the new testamant for almost about that long:

There are over 5,600 early Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament that are still in existence. The oldest manuscripts were written on papyrus and the later manuscripts were written on leather called parchment.

125 A.D. The New Testament manuscript which dates most closely to the original autograph was copied around 125 A.D, within 35 years of the original. It is designated "p 52" and contains a small portion of John 18. (The "p" stands for papyrus.)
200 A.D. Bodmer p 66 a papyrus manuscript which contains a large part of the Gospel of John.
200 A.D. Chester Beatty Biblical papyrus p 46 contains the Pauline Epistles and Hebrews.
225 A.D. Bodmer Papyrus p 75 contains the Gospels of Luke and John.
250-300 A.D. Chester Beatty Biblical papyrus p 45 contains portions of the four Gospels and Acts.
350 A.D. Codex Sinaiticus contains the entire New Testament and almost the entire Old Testament in Greek. It was discovered by a German scholar Tisendorf in 1856 at an Orthodox monastery at Mt. Sinai.
350 A.D. Codex Vaticanus: {B} is an almost complete New Testament. It was cataloged as being in the Vatican Library since 1475.

Sir Tielton wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures

One such edit.


Any religion that needs to alter it to back its beliefs is a crap one in my opinion.

Well Jehovah Witnesses are a bunch of crap anyway. A disgrace to the rest of the Christian community.

I am a Evangelical Friend, or a Quaker.

also

Regarding the NWT's use of English in the 1953 first volume of the NWT (Genesis to Ruth), Dr. Harold H. Rowley (1890–1969) was critical of what he called "wooden literalism" and "harsh construction." He characterized these as "an insult to the Word of God", citing various verses of Genesis as examples. Rowley concluded, "From beginning to end this [first] volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."[57] Rowley's published review is dated January 1953, six months before the volume was actually released;[58][59] Rowley did not update his review following the July 1953 release or the 1961 revision, and he died before the release of later revisions in 1970, 1971, and 1984.

Dr. William Barclay, Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism, concluded that "the deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in the New Testament translation. ... It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."

They don't know how to spell god's name correctly BTW . Did you know that god has a true name written in the bible. Problems is that unlike Latin, the Hebrew does not use letters to give sound to words (no idea how to put it correctly in English) . The word "collapse" in Hebrew is written krs. Unreadable isn't ? well as I know this word I know how to read it correctly: Karas. At first you learn to use different dots and signs around the letters that mark their sound. After that you know how to read correctly naturally, as a result you get short, easy to follow and fast to write words. OFC it also makes trouble with old words from the bible. The same krs can be spelled as Keres , means hook. The interesting thing about gods name in the bible is that it's unreadable in those ways: JHVH ... go ahead and read that . It's said that those who know how to read it correctly will have allot of power, in case you want to learn Hebrew

They spelled it as JeHoVaH but there is a good chance it's wrong.

Danice123 wrote:

But on the point of truth, I personally believe that everything in the Bible can be taken as fact. Any book that can hang around for 2000 years unedited must be a little more than a few fairy tales

Wow. I know lots of people who are religious, and lots of people who believe in the Christian bible, but not even Reverend <CLASSIFIED> says that the stories in there are literal fact. For example, the bit about the walls of Jericho (might have been a different city, I sorta zoned out during bible class) falling down when they had horns blown at them. Or a guy whose strength is directly proportionate to the length of his hair. Or the demons infesting the herd of pigs. Even the most religious people I know say to take those types of stories with a grain of salt.

I will also note that after the Israelites blew down the walls, they killed and raped the entire population of the city, except for that one woman, whats-her-name -_0.

Do you mean Yahweh, Iv?

Danice123 wrote:

Iv121 wrote:

You didn't read what I wrote didn’t you ? All ALL religious text are political. You won’t find the truth in words. You find a truth after very deep analysing of the time, of the text itself and other texts around it.
Besides interesting what Jesus the Jew thinks about it

Which you did, didn't you...

But on the point of truth, I personally believe that everything in the Bible can be taken as fact. Any book that can hang around for 2000 years unedited must be a little more than a few fairy tales

unedited?!?!? yeah right.

LJS's version of the name is probably closer to the original ...

Iv121 wrote:

LJS's version of the name is probably closer to the original ...

Hey, I was right. Or close to right.

You know, there are very few things more depressing than debating theology on the Internet.

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

Danice123 wrote:

But on the point of truth, I personally believe that everything in the Bible can be taken as fact. Any book that can hang around for 2000 years unedited must be a little more than a few fairy tales

Wow. I know lots of people who are religious, and lots of people who believe in the Christian bible, but not even Reverend <CLASSIFIED> says that the stories in there are literal fact. For example, the bit about the walls of Jericho (might have been a different city, I sorta zoned out during bible class) falling down when they had horns blown at them. Or a guy whose strength is directly proportionate to the length of his hair. Or the demons infesting the herd of pigs. Even the most religious people I know say to take those types of stories with a grain of salt.

I will also note that after the Israelites blew down the walls, they killed and raped the entire population of the city, except for that one woman, whats-her-name -_0.

Do you mean Yahweh, Iv?

Many of those thing that you deem impossible happen in real life today. Jericho? Have you ever heard of an earthquake? How about dividing the red sea? Possible. Blow a strong wind across a river and it divides. Its been proven. Plus your not counting the fact that there is a God. And that there are demons. And that there is a Satan. And that miracles still happen, even today. Many missionaries have attested to that fact.

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

You know, there are very few things more depressing than debating theology on the Internet.

I disagree. Maybe if there were more people discussing this stuff more people would actually THINK about something greater than their day to day activities.

If it was that depressing you wouldn't be sitting here discussing it. Personally I find it more interesting, more tense. As long as we know how to discuss topics correctly we will all learn something from this. I can even say that you are a bit interested in what's happening here, as you reply quite frequently, just as I do...

NINJA'ED!

One a bit personal question - why do you belive in god ? in demons ?

Did you know that the only "demon" mentioned in the genesis book is our own evil urge ? The bible actually says that we cannot blame demons in the fact we chose the morally bad choice. There are actually no mentions of demons in those books. I don't remember exactly the stuff about the Satan, but I think hes sort of god's informer about us.

While Genesis doesn't mention demons, the New Testament mentions them quite a deal. There are many mentions of Jesus and the apostles casting out Demons, and the devil himself tempted Jesus.

But I agree with your point "The bible actually says that we cannot blame demons in the fact we chose the morally bad choice." It does exactly that. Demons and the Devil can't make us do bad things, just tempt us to. In the end, its always our choice.

Why I believe in God...

I have looked at many of the different views and have decided that God makes the most sense. Faith really is the answer to that question.

Wow, danice, you're awesome!

although I'm Roman/Tridentine catholic

even though I listen to korn...

Sir Tielton wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures

One such edit.


Any religion that needs to alter it to back its beliefs is a crap one in my opinion.

jehovas witnesses aren't really christian...

or am I thinking of mormons...

anyway why does that make it bad? unless of course it's on the scale of mitt Romney

either way nothing of the catholic church has changed much, at the core, since Christ

also, if you think about it, atheism is satanism, what could serve his needs/wants better?

Danice123 wrote:

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

Danice123 wrote:

But on the point of truth, I personally believe that everything in the Bible can be taken as fact. Any book that can hang around for 2000 years unedited must be a little more than a few fairy tales

Wow. I know lots of people who are religious, and lots of people who believe in the Christian bible, but not even Reverend <CLASSIFIED> says that the stories in there are literal fact. For example, the bit about the walls of Jericho (might have been a different city, I sorta zoned out during bible class) falling down when they had horns blown at them. Or a guy whose strength is directly proportionate to the length of his hair. Or the demons infesting the herd of pigs. Even the most religious people I know say to take those types of stories with a grain of salt.

I will also note that after the Israelites blew down the walls, they killed and raped the entire population of the city, except for that one woman, whats-her-name -_0.

Do you mean Yahweh, Iv?

Many of those thing that you deem impossible happen in real life today. Jericho? Have you ever heard of an earthquake? How about dividing the red sea? Possible. Blow a strong wind across a river and it divides. Its been proven. Plus your not counting the fact that there is a God. And that there are demons. And that there is a Satan. And that miracles still happen, even today. Many missionaries have attested to that fact.

I'm happy to admit that the stories in the bible are based on things that actually happened (although the Red Sea thing has many more similarities to a tsunami, including the temporary drawing back and then crashing back in). An earthquake may well have knocked down Jericho's walls. I just don't think that that has anything to do with divine intervention. We don't need to postulate some superior being when we already have tectonic plates.

CoalMiningAlchemist wrote:

Sir Tielton wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures

One such edit.


Any religion that needs to alter it to back its beliefs is a crap one in my opinion.

jehovas witnesses aren't really christian...

or am I thinking of mormons...

anyway why does that make it bad? unless of course it's on the scale of mitt Romney

either way nothing of the catholic church has changed much, at the core, since Christ

also, if you think about it, atheism is satanism, what could serve his needs/wants better?

...Satanism? I've heard atheists called a lot of things, but I've never heard anyone say we're the same as satanists.

I will also point out that at the time of Christ there was no Catholic church.

Cool it in here. Abuse and debate are different.

Anyway, I see no reason for God or gods to exist.

Keon wrote:

Cool it in here. Abuse and debate are different.

Anyway, I see no reason for God or gods to exist.

Creation

To expound: The second law of Thermodynamics

I admit I don't know that. But how do you know that god created it and not Mackeroth or whatever he claims happened.

Keon wrote:

I admit I don't know that. But how do you know that god created it and not Mackeroth or whatever he claims happened.

As above, faith. I don't pretend to have any solid proof I'm right, but its what I believe.

Danice123 wrote:

Keon wrote:

I admit I don't know that. But how do you know that god created it and not Mackeroth or whatever he claims happened.

As above, faith. I don't pretend to have any solid proof I'm right, but its what I believe.

Good, that I accept.

Keon wrote:

Danice123 wrote:

Keon wrote:

I admit I don't know that. But how do you know that god created it and not Mackeroth or whatever he claims happened.

As above, faith. I don't pretend to have any solid proof I'm right, but its what I believe.

Good, that I accept.

Yeah. This is is what makes it depressing. Logic cannot change belief. I do not believe in any deity; no amount of arguing will change that. CMA does believe in a deity; no amount of arguing will change that.