Is The Bible Accurate?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You are nuts!

Open your heart. Jesus is calling you! Do not deliver yourselves to wolves and fools. Jesus Christ is the Messiah! This world is no all there is. He loves you. He is calling you. He is merciful and just! His words will not pass away!

Originally posted by powershaker
Actually, I can prove the universe is intelligently designed within an astronomical probability and so the most reputable scientists today.

Let's here it.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
Let's here it.

1.) if the neutron were any larger or smaller than the proton, life on Earth - as we know it could not exist.

2.) if the Sun were the tiniest bit closer to Earth, we would burn up and if it were much farther away we would freeze to death.

3.) Stars could not exist either, so therefore we could not exist.

There is more and more... but if you just count these three principles, the astronomical probability that the universe was no intelligently designed is somewhere like 1 in [WORD TOO LONG]... to be continued.

Originally posted by powershaker
1.) if the neutron were any larger or smaller than the proton, life on Earth - as we know it could not exist.

2.) if the Sun were the tiniest bit closer to Earth, we would burn up and if it were much farther away we would freeze to death.

3.) Stars could not exist either, so therefore we could not exist.

There is more and more... but if you ju ...[text shortened]... 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000... to be continued.

Perhaps you should take a course in maths. Or at least basic arithmacy.

Hint: you can also, you can represent a number in index form (without all the zero's).

I also suggest you speak to some other scientists. Perhaps the one who supplied your "principles" are reputable. But only because of being notoriously stupid.

Originally posted by DragonFriend
You might want to check into what it took for a writing to make the Biblical cannon. One of the criteria is that the writing had to be well circulated and accepted. This means that the stories in the writing were read by people who were actually there and could easily have dismissed them.

And it's not surprising that 4 authors who all wrote about one ...[text shortened]... fe would produce similar stories. Assuming, of course, that they all told the truth.



DF

Four hundred (or so, i can't remember exactky) years after Jesus died was an ecumenical council. The point was to establish whether Jesus was God. They heavily scrutinized the bible. Eventually Constantinople (i think, I really am terrible at remembering) decided to remove certain ambiguous passages and alter, and fabricate to make Jesus appear divine. This I was taught at my Catholic school. Because all the representatives were the Chistian authorities, it immediately had instant accpetance (it would have been among the only bibles). It had apostolic origin (though highly distotred). It was consistent with Church belief. And i am pretty sure it conformed to the other criteria (which i forgot.)

There are also many other gospels which were excluded because they didn't "conform" to what this council wanted.

Originally posted by genius
is putting a T where there should be a V really free will? you don't mean to make a mistake, do you? therefore, is it free will?

Its not so much typos but erred translations. There is an instance in which Luke's gospel predicts the birth of the saviour to a virgin. This has in fact been realised as a mistake (when it was compared with the original manuscript in Greek). I think Luke predicted the birth of the the saviour to a pure woman (which in the greek form did not imply sexual connotations). These mistakes have accumulated. Compare recent translations to old ones
and there is a significant difference.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Its not so much typos but erred translations. There is an instance in which Luke's gospel predicts the birth of the saviour to a virgin. This has in fact been realised as a mistake (when it was compared with the original manuscript in Greek). I think Luke predicted the birth of the the saviour to a pure woman (which in the greek form did not imply sexual co ...[text shortened]... e accumulated. Compare recent translations to old ones
and there is a significant difference.

Where knowledge is forsaken, ignorance reigns.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Four hundred (or so, i can't remember exactky) years after Jesus died was an ecumenical council. The point was to establish whether Jesus was God. They heavily scrutinized the bible. Eventually Constantinople (i think, I really am terrible at remembering) decided to remove certain ambiguous passages and alter, and fabricate to make Jesus appear divine. This ...[text shortened]... other gospels which were excluded because they didn't "conform" to what this council wanted.

I believe you're referencing the Council of Niccea, in 325 AD, which was convened to establish NT canon, not whether Jesus was God or not.
The foundation for NT Canon came from the Muratorian Canon, written in 180 AD which included the Gospels, Paul's letters, Acts, Jude, John, and Revelation. By 200 AD the NT collection included all present NT books except Hebrews and Revelation (Revelation was questioned for a long time due to its prophetic nature).
Contantine (who founded the city of Constantinople) was a Roman Emperor who made Christianity the official Roman religion in 324 AD.
As distinguished archeologist Dame Kathleen Kenyon said, "The interval between the date of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."
Kathleen Kenyon was the first female president of the Oxford Archeological Society. Was named Dame of the Order of the British Empire in 1973 by Queen Elizabeth II for her many accomplishments and contributions. (Dame is the female version of the knighthood title Sir) The British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem was officially renamed the Kenyon Institute on 10 July 2003 in honor of her.

DF

Originally posted by DragonFriend
I believe you're referencing the Council of Niccea, in 325 AD, which was convened to establish NT canon, not whether Jesus was God or not.
The foundation for NT Canon came from the Muratorian Canon, written in 180 AD which included the Gospels, Paul's letters, Acts, Jude, John, and Revelation. By 200 AD the NT collection included all present NT books e ...[text shortened]... Jerusalem was officially renamed the Kenyon Institute on 10 July 2003 in honor of her.

DF

I have two different bibles each translated by different people. They are extremely different in content. And their messages are equally disparate.

What I was trying to intimte is that Constantinople decided a lot of the literature that went into the bible (consider the apocrypha). You cannot establish which is more true: the apocrypha or the MMLJ gospels. The church basically decided which one suited their convictions most.

I cannot remeber which exact ecumenical council discoursed on Jesus' divinity though I know that certain aspects of the bible were exaggerated and fabricated. The probity of the bible still remains suspect despite assurances from obscure Oxford scholars.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Where knowledge is forsaken, ignorance reigns.

Could you elaborate?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Its not so much typos but erred translations. There is an instance in which Luke's gospel predicts the birth of the saviour to a virgin. This has in fact been realised as a mistake (when it was compared with the original manuscript in Greek). I think Luke predicted the birth of the the saviour to a pure woman (which in the greek form did not imply sexual co ...[text shortened]... e accumulated. Compare recent translations to old ones
and there is a significant difference.

can you find a source for this?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Could you elaborate?

To begin with, your posts are a great example of ignorance reigning. Issues which have (historically) been exhaustively studied and researched, established beyond any reasonable doubt, somehow become 'suspect' in the mind of no less a scholar than... you.

The assumed non-obscure 'scholars' you are able to cite in support of Biblical suspicion are the same agenda-laden rank-and-file who have been bouncing from one baseless objection to another for the whole of their adult lives, never able to solidify any of them. True critical analysis would suspect every source, including the final panel.

Were the Ark of Noah exposed publically to the world at large, it would be but a generation before doubt would enter into the minds of those who didn't see it firsthand.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Issues which have (historically) been exhaustively studied and researched, established beyond any reasonable doubt, somehow become 'suspect' in the mind of no less a scholar than... you.

Issues such as...?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Issues such as...?

Fill in the blank.
Accuracy of the Bible, existence of those whom the Bible records, events it purports, etc.

Those petty critics who would impose a modern perspective on ancient writings, and then turn their penetrating logic on the same are laughable. Equally pathetic, however, is the ignorance of Christians who rise in opposition to these same regurgitated non-sequiturs: for their inabililty to ascertain the transparency of the 'arguments,' for their ignorance of Church history, and for their abject lack of knowledge of orthodox doctrine.

Dark Ages, part deux, it appears, is just around the corner.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
To begin with, your posts are a great example of ignorance reigning. Issues which have (historically) been exhaustively studied and researched, established beyond any reasonable doubt, somehow become 'suspect' in the mind of no less a scholar than... you.

The assumed non-obscure 'scholars' you are able to cite in support of Biblical suspicion are the s ...[text shortened]... a generation before doubt would enter into the minds of those who didn't see it firsthand.

Well perhaps you could explain to me why my recent translation and outdated translation are different. Oh, i see: Its because of my doubt. Its because I haven't supplanted my doubt with complete ignorance to these inconsistencies. And of course any objection to the bible must be agenda-laden rank-and-file. Because it certainly isn't the other way around.