The Christian Taliban

#301
#301
joevol320 said:
PK have you studied the Biblical manuscripts? I would say not. what fail to understand that there were thousands of manuscripts that were translated or years by multiple people. the translations that we get the king james and new kings james were very accurate. if you're talking talk about a topic, maybe try studying it some.
Click to expand...

:eek:lol:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#303
#303
joevol320 said:
PK have you studied the Biblical manuscripts? I would say not. what fail to understand that there were thousands of manuscripts that were translated or years by multiple people. the translations that we get the king james and new kings james were very accurate. if you're talking talk about a topic, maybe try studying it some.
Click to expand...

Having a bunch of copies of something doesn't make the claims true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#305
#305
Grand Vol said:
More of the answer I was looking for originally.




No overarching point. Just seeing if you believed in any of the historical context (and not just geographic locations) that the Bible possibly provides.

Mercy, you don't believe in religion. I accept that and have my own beliefs. I don't ask you believe in what I do and I don't ridicule you for not believing. I take a more practical approach to see what your boundaries are so to speak. I'll admit the very strong likelihood that many of the stories (especially the OT) are metaphorical, but the moral of the story is what matters. You admit not everything in the Bible is made up.

Give and take.
Click to expand...

I see you're being very diplomatic and I appreciate it, but I'd be lying if I said I wholly understand what you are trying to communicate to me. You admit that a lot of the bible is metaphorical and the miracles it describes can only be accepted on faith alone. That puts you ahead of most religious folk. I admit the possibility that Jesus(as a man) was a historical figure. I'm don't think this agreement is any revelation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#308
#308
joevol320 said:
gaytorfan. there are thousands of archeological finding that were mention 1st in the Bible but later found through archeology. Daniel's prophecy was proven 100% correct to the point that historians claimed the Bible was written after the prophesized events happened. yet further study showed it was written thousands of years prior. the Bible predicted Christ birth which also true, predicted Israel would become a nation which was true.

gaytorfan you should actually study the Bible instead of making ignorant assumptions son.
Click to expand...

Joe is the type of person that makes me question the bare minimum amount of intelligence required to function in daily life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#313
#313
joevol320 said:
Daniel's prophecy was proven 100% correct to the point that historians claimed the Bible was written after the prophesized events happened. yet further study showed it was written thousands of years prior.
Click to expand...

How could Daniel's prophecies have been written "thousands of years prior" to the events they foretell when Daniel, himself, lived between the 7th and 6th centuries B.C.?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#314
#314
joevol320 said:
the translations that we get the king james and new kings james were very accurate. if you're talking talk about a topic, maybe try studying it some.
Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you, but the reason the New King James exists is because the King James was a pretty lousy translation. The Dead Sea Scrolls pretty much laid waste to large chunks of the KJV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#315
#315
MercyPercy said:
I see you're being very diplomatic and I appreciate it, but I'd be lying if I said I wholly understand what you are trying to communicate to me. You admit that a lot of the bible is metaphorical and the miracles it describes can only be accepted on faith alone. That puts you ahead of most religious folk. I admit the possibility that Jesus(as a man) was a historical figure. I'm don't think this agreement is any revelation.
Click to expand...

What am I trying to communicate? That having faith is not quite as ridiculous as you make it sound most of the time. Not everyone is as ignorant as Ken Ham (as I believe he does more to hurt the cause of religion more than he helps) And do take a practical approach to religion.

It took a big step for you to admit that things in the Bible could have been true as its something you've never admitted before. And it's not a huge deal for those that use religion and the Bible as a guide aren't as nutty as the ones that over use it like Ham. There are plenty of folks out there that realize a lot of things in life can't be answered through science or logic and use faith to fill in the gaps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#316
#316
If people believe everything in the Bible word for word, why do they disregard the single most important night of Jesus life and the Last Supper? "This is my body, This is my blood. Do this in memory of me"
 
#317
#317
joevol320 said:
PK have you studied the Biblical manuscripts? I would say not. what fail to understand that there were thousands of manuscripts that were translated or years by multiple people. the translations that we get the king james and new kings james were very accurate. if you're talking talk about a topic, maybe try studying it some.
Click to expand...

Yeah, PKT and Percy need to go get bent. Go study, haterz.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#320
#320
VolsSportsFan said:
And what "further study" proved they were written before the events?
Click to expand...

For someone who has thrown out "you haven't read enough Scripture" at more than one poster in this thread (one of those posters was me), joe shows a baffling lack of anything more than a surface knowledge of those Scriptures.

Even if he'd read "further study" to show that Daniel's prophecy was written thousands of years prior to the events foretold, had he actually read the Book of Daniel, he should have immediately thought "this study is absolute garbage."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#321
#321
Grand Vol said:
What am I trying to communicate? That having faith is not quite as ridiculous as you make it sound most of the time. Not everyone is as ignorant as Ken Ham (as I believe he does more to hurt the cause of religion more than he helps) And do take a practical approach to religion.

It took a big step for you to admit that things in the Bible could have been true as its something you've never admitted before. And it's not a huge deal for those that use religion and the Bible as a guide aren't as nutty as the ones that over use it like Ham. There are plenty of folks out there that realize a lot of things in life can't be answered through science or logic and use faith to fill in the gaps.
Click to expand...

I do not think that granting the premise of Jesus as a historical figure removes any amount of ridiculousness from the things I think are ridiculous about the bible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#322
#322
MercyPercy said:
I do not think that granting the premise of Jesus as a historical figure removes any amount of ridiculousness from the things I think are ridiculous about the bible.
Click to expand...

Jesus is just alright with me.
 
#323
#323
The irony here is guy like Ham are being more honest than most. Let's face it, 500 years ago that would have been cutting edge science accepted as mainstream. It's only now, given what modern reason has proven about the cosmos that we get this allegory explanation. The fact that guys like Ham still have followers even in this day in age, however small of a minority they may be, is an outstanding testament to how close people want to hold on to their beliefs, no matter what evidence is out in front of them. Believing a man rose from the dead, was born of a virgin, and walked on water...all literally, is on the same playing field as a literal belief in the creation story and the earth being anything other than billions of year old. They are all as equally improbable. It's just still mainstream to believe these things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#325
#325
rjd970 said:
Believing a man rose from the dead, was born of a virgin, and walked on water...all literally, is on the same playing field as a literal belief in the creation story and the earth being anything other than billions of year old. They are all as equally improbable. It's just still mainstream to believe these things.
Click to expand...

Not quite.

Even if, like me, one accepts all of these as the miraculous work of God, science has proven that, miracle or not, Creation didn't happen 6,000 years ago.

Science hasn't ruled out the resurrection, nativity, or walking on water.

So, one is impossible, while the others are improbable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top