"Why won't God heal amputees?"

Sorcerer · Aug 9, 2006

I brought this topic up at my forum. And it seems that all the christians start saying that all the parts they disagree with are what men changed. For example the sexist part. Christians were saying "oh well man changed that part...and that part...and that part too...yea...the rest is all gods words though."

This is very flawed considering when I was raised up as a christian my priest said "the bible is all gods words, nothing has been changed."

So which one is it? It's funny to see how people can't even get their own religion right. Now the famous excuse is "all the parts that are bad were written by people who manipulated gods words." Yea...

saxon · Aug 10, 2006

Quote from archimedes:

Perhaps more accurate to say we are not "holding on" to our humanity so much as growing into it.

I was thinking of the 'kernel'.

You know what the kernel is...brother.

stu · Aug 10, 2006

Quote from nononsense:

I always admire your porridge logic.

Along with with Goldilocks then, you admire those things that are 'just right'.

jem · Aug 10, 2006

Quote from Sorcerer:

I brought this topic up at my forum. And it seems that all the christians start saying that all the parts they disagree with are what men changed. For example the sexist part. Christians were saying "oh well man changed that part...and that part...and that part too...yea...the rest is all gods words though."

This is very flawed considering when I was raised up as a christian my priest said "the bible is all gods words, nothing has been changed."

So which one is it? It's funny to see how people can't even get their own religion right. Now the famous excuse is "all the parts that are bad were written by people who manipulated gods words." Yea...

I think you need to be more specific. what has changed about the way your priest would read the bible since you were a kid.

As opposed to many other books there is not much criticism regarding Christians changing the substance of the bible. But first you have to pick your bible's language and translation.

the king james is still the king james. the revised king james is still the revised king james. Now there may be slight differences in the translatons because the people doing the translation may feel that they are providing a better understanding for the modern reader, but I have not heard anyone claiming the new testament has changed since you were a kid.

Free Thinker · Aug 10, 2006

Quote from jem:

Now there may be slight differences in the translatons because the people doing the translation may feel that they are providing a better understanding for the modern reader, but I have not heard anyone claiming the new testament has changed since you were a kid.

the last 10 verses of mark are left out of many new translations of the bible because they have been determined to be forged. i would say that is a big change and destroys the idea of an inerrant bible..there are many other changes. you can learn more here.

http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html

stu · Aug 10, 2006

Quote from jem:

the king james is still the king james. the revised king james is still the revised king james. Now there may be slight differences in the translatons because the people doing the translation may feel that they are providing a better understanding for the modern reader, but I have not heard anyone claiming the new testament has changed since you were a kid.

Right Sorcerer have you got it now?

The King James version was revised, but the King James Version is not the King James Revised version. The King James Revised version is the King James Revised version.

So the New Testament is still the same even though the King James version was revised. This is because the King James version is the King James Version and the KIng James Revised Version is the ..yes you guessed.. still the King James Revised version.

So neither has changed even though one of them has. Brilliant! There's nothing really quite like a christian apologist's explanation, is there?

jem · Aug 10, 2006

Vhehn raises some points that you should look into, I do not have the time now, but there are dozens of websites that explain the situation.

Although the cite he selected is of questionable value. It seems intent on predicting that the the Antichrist will come from Samsons tribe of Dan, be jewish, a meroviginan a zionist and controlled by the Rothschilds.

Finally, being that we do not have a dvd of Jesus live at the Temple or live lectures from the early writers of the new testament, and they did not speak in English, you know translation is going to be involved.

archimedes · Aug 10, 2006

Quote from saxon:

I was thinking of the 'kernel'.

You know what the kernel is...brother.

eh?

Not sure I do.

The place we came from ain't a place we want to go back to. The idea of some uncorrupted ideal lost to an idyllic past is a myth. Heck, even the 1950s were a lot uglier and grimmer than nostalgia makes them out to be. (Not that I was there.)

saxon · Aug 10, 2006

Quote from archimedes:

eh?

Not sure I do.

The place we came from ain't a place we want to go back to. The idea of some uncorrupted ideal lost to an idyllic past is a myth. Heck, even the 1950s were a lot uglier and grimmer than nostalgia makes them out to be. (Not that I was there.)

Perhaps it is an idyllic notion...but I want to think that not all of human nature has been shaped by adaptive considerations aimed at simple survival. We have the seed of something beautiful within us. Perhaps all species do.

The "kernel" is truth.

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

archimedes · Aug 10, 2006

Quote from saxon:

Perhaps it is an idyllic notion...but I want to think that not all of human nature has been shaped by adaptive considerations aimed at simple survival. We have the seed of something beautiful within us. Perhaps all species do.

I'd say it's more of an emergent property...