Fundies are often easier to deal with then "moderate-conservative" Christians.

One major problem I have with them is that they ignore the attrocities in the Old Testament and

they will readily and eagarly tell me why.


"Well, sure, there were a lot of bad things mentioned in the Old Testament, but that was because the people didn't understand the word of God correctly. That's why Jesus came, to correct us. He came to teach us that God is about love."


Okay, so I'm still stumbling a bit to answer this, and as you may well know, if you stumble at all... theists call "victory."



Thank you

Views: 114

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

If you wish to read the original New Testament, Greek is not the way to go... you will need to read the Aramaic. Although I don't know if that is even still available.
Although I would like to point out something I did in my recent blog "Reality Check: The "Virgin" Mary" - Mary was most certainly NOT a virgin [at least not by modern standards]. In the ancient Hebrew the word "Alma" meant both "virgin" and "young woman." Yet what many christians don't understand is that those words were synonyms to the ancient Hebrews. A "virgin" was not a woman who had never had sex, it was simply a "young woman."

My point? It is NOT enough to simply check the bible for translation errors. If you wish to understand, you must know the historical context in which it was written. If you have ever read shakespeare you will get an idea of what I mean. Many words [and phrases] in shakespeare have entirely different meanings in the 21st century.
The Bible is no different. People can EASILY misinterpret it when they don't understand the historical context.
The Bible was written for an audience in the bronze age, 2000 + years ago.
It is impossible to completely understand it just by looking for translation errors. You will probably have to take a class in the culture of the time.
But isn't god supposed to be all-knowing? I am still trying to figure out how he couldn't have dictated a book that would help us out all through the ages, not just in the tent-dwelling, disease-infested, science-deprived times? What's up with that?
Or maybe it says that the original Bible no longer exists, if such a thing even existed, and what we have right now is essentially a product of a game of telephone, i.e. a translation of a translation of a translation, and basically a work of fiction.

or it should be translated into modern English

That's NOT what you said. You said audiences should keeping getting a new version of The Bible. I believe your words were "anything less than 400 years old" as if age makes something invalid. All the older Bibles were written in the language appropriate for the country, and that included English. However that STILL doesn't change the context of what was written inside, hence my last paragraph in the above post.
So do you use the formal you and the informal thou in your everyday language.Do you call donkeys asses as a normal way of referring to them. The English Language has changed is it too much to ask that it be translated into a more understandable version that people actually use today.. We have accurate reflections of the original Greek New Testament up to 99% if you want the discrepancies where we cant be certain what it orignally said I will give them to you.

Revelation 13
18(AZ)Here is wisdom Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that (BA)of a man; and his number is [d]six hundred and sixty-six.

18(AZ)Here is wisdom Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that (BA)of a man; and his number is [d]six hundred and sixteen/

WOOA THAT CHAGNES EVERYTHING THE BIBLE SAYS, not really that does not matter at al;/ Lets see if the other one is more condemning

1 John
4(P)These things we write, so that our (Q)joy may be made complete.
4(P)These things we write, so that your (Q)joy may be made complete.

WOA A ONE LETTER DIFFERENCE (both in Greek and English). How can anyone trust the Bible with these numerous discrepancies. I mean you could take the different meanings and change the entirety of Christian Doctrine
Im sorry my sarcasm didnt bleed through. Those are the only two discrepancies in the New Testament. Are you trying to tell me that they change doctrine completely because I simply dont see it those are the two things we cant know for sure were said by the original writers of the Bible a one letter difference and a one number difference its not that big of a deal. Read this to understand what textual criticism is before you listen to anymore atheistic propaganda about how the Bible is made be sure to finish it before jumping to conclusions
Even a small discrepancy draws one of two (or both) conclusions:

Either God, who wrote the Bible, is not perfect or...

God did not write the Bible, but humans.
Not really
How not? Do explain.
The originals were inspired by God and perfect and what we have are copies.
Well, at least you're one of the few Christians who admit the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God. Even still, why do you trust the inspiration of a stranger?
So perfect it doesn't occupy this realm of existence.

People today who claim to hear voices in their head, even if they claim to be from God, are often committed. Why was several thousand years ago any different?


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service