Moderator post:

Yes, this is a 'hot' thread. However, we are still all members of a shared community and need to keep some modicum of respect. Please do not use sarcasm or treat members with disdain - this is a violation of the first rule of the CC:R Constitution. Please do not use disrespectful names or labels on fellow forum-members (such as calling them 'lazy'). This is not creating an environment of respect we strive for. If disrespectful behavior continues, posts may be edited or the thread may be locked down for a cool-down period.

It is against the rules to call fellow members 'evil', 'the devil', 'selfish', etc. Please be aware of this when sharing beliefs.

End Moderator post.


On a non-moderator tangent, my understanding is AN has stated his beliefs, said they are a matter of faith, and he is not open to change regardless as to the quantity and quality of counter-evidence. I can understand interest in discussing this with him, to understand his position better. But are people debating him? I don't think anyone can win a debate against someone who refuses to participate, and I don't imagine that those observing are going to be swung more to one position or another. Not saying you can't, but it seems an odd thing to get worked up about.

Hmmm.. I suppose my presence in this thread is a bit of an oddity- It's not like I have a vested interest in any version of the bible, but some arguments just seem to cry out for a response. Whether it gets resoved by someone changing their mind, resolving the conflict through other means, or simply explaining how the apparent contradiction isn't one is all good to me.

In reply to katisara (msg #420):

OK first.. I've never directly said someone on this site was a devil.. or selfish.. not sure about evil but I don't think I have.  As for lazy, I ment it as wanting me to do the work when it's there to be read.  It's wasn't a personal attack but a judgement on people in general.

As for the negative nancy.. I'm sorry.  I've always believed it is a joking way of calling someone a pessimist.  In this case we were talking about if something is improved does that mean that the original is flaws.  Tycho said that it implies it's flawed.  Than asked if there was a chance he was a pessimist.

As for my contradiction..



perhaps I should cry out personal attack because my words (more than once) have been altered to create conflict.  I never said people need to read my post.. nor did I say anything about being polite.

That brilliant quote of mine was directed to Tycho, who was asking repeated questions which I felt the site answered and then he could ask things not answered by the site.  I told Tycho that if he were to provide information, which claims were made that there was some, or at least if it were there would it change my mind, that I would gladly read it.

The second quote was answering the question was it unfair to not call a book a bible because it did not glorify Jesus as much as the KJV.

Clearly my words were twisted to try and create a contradiction.

I did not say anyone else made a direct personal attack. If that had been the case, I would have made myself clear.

Misquoting or mischaracterizing people is not a violation of the CC:R Constitution. However, if you feel someone is engaging in behavior that is not appropriate, please PM me or the mods, and we'll look into it.

the fact that your words are partitioned according to which argument you are making does not mean they are not contradicting each other. One indicates open mindedness (reading other people's sites, and asking them to do likewise) while the other indicates closemindedness (won't read books which disagree with you).

Ohh, kind of like it's prejudice to determine someone is prejudice before knowing why that person thinks like they do?



Facts in a bastarized 'mis'-quotes doesn't make them facts.  Besides it takes a monsterous stretch.



shows no indication of me being closeminded.  It would be prejudice (technically) to say I was closeminded before you know I was raised on a dead bible, I have in my possession several dead bibles, I've read bits and pieces from dead bibles.



I think there is more of an interest on trying to prove me "stupid" for believing a faith based religion when there are "facts" out there somewhere.  Like Tycho for instance pointing out several times that believing the Bible is assuming it's correct.  Well yes, in order to be a good faithful christian I must not only assume but truely BELIEVE that it is all 100% correct.



I can think of better words than oddity.  Perhaps me and you should discuss something you do have more interest in.  Care to hear my non-prejudiced opinions on witches?

prejudiced means 'to judge before'. If you judge a book without reading it, that meets the definition (judged before reading). Misapplying teh word in a poorly executed attempt to turn it into slander of another person does not make your point valid.
As to close minded a closed mind is one which is not receptive to new ideas. Certainly teh refusal to read books which disagree with you fits within this category. Incidentally so does praying that nothing be able to change your mind and corrupt you.
Note that I am not saying you are closed minded and prejudiced, I am saying that tehse statements you have made exhibit teh characterists and stand in conflict with other statements in which you proclaim your open mindedness and willingness to engage in an open exchange of ideas. It is a readily apparent conflict within your statements.

Seem to be drifting into meta-discussion here guys.  Shall we try to get back to the topic?

I was thinking the same thing.  I like this topic, but it has digressed.

Well, besides a few thing I'd like to say to Silveroak, which are off topic, I am done here.  I don't know how you want me to prove the Bible is accurate..

If you want I can spend a few years and translate the ancient text myself, but I'm sure you'll call my findings bias.

It's more your view that all other bibles than the KJV are "corrupt" that I'd be more interested in discussing.  Plenty of people believe the bible is "accurate" in some sense of the word or another, but thinking only one particular version of it is perfect and all others aren't just imperfect, but actually tools of the devil is a pretty extreme position.  If it all just boils down to "well, that's what my religion tells me" then fair enough, but it does seem to me like a position that needs some pretty significant backing-up.  It's one thing to think a translation is the best, but it's quite another to think the others are intentionally misleading.

Which Bible are you talking about?

And there is a difference between saying the Bible is "accurate" and saying it is 100% "literal" and not allegorical.

There is also a difference between saying it is "accurate" but has a few errors that have crept in over the centuries due to the inadequacies of men and it is "accurate" and perfect in every way without a single error, typo, or any other way to interpret it.

I would say that almost all bibles that have been translated is inacurate. Tell me in your bibles when Moses and the Israelites left Eygpt what was the name of the sea that parted? Also what does it say when Mose came down from the montain after recieving the ten commandments? Theres all types of mistakes due to translation but also misunderstandings of the various customs that people had when the bible was written.

I think more people could stand to learn that :)

Truly READING the bible involves a good deal of understanding the original language and cultural context.

I heard from a Jew once that there are significant differences between the OT and the Torah. I'm curious, does anyone have any details on that?

Well the Sea that Mose parted wasn't the 'Red Sea' but the 'Reed Sea' thats the name used in the hebrew Tanach or Torah. Now for the major mistranslation you know the old belief that Jews have horns, and that's why we keep our heads covered? That comes from a mistranslation in the bible as well. There's a very famous statue of Moses by Michelangelo, have a look at a picture of it, you will find that Moses has horns. So in hebrew it says that he "karan meha'har' 'karan' isn't really a word used so much now a days but as it was explained to me by my teacher when i was in school that it meant that Moses 'leapt' down the mountain (leapt as in a mountain goat or such) now 'karan' is very similar to the word 'keren' which means horns, so once again the greeks that translated the Torah made another mistake. Those are just two mistakes that i remember off the top of my head from when i learnt this in school, there are many others.

As for difference between the OT and the Torah, i think it depends on which version you use. Now I'm a naturalised Israeli meaning i'ved lived in Israel many years but i wasn't born here so my hebrew isn't perfect and the hebrew in the bible is at times ornate and archaic so i used an english bible in school and listened to what the teacher read in hebrew and read the english, i found them to be the same from what i understood and how the teacher explained various words...
This message was last edited by the player at 10:04, Thu 31 Mar 2011.

Doing some research it seems that the English OT is basically equivalent to the English-translated Torah, but since the Torah is normally kept and read in Hebrew, the English OT is NOT always equivalent to the Hebrew Torah, due to translation issues. Does that sound accurate?

Yes thesres been a number of translations done, first of all from the original hebrew and aramaic to greek then from the greek to latin, as you can guess lots of mistakes coulo of crept in.

I'm not too concerned with translation errors in names (like the name of a sea), except if it leads to a misunderstanding of a principle.  I've worked as a translator, and a perfect translation of any language is pretty much impossible, much less one that is ancient, refers to a far removed culture, and has little in common with lexicon, grammar, or idiom.

What I find astounding, especially in America, is that people just accept the Bible as true.  They don't ask who wrote what or how we know something is reliable. There's just a blind belief in it (that I don't even dare call "faith") because it is "THE BIBLE."

They tend to forget that the actual words are the words of men.  Yes, the men may have been working under contract from God, if you will -- as prophets, scribes, or witnesses -- but does that make every word they write down literal, true, and holy?

Taking this a step further, what bothers me more is the similarly blind rejection as "not" scripture of anything that is "not" "THE BIBLE."  As if every piece of knowledge needed for Man is included in there.  It's really just the tip of the iceberg, and outside knowledge and important principles exist elsewhere in many religions, as well as knowledge that helps us better interpret the Bible instead of relying on age-old misinterpretations -- one example of this might be the "horn" example from Elana.

In reply to Heath (msg #437):

Why "especially in America"?  I don't see Muslims, Jews, and Christians in other countries questioning the word of God found in their books either.  In some countries it is a death sentence to do so.

Such faith is not merely found in America but is all over the world.  It has its roots in the declaration that these are the words handed down by God through his servants.  So I am a little astounded at your astonishment that people of faith would not question the book their faith is based upon.  I especially like this:



Well God/Allah/Jehovah wrote it!  That is what faith is all about.  Reliable?  Do you mean how do you know that Jesus was the son of God or that Mohammed was Allah's prophet?  That kind of reliable?

Considering the great leap of faith people take in believing in a religion it is hardly surprising that they would put their faith in the founding documents of that faith.

I am referring to literalists and Evangelicals.  Questioning the scriptures was not really my point; blindly holding to zealousy in the face of very potent counter-evidence is more my point.

For example, even the extremist Muslims can rationalize their behavior by twisting the words of the Koran because it is a matter of described principles (jihad, etc.) rather than statements of fact (Jews have horns, for example).

Also, I can only speak for that of which I have knowledge.  I will not extend my conclusions to peoples or religions I have not studied in depth enough to understand if it applies to them. That would be unfair, even if true.


It is natural for people to cling to that with which they were taught from birth, and even spite of some other evidence.  But I am more astonished that so many people do not take a step back and think about origins.  But I say "astonished" tongue in cheek.  I am not really "astonished," but "disappointed."


Actually, that's not true.  The books were written by men.  Even those who accept the Bible as true understand that.  It is simply that the book was supposedly written through the inspiration/revelation from God.  That's why I wonder why they don't learn more about who wrote what.  To say that it is written by God is a misstatement and overgeneralization.


Now you take a step too far because you are overgeneralizing to mean everyone who is of faith.  Believing in God does not mean you suddenly believe the world was made in 7 days or anything like that.  My point is rather that many people do not look at the true interpretations of the Bible but instead accept it as literal without context.

Many atheists make a huge error when they lump all believers into a category of Evangelical Literalists.  I don't discredit the religion, but instead tell people to have a foundation for their faith of something other than because that's what they were told by someone (their parents, a pastor, etc.).

The difference between you and me is this:

I do not discredit any religion but merely ask that all statements about the religion (particularly judgments or conclusions) be based on well-researched facts rather than faith-statements without substance.

You tend to discredit all religions offhand and then try to give reasons why they are discredited without doing the deep research needed to reach the judgments you provide.  Unfortunately, that shallow level of judgmentalness ends up making me question all your conclusions, even those that might be accurate, simply because I cannot trust the depth of the research done to reach the conclusions.

Yeah, I'm sort of with Tlaloc on this one, Heath.  If someone can accept the parts of the bible about supernatural events, children of deities, etc., the part that says "and everything in this book is true!" doesn't seem like much of a leap in comparison.  I think for many christians, there's a nagging thought that if they accept that any part of the bible is in error, then how can they trust it on the biggest most important claims it makes?  If it can drop the ball on something like Moses having horns (by the way, this was the first time I'd ever heard of that), can you really trust it to have gotten the resurrection right?


I will disagree slightly with Tlaloc's first point, though.  While fundamentalism isn't unique to america by any stretch, it does seem to be more prevalent there than in most western nations.  Definitely more so than here in Scotland.  Even over in Ireland, where people were willing to kill each other religion for quite a long time, there doesn't seem to be the degree of biblical literalism that I've seen in the states.  Plenty of out-there beliefs, definitely, but less focus on the biblical literalism part.

In reply to Tycho (msg #440):

Well, Tlaloc does have a point that textual literalism is not unique to the USA, and it certainly isn't unique to any one religion.  Besides, as far as the problems religion presents to the modern world, textual literalism is only one of the inflexibilities.

I absolutely didn't lump you all together.  Show me where I did.  I just pointed out that the problem is not simply American.  Many of the world's great religions have huge populations of people who believe their written texts are the literal Word o' God.

I know many people of faith who believe that their God doesn't speak through a book but rather speaks to them in more subtle ways.  Many take the parts of several religions that speak to their spiritual sides and hold those as the word.



I discredit religious people when they attempt to subvert science in order to "prove" their religion is factual.  I have stated before that religion and science can exist separately.  I don't like scientists who say they have disproven God's existence and I don't like Theists who muddy the waters of science with religious dogma and statements of faith.

The fact that you ask for religious statements be based on "well-researched facts" tells me that this barrier does not exist for you.  Resurrection is not a fact.  Rising into Heaven on a flying horse is not a fact.  And certainly Jews populating the Americas is not a fact.



So if I come to different conclusions than you I must not have considered them deeply enough?  That's not judgmental at all, is it?  Thank you for countering your perceptions of my shallowness with an equally shallow statement.

I will listen to anyone who wishes to discuss their spiritual beliefs and religion with me.  I have no problem with people of faith at all.  You have the right to believe whatever you wish.  I also possess the right to not believe a word of it if it doesn't have any proof to back it up.  Considering my indepth studies of religion and spirituality I believe that I can comment quite easily on why I know what I do and can back it up with real facts, not your "facts" you merely believe in.

Unless it's really relevant to the subject at hand, it may be best to stay away from meta-comments regarding each others' behaviors. While such comments may be true and intended with kindness, they generally serve to make us more defensive and closed.

As to translation errors, this one is a potential doosey:
http://www.escapeallthesething...ark-of-the-beast.htm

even if the current 'number of the beast' is accurate the fact that the accuracy of translation and transcription was considered debatable in the 2nd century does not bode well for modern accuracy.