Is the Bible real?

[leshinor]

Originally Posted by Yue Osakur

Sorry, just read the title. don't know if anyones already said this and if someone has, I'll say it again.

It's - JUST - A - BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOK!! the Bible is nothing but a book of stories, lessions, and such to live by, writien BY people of the past. just morals like be a good person, and shareing and such.

Now I'm not tring to down it or speak negetive about it. but Come-on, there are so many vereations and edites to it that no one knows who right and who's wrong. Give it a break already. enough with the crap

PS. And would people stop with the killing people or converting people to their ways!!! just becaue someone dosen't think the same or act the same way you do dosen't mean you have to kill them off!!!!! It's wrong, it's wrong!! It's W_R_O_N_G!

Umm, I guess you should have read the previous posts after all...
Nobody in here wants to kill the opposing party...
Furthermore, there are not any variations to the Bible.

Originally Posted by leshinor

You might find it dump but I don't. I am not expecting many people to change their opinion just because they read some posts in an anime site of course. However, this thread can make people start thinking about it and reach a better conclusion after they give it some thought. Besides, it is better to debate and think about these stuff than not think at all.

Debate is trying to prove the other side wrong not necessarily making the opposing side believe their theologies. The only way you CAN make someone think is if they are wavering on the topic in the first place, not people who are firm on a belief such as you or myself. I believe in the Bible, it is impossible to try and make other people believe it. They don't believe it? one day they will see, then they're gonna wish they listened to an online forum. Conclusion can only be derived from proven fact, and the proven fact is that whatever country had the Bible as a TRUE standard, always succeeded. The Bible is also a moral compass, why do you think people hate the Bible so much? Because if they didn't have it, people can have homosexual relation, swear, have sex whenever, swear, steal, cheat...etc . People hate the Bible because it stops them, and they boil....simple as that. I don't plan to make you believe the Bible from my post, but perhaps those that are wavering or are in the middle will at least "think wisely and unbiased" . And this isn't called the "Debate and Think room" it's just Debate Room. But, from a debate people will think. Average time to make an Atheist believe the Bible is 10 years, so the odds are always against those who believe It. When I said it was dumb, I meant it's almost stupid trying to make the exact opposing force to believe the Bible, do you think an Atheist can make you waver from the Bible? me, NEVER. That is how they think about us, so it's dumb trying to throw arguments in the opposing direction. I only think people that are unsure about either side have the best chance to "think" and to come to a better conclusion.

[soulten]

Originally Posted by Ramrok

um... this is a debate... just cuz u dont want to read my article doesnt mean i dont have proof... speak for urself, not for others... as far as im concerned... my side of the argument has been dominating and my response's have been fairly well put, am i wrong? i dont think theres a question here i havent been able to answer... so lets see wut ur side's got... wut makes u think the bible isnt real? your thoughts? feelings? do you have any proof? is there anything specific about it?

Fine give us your fucking article.

The reason you've been dominating, only 2-ish people have even tried to appose you. Congratulations you have seriously outnumbered the opposition till the point they said screw it. Bet you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

And I'll say this THE BIBLE IS REAL. But only if you consider it to be a record of history. The places are real, the people are real(mostly). But yet again like every other story over time many things could have been exaggerated.

In the 1850's, ancient texts were found which dated to pre-Christian times. As the years went on, thousands upon thousands more ancient writings were found. It wasn't until the 1920's that the first of the translated documents were publicly released. The texts prove to be the actual stories which the Bible was based on, and yet they are completely different from the Bible. How can the Bible be true if the stories don't match up with the original documents?

The work of destroying all other texts obviously didn't go over well enough because more ancient texts are even being found today. Some have been held onto by the Vatican for decades out of sight from the public eye. What are they trying to hide? Could it be the fact that the scriptures they hold are completely different from the Catholic Bible they live by? Indeed, many of the scriptures have been released and nothing in those scriptures say anything about Jesus being anything more than an ancient prophet. The scriptures say quite the opposite and there is much debate about who Jesus really was and his purpose in history. If Muhammad were found to be a fabled person, there would still be an Islamic faith. Hinduism has so many Gods that they wouldn't notice if one went missing. In the monotheistic faith of Christianity, if Jesus was found to not exist in the "Son of God" context, the entire faith would fall apart at the seams. Sounds like a reason for hiding texts to me!

Furthermore, there are not any variations to the Bible.

Wait isn't the most common one used to day the King James version? Then that would therefore mean there was a previous version.

[Ramrok]

well i think CryticX said it best... getting sum1 to believe you is very difficult... what we basically doing here is proving each other wrong... the side that does that the best, wins.

soulten, yes i do feel quite fuzzy indeed ^_^
about the variations of the bible... the versions of the bible are simply translations, the variations of the bible are not versions or translations but rather something slightly off course.

version =/= variation

the versions of the bible keep the contents and the message intact thru its translations
the variations of the bible can actually veer the contents and the message for other specific purposes

i hope you understand the difference between the two.

[mellowguy]

My last reply was already 2 pages behind, so I'll address what's current in a second.
@leshinor and ramrok
I'm really trying here to get understood this very important point. The people in control of the scriptures and the bible during the middle ages was the church that you ramrok declare wasn't a church anymore because they weren't just praising god (I believe that's what you said) This pseudo-church wanted to oppress those who were different, and they had the power to "re-interpret" the papers they had to align with their wants. They could have burned all the scripture they didn't believe in! We would never know, for their power was near absolute. What we do know is this: Jesus and his disciples never ever ever ever wanted or promoted or condoned or whatevered violence. They put their words that say that into a nice set of papers that would one day become the bible. During the middle ages, these papers were in the inventory of a church that condoned violence. Now, do you think they would allow anyone to argue another point? That's heresy! What would your next action be? If they weren't truly the church as you say they were, they would have no problem changing or burning what they didn't like about the bible to suit their needs. No matter how holy. That would make an awful lot of sense, and it is far more likely that they did that then just leaving the papers unaltered. They don't even really need to change much! just omit a couple lines about not stoning the homosexuals, or re-interpret a sentence in a language that no one really knew anymore except them into something a sentence more sinister. Their rule would have ended if they had no base in actual scripture, and since they ruled for hundreds of years, I have need to assume that they made some of these alterations. No matter how much we try to get the truth back, we have no way of knowing exactly what they changed or deleted, so the original truth is lost. Obviously, most of the more harmless stuff would be kept. Think of this though. So far as we know, the church of today is not one hundredth as bad as the medieval church, and they're hiding stuff from the public. What would the old church do?

Now for the current events: There is much debate over the point of debate (The laughter I feel in my heart is near bursting into a terse lol) when no one is going to end up changing sides. This is of course ludicrous. A debate is dialogue in which both sides come away with a better understanding of the topic at hand. At the very least, I now know the approximate strength of my opponents arguments, and in every other debate I've participated in I've come away understanding the issue at hand far better than I do now. It's a learning process, and a good one. Debates cause people to think, make logical connections, even their argumentative skills increase. It's the same argument for the does god exist thread. In that thread, I'm trying to prove that god exists, but to do that I need to show some very smart people an evident proof of a by definition unfathomable being. That's pretty difficult. I have to reevaluate all the conventional reasons to believe in order to find something tangible, and therefore, more true than the reasons I used to follow. Debates of this philosophical nature are extremely important, whether in an ancient greek amphitheater or a anime website forum.

If you convince someone, please tell me. Do you think the opposing side will waver because some guy said the Bible was real or not? If they stand in their belief they won't. The only thing they'll think about is how to kick your ass in the debate next time, if they are serious about their belief. Yes, the only thing I noticed thinking about in a debate is the rebuttle .

[Ramrok]

@mellowguy

lol i think you misunderstood what i meant by church... let me put it in different words... church is not a physical tangible thing... its not a building... church is when 2 or more people gather to praise the name of god... usually these people gather in a church building or church ministry (which the majority of the people call church anyways)... but even if the church building or church ministry was destroyed, it doesnt mean they cant have church anymore... doesnt mean that the church was destroyed... let me use an analogy... church is like a picnic... you cant destroy picnic... you can destroy the picnic table, the chairs, the food, the barbeque... but picnic itself, like church is kinda like an event... hope this made it easier for you to understand.

when people cause war or violence in the name of god... they are not actually doing it in the name of god... they are not particularly a church, but a group of people who simply use church or god as motive for their evil deeds. if i go out and kill people in the name of god, do u think id actually be doing it in his name? no, just cuz i say im doing it in his name doesnt mean i am... actions speak louder then words... and when you go do something that is against god teachings, even if you say you are... then in actuality your not really doing it in his name.

around the age when jesus walked the earth... the old testament already existed for the most part... the new testament and the rest of the bible has been later developped... and by developped i mean surfaced or released out in the open for the public... its not like they wrote it and immediately gave it to the nearest church ministry, because as you would speculate... they would tear it up, rewrite it and so forth... they must have had a more subtle way of putting the new and old testament together and this would most likely have taken a few years time... the diciples and their predeccessors must have had to ensure that the contents staid intact, the message and its translation the same...

at that time maybe they didnt know that around the present times, concrete proof would make such an impact, thats why only a couple decades and centuries ago did we start looking for hard proof and evidence and with our more advanced technology able to still uncover proof.

[analogZero]

Originally Posted by Ramrok

no, math books arent meant to be read front to back... math books is made up of series of chapters teaching you certain things... most teachers in a sense dont even go chapter by chapter... they teach the chapters that they want their students to learn...

ok, don't confuse what's written with the teaching method. Math books rely on progression from the basics to the more advanced. That's why you learn addition before multiplication before binomial theorems. A teacher's job is to utilize the text to make the lessons work to the student's benefit and if that means they jump around then they do so, it's at their discretion. What a teacher won't do is teach you something if you don't have any foundation for it. I rarely teachers skip from the front of a text to the back and then return to the middle, etc. At best I would only see chapters dropped, because they would usually be rather irrelevant, understood by another chapter of the book, or explained in a few minutes of lecture.
If the bible is just a clod of information about God then wouldn't it make sense to put it in some sort of order? That maybe, if God decided to intervene with a best selling novel, maybe he'd make it so that it's not just randomness, like some choose your own adventure where you have to skip back and forth to cover what's going on. Most things have order for a reason. If someone opened the bible and started reading, would you honestly tell them they're reading it wrong because they're not reading it the way you were taught?
"just throw the stories in there, people will get the jist of it."
-God, in a letter to his editor

[mellowguy]

@Ramrok
I'm getting a bit tired, and not because it's late. Listen, I never ever ever ever ever say that the bible wants violence. The people who have the bible do however sometimes want to manipulate it to their own ends. Hard proof is nice, but how much proof was lost? We don't know. You haven't answered my main point: The middle ages changed the bible. Even if we get 90% of the data back, we'll still have 10% that could change the truth entirely. And I have no doubt in my mind that the church of the middle ages changed the bible to their own ends. Since we cannot get all of the truth back (they burned documents, or the pages just dissolved on their own over time, it has been thousands of years), some of the original truth is lost, and we can't find everything they changed. So the bible is not true. The end.

[LianaV]

Originally Posted by CryticX

If you convince someone, please tell me. Do you think the opposing side will waver because some guy said the Bible was real or not? If they stand in their belief they won't. The only thing they'll think about is how to kick your ass in the debate next time, if they are serious about their belief. Yes, the only thing I noticed thinking about in a debate is the rebuttle .

It's not about converting your belief into my belief, its about planting that seed of doubt, doubt that maybe these crazy God believers aren't so crazy after all, or maybe you are so skeptical that you pick up a Bible or sit in a church, or talk to a believer and suddenly you begin questioning your ideals, not that you are wrong or stupid or hard headed, just that you needed to be told so many times before, or you weren't going through a situation that you needed God and now, as a last resort you turn to Him to see if it works.