Dawkins' "The God Delusion": One of the best books I've read in a while.

[Seekermeister]

Codewiz,

Since wars are initiated by those in power at the time, a person would have to be able to go back in time, and read their mind to be able to determine their true motivation. Religion can be used as a mantra to stir their followers. If you really wanted to eliminate wars, you would need leaders without any of the traits that I mentioned above. But then, you would have to do the same with patriotism and love, because these to are also involved. What we would really need is to remove the leadership, but that would leave anarchy, and considering the fact that people are not perfect, that would lead to a new kind of war. Actually, not really new, because Africa is a good example of anarchy in the form of tribal warfare.

 

[Fraggable]

You know what I find amusing? Is people who think they're so brilliant because they claim no religion can be proved, so they end up saying 'I don't believe in any of the religions on earth and I don't believe there is a God, but I don't have the answer to the truth'.

My mind is supposed to be changed by someone who claims not to have the answer? I'm supposed to see how weak my position is without physical proof while they stand on nothing?

 

[Codewiz]

The bolded is the stupidest, most ignorant thing I've ever seen posted here. Are you saying that we're in Iraq to spread Christianity? That Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot killed all those millions in the name of religion?

Can you provide me with my award trophy?

Once again, I said many. Do I need to define that for you?

As for Iraq, are you freakin blind? Did we go in there for religious reasons? NO. Why are we still in Iraq. Take a wild guess. Two different sects of the same religion are battling each other. Take the religion out and Shia versus the Sunnies is eliminated....

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Fraggable
You know what I find amusing? Is people who think they're so brilliant because they claim no religion can be proved, so they end up saying 'I don't believe in any of the religions on earth and I don't believe there is a God, but I don't have the answer to the truth'.

My mind is supposed to be changed by someone who claims not to have the answer? I'm supposed to see how weak my position is without physical proof while they stand on nothing?

No one's trying to change your mind. You're making 2 errors here.
1. Trying to change someone's mind about what is "truth" is the province of religion.
2. Believe that you actually know the "truth" is also the province of religion.

As I posted before, it is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge that is the enemy of knowledge. What that means is that it is better to admit that you don't know than to delude yourself into believing that you know things that you really don't know. In other words, be intellectually honest.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

The bolded is the stupidest, most ignorant thing I've ever seen posted here. Are you saying that we're in Iraq to spread Christianity? That Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot killed all those millions in the name of religion?

Can you provide me with my award trophy?

Once again, I said many. Do I need to define that for you?

As for Iraq, are you freakin blind? Did we go in there for religious reasons? NO. Why are we still in Iraq. Take a wild guess. Two different sects of the same religion are battling each other. Take the religion out and Shia versus the Sunnies is eliminated....

I don't know, you already won an award for that "see the light that is science" comment.

As to your last paragraph, I'm not blind, you're just confused. Those sects are not fighting over their religion, because their religion specifically forbids killing another of their own faith for any reason. Their fighting is actually not much different than if the Republicans and the Democrats went to war with each other over control of the US. Really. It's a political civil war. They just happened to break along religious groups in this case, because that's where the old animosities lie. But remove those labels and they would just find another.

 

[Seekermeister]

Codewiz,

Is your theory strictly academic, or do you propose a method to accomplish this? The only way that you could remove Islam, is to remove the Islamic people. Perhaps you are purposing a basis for dropping a nuclear bomb on them. But, would that make us any better than them, for that is exactly what they want to do.

Yet, one out of control, false religion does not typlify all religions. To group religions together in such a fashion, is akin to racism, in which all people of a certain race is guilty of being criminals, because of the actions of some of them.

 

[Vic]

How is Islam a "false religion"?? It's essentially Judeo-Christianity without the Messiah figure, and shares the same origins and basic myths.

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: Vic
How is Islam a "false religion"?? It's essentially Judeo-Christianity without the Messiah figure, and shares the same origins and basic myths.

I do not intend to go very deeply on this, because that would require a thread of it's own. However, the fact that a religion claims an origin with another does not make it true. There is no shared origins between the Islamic and Judaic people, except a bloodline that split at the time of Abraham, from which the Arabic people sprung. Obviously, there is alot of people without any Arabic pedigree, who are Islamic. That in itself is not too important, but the religion authored by Mohammed has none of the values in Judaism or Christianity. To suggest that Islam shares an origin with Christianity without Christ, is obviously way off base, and without any logic.

All religions convey certain basic beliefs. When these beliefs are in direct conflict with one another, they do not have a common origin. Mohammed was the author of murder, lying and mayhem. Well, not actually the author of those things, but of formalizing them into a religion.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: Vic
How is Islam a "false religion"?? It's essentially Judeo-Christianity without the Messiah figure, and shares the same origins and basic myths.

I do not intend to go very deeply on this, because that would require a thread of it's own. However, the fact that a religion claims an origin with another does not make it true. There is no shared origins between the Islamic and Judaic people, except a bloodline that split at the time of Abraham, from which the Arabic people sprung. Obviously, there is alot of people without any Arabic pedigree, who are Islamic. That in itself is not too important, but the religion authored by Mohammed has none of the values in Judaism or Christianity. To suggest that Islam shares an origin with Christianity without Christ, is obviously way off base, and without any logic.

All religions convey certain basic beliefs. When these beliefs are in direct conflict with one another, they do not have a common origin. Mohammed was the author of murder, lying and mayhem. Well, not actually the author of those things, but of formalizing them into a religion.

Uh huh.... :roll:

I think I'll let this stand as my answer to Fraggable's post above. You could call it when the illusion of knowledge becomes the delusion of knowledge.

Christianity since Constantine/Augustine is Greek/Roman Mithraism, which itself was an offshoot of Zoroastrianism. The name Jesus Christ is ancient Greek for "God of the Jews, the Annoited One" (Yah-Zeus Cristos). The Roman emperor Constantine, who is credited with converting Rome to Christianity, was actually a worshipper of Mithras (who he called Sol Invictus, or the Invincible Sun), and what he did was label his Mithraism as Christianity and force the Council of Nicea to recognize that (he did this for political reasons, as bringing the religions together greatly strengthen his power base and military might). The original form of Christianity, today called Gnosticism (and is akin to Unitarianism), would be to you a horrific form of heresy and blasphemy. Islam is essentially modern Zoroastrianism, reformed under Mohammed. Mohammed did not author nor formalize murder, lying, or mayhem, but thanks for playing, bigot.

These are historical facts. Sorry to burst your delusion bubble, although I'm sure you'll just lapse into some form of pathetic dogmatic denial.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: Vic
How is Islam a "false religion"?? It's essentially Judeo-Christianity without the Messiah figure, and shares the same origins and basic myths.

I do not intend to go very deeply on this, because that would require a thread of it's own. However, the fact that a religion claims an origin with another does not make it true. There is no shared origins between the Islamic and Judaic people, except a bloodline that split at the time of Abraham, from which the Arabic people sprung. Obviously, there is alot of people without any Arabic pedigree, who are Islamic. That in itself is not too important, but the religion authored by Mohammed has none of the values in Judaism or Christianity. To suggest that Islam shares an origin with Christianity without Christ, is obviously way off base, and without any logic.

All religions convey certain basic beliefs. When these beliefs are in direct conflict with one another, they do not have a common origin. Mohammed was the author of murder, lying and mayhem. Well, not actually the author of those things, but of formalizing them into a religion.

The crescent moon that represents the islamic faith is based from a pagan pre-musllim arab symbol.

 

[Seekermeister]

Vic,

These are historical facts. Sorry to burst your delusion bubble, although I'm sure you'll just lapse into some form of pathetic dogmatic denial.

Why would I want to waste my time on a futile effort?

I think I'll let this stand as my answer to Fraggable's post above. You could call it when the illusion of knowledge becomes the delusion of knowledge.

It seems that you wanted to demonstrate this delusion.

 

[tcG]

Seekermeister,

Stop acting like you know something we don't.

The only thing you know that we don't is self-delusion.

 

[Fraggable]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fraggable
You know what I find amusing? Is people who think they're so brilliant because they claim no religion can be proved, so they end up saying 'I don't believe in any of the religions on earth and I don't believe there is a God, but I don't have the answer to the truth'.

My mind is supposed to be changed by someone who claims not to have the answer? I'm supposed to see how weak my position is without physical proof while they stand on nothing?

No one's trying to change your mind. You're making 2 errors here.
1. Trying to change someone's mind about what is "truth" is the province of religion.
2. Believe that you actually know the "truth" is also the province of religion.

As I posted before, it is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge that is the enemy of knowledge. What that means is that it is better to admit that you don't know than to delude yourself into believing that you know things that you really don't know. In other words, be intellectually honest.

I didn't mean 'truth' as much as I meant 'reality' I guess. What I meant was that no one has scientific proof of every step of how we got here and why, so I get sick of everyone repeating the fact that you can't physically prove any religion and scoffing at me for believing something. I'm not talking about specifically what the religion teaches, I'm saying I have a belief where they do not.

And I wasn't saying the OP was trying to change my mind, what I said was more of a general comment on the subject of this thread.

I love how atheists are constantly searching for the scientific answer for the origin of life, and can't learn from the 5,000+ years of history and see that there can't be a trail of physical evidence to prove it.

 

[Fraggable]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: Vic
How is Islam a "false religion"?? It's essentially Judeo-Christianity without the Messiah figure, and shares the same origins and basic myths.

I do not intend to go very deeply on this, because that would require a thread of it's own. However, the fact that a religion claims an origin with another does not make it true. There is no shared origins between the Islamic and Judaic people, except a bloodline that split at the time of Abraham, from which the Arabic people sprung. Obviously, there is alot of people without any Arabic pedigree, who are Islamic. That in itself is not too important, but the religion authored by Mohammed has none of the values in Judaism or Christianity. To suggest that Islam shares an origin with Christianity without Christ, is obviously way off base, and without any logic.

All religions convey certain basic beliefs. When these beliefs are in direct conflict with one another, they do not have a common origin. Mohammed was the author of murder, lying and mayhem. Well, not actually the author of those things, but of formalizing them into a religion.

Uh huh.... :roll:

I think I'll let this stand as my answer to Fraggable's post above. You could call it when the illusion of knowledge becomes the delusion of knowledge.

Christianity since Constantine/Augustine is Greek/Roman Mithraism, which itself was an offshoot of Zoroastrianism. The name Jesus Christ is ancient Greek for "God of the Jews, the Annoited One" (Yah-Zeus Cristos). The Roman emperor Constantine, who is credited with converting Rome to Christianity, was actually a worshipper of Mithras (who he called Sol Invictus, or the Invincible Sun), and what he did was label his Mithraism as Christianity and force the Council of Nicea to recognize that (he did this for political reasons, as bringing the religions together greatly strengthen his power base and military might). The original form of Christianity, today called Gnosticism (and is akin to Unitarianism), would be to you a horrific form of heresy and blasphemy. Islam is essentially modern Zoroastrianism, reformed under Mohammed. Mohammed did not author nor formalize murder, lying, or mayhem, but thanks for playing, bigot.

These are historical facts. Sorry to burst your delusion bubble, although I'm sure you'll just lapse into some form of pathetic dogmatic denial.

My beliefs come straight from the KJV 1611 Bible. My beliefs don't come from what someone decided was truth, I read it for myself and learn who my God is.

You can debate the integrity of the Bible itself, but I believe it to be 100% perfect and relevant in every way. Yes I know it was interpreted and written by men, but I still believe that God guided them and that there is nothing in the Bible that God does not want in there.

 

[Rob9874]

Is this book really anything new? I mean, I'm kinda past this argument. I've heard them all before. They just say them in different ways, but it's the same thing.

The world has had 2000 years to shoot down Christianity, and it's not dead yet.

 

[Rob9874]

Delete

 

[RaiderJ]

Originally posted by: Fraggable

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: Vic
How is Islam a "false religion"?? It's essentially Judeo-Christianity without the Messiah figure, and shares the same origins and basic myths.

I do not intend to go very deeply on this, because that would require a thread of it's own. However, the fact that a religion claims an origin with another does not make it true. There is no shared origins between the Islamic and Judaic people, except a bloodline that split at the time of Abraham, from which the Arabic people sprung. Obviously, there is alot of people without any Arabic pedigree, who are Islamic. That in itself is not too important, but the religion authored by Mohammed has none of the values in Judaism or Christianity. To suggest that Islam shares an origin with Christianity without Christ, is obviously way off base, and without any logic.

All religions convey certain basic beliefs. When these beliefs are in direct conflict with one another, they do not have a common origin. Mohammed was the author of murder, lying and mayhem. Well, not actually the author of those things, but of formalizing them into a religion.

Uh huh.... :roll:

I think I'll let this stand as my answer to Fraggable's post above. You could call it when the illusion of knowledge becomes the delusion of knowledge.

Christianity since Constantine/Augustine is Greek/Roman Mithraism, which itself was an offshoot of Zoroastrianism. The name Jesus Christ is ancient Greek for "God of the Jews, the Annoited One" (Yah-Zeus Cristos). The Roman emperor Constantine, who is credited with converting Rome to Christianity, was actually a worshipper of Mithras (who he called Sol Invictus, or the Invincible Sun), and what he did was label his Mithraism as Christianity and force the Council of Nicea to recognize that (he did this for political reasons, as bringing the religions together greatly strengthen his power base and military might). The original form of Christianity, today called Gnosticism (and is akin to Unitarianism), would be to you a horrific form of heresy and blasphemy. Islam is essentially modern Zoroastrianism, reformed under Mohammed. Mohammed did not author nor formalize murder, lying, or mayhem, but thanks for playing, bigot.

These are historical facts. Sorry to burst your delusion bubble, although I'm sure you'll just lapse into some form of pathetic dogmatic denial.

My beliefs come straight from the KJV 1611 Bible. My beliefs don't come from what someone decided was truth, I read it for myself and learn who my God is.

You can debate the integrity of the Bible itself, but I believe it to be 100% perfect and relevant in every way. Yes I know it was interpreted and written by men, but I still believe that God guided them and that there is nothing in the Bible that God does not want in there.

Scary!

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin
Let me go back to your sharp-stick scenario to show you why you're wrong: You think that some individual long ago "believed" a sharp stick would get him more food, so he tried it and everyone followed. Whether the thinking was conscious induction or unconscious pattern-matching, hardly matters - the point is no matter which type it is, that is the most important thing. Now, if you insist on calling unconscious pattern-matting "belief" go ahead, but do provide a link to Vic's New English Dictionary so others can understand you.

In a way you mysterians are so much harder to talk with. One has to spend an eternity just trying to figure you out.

I'm anything but a "mysterian." My basis for knowledge is observation and deduction. Mysticism is repulsive to me, which is why I find this pseudoscience religion so repulsive. Remember from threads past, you were the one who thought that believing in Advanced Alien Species is different from believing in God.

However, you missed the most important part of the "sharp stick" scenario while even mentioning it. "He tried it." Amazing. Why? Luck? Give me a break... Design? Irrelevant.

If you're not a mysterian, I have to wonder why you've spent virtually the entire thread ranting against those that simply want more answers. Unlike mysterians, I don't claim with certainty what is knowable and what isn't, and certainly do not want science to stop just because it might offend the faithful.

Why did you just make a post implying that my arguments are the exact opposite of what I have been saying all along?

Why? Because you write things like:

I haven't made any fallacy at all. You misunderstood completely. YOUR fallacy is that you believe that science knows it all, therefore you believe that science provides conclusive proof for things that it does not provide conclusive proof for. You (or Dawkins and those whose arguments you appear to be defending) are the ones who have pushed science into the realm of belief and away from observation. Just because science has an understanding as to how my cell phone works does not mean that it knows everything about the nature of existence and the universe, or that the current prevailing theories are always right. Get it?

This leads me to think that you're either a mysterian that "knows" what we can and cannot know or that you and denigrates those that don't care for such arbitrary limits to knowledge, or you've constructed a monumental straw man, because no one I know claims to know it all.

If its the latter, perhaps you should understand what people are saying before you criticize. As I mentioned before, the ultimate point of the book is that science should continue as it has until now, without regard for the feelings of the religious, the mysterians, the new age hippies or anyone else like that.

Wow, man... apparently delusions aren't limited solely to the God believers. Thanks for quoting me out of context though!

If you're not a mysterian, then please explain what you have against what Dawkins says, aside from the fact that you think he's "mean".

Remember, I don't claim (unlike quite a few of the posters in here) to posses ESP, I can only understand what you say if you write it out clearly.

 

[zinfamous]

In answer to the hole that Seekermeister continues to dig himself into:

1), yes; he has established that he is a bigot
2) yes, he has established that his ability to interpret history through a realistic lens (or to simply read) is lacking.
3) yes, he believes that there is one true religion, and one truth on this earth. all others are false. (this leads to number 1)
4) yes, he gets on his knees for Pat Robertson.
5) In light of how much he contradicts himself, I can only imagine that he is a troll sent to earth by Satan or Loki, purely for our ever-confounding amusement. perhaps it is best to ignore him. education clearly left him in the dust.....

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: RaiderJ

Originally posted by: Fraggable

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: Vic
How is Islam a "false religion"?? It's essentially Judeo-Christianity without the Messiah figure, and shares the same origins and basic myths.

I do not intend to go very deeply on this, because that would require a thread of it's own. However, the fact that a religion claims an origin with another does not make it true. There is no shared origins between the Islamic and Judaic people, except a bloodline that split at the time of Abraham, from which the Arabic people sprung. Obviously, there is alot of people without any Arabic pedigree, who are Islamic. That in itself is not too important, but the religion authored by Mohammed has none of the values in Judaism or Christianity. To suggest that Islam shares an origin with Christianity without Christ, is obviously way off base, and without any logic.

All religions convey certain basic beliefs. When these beliefs are in direct conflict with one another, they do not have a common origin. Mohammed was the author of murder, lying and mayhem. Well, not actually the author of those things, but of formalizing them into a religion.

Uh huh.... :roll:

I think I'll let this stand as my answer to Fraggable's post above. You could call it when the illusion of knowledge becomes the delusion of knowledge.

Christianity since Constantine/Augustine is Greek/Roman Mithraism, which itself was an offshoot of Zoroastrianism. The name Jesus Christ is ancient Greek for "God of the Jews, the Annoited One" (Yah-Zeus Cristos). The Roman emperor Constantine, who is credited with converting Rome to Christianity, was actually a worshipper of Mithras (who he called Sol Invictus, or the Invincible Sun), and what he did was label his Mithraism as Christianity and force the Council of Nicea to recognize that (he did this for political reasons, as bringing the religions together greatly strengthen his power base and military might). The original form of Christianity, today called Gnosticism (and is akin to Unitarianism), would be to you a horrific form of heresy and blasphemy. Islam is essentially modern Zoroastrianism, reformed under Mohammed. Mohammed did not author nor formalize murder, lying, or mayhem, but thanks for playing, bigot.

These are historical facts. Sorry to burst your delusion bubble, although I'm sure you'll just lapse into some form of pathetic dogmatic denial.

My beliefs come straight from the KJV 1611 Bible. My beliefs don't come from what someone decided was truth, I read it for myself and learn who my God is.

You can debate the integrity of the Bible itself, but I believe it to be 100% perfect and relevant in every way. Yes I know it was interpreted and written by men, but I still believe that God guided them and that there is nothing in the Bible that God does not want in there.

Scary!

Yeah, not all Christians believe this. I would recommend reading an article called "Is The Bible Inerrant?" by Mark M. Mattison.

Though the Scriptures were written by men like David, Isaiah, John, and Paul - and though their unique way of writing and communicating shaped their inspired revelations - their words were not theirs alone. We believe that God communicates to the church today through their writings. And these sacred texts are authoritative in a way that Mark Twain's are not. The Scriptures are "infallible," that is, incapable of failing, certain; without error in their teachings about faith and morals. The Scriptures are trustworthy and reliable.

There is another, more controversial term used to describe the Scriptures: Inerrant. "Inerrant" means "free from error." It is this version of inerrancy that will be critiqued here. Why? Because of its serious limitations. Inerrancy as taught in many churches focuses too much attention on the Bible and not enough on what it teaches. It drives commentators to harmonize passages that were never meant to be harmonized, turning literary accounts of faith into wooden historical biographies and homogenizing Scripture in such a way as to overshadow the original authors' individual meanings. Finally, it tends to weaken Christian faith by unnecessarily tying it to an indefensible Bibliology. Every historical detail, no matter how insignificant, becomes as important as the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

[dogooder]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
If you were comfortable with your belief system, then you'd leave everyone else alone. Perhaps I've used too many words up to this point to get across my simple message: shut the hell up and get on with your life, everyone.

First, I love how you continue to attack and misrepresent Dawkins, even though you have yet to read his book. It's hilarious. Where are you getting your information? But as to the quoted remarks, I'll let Dawkins explain himself (from a recent interview):

TM: People finally say, "What's it to you? Why not be an atheist if that's what works for you, and leave the rest of us to be as religious as we wish?" This, I believe, is offered as a challenge to your open-mindedness or your respect for others. You're being called "an atheist fundamentalist."

RD: "Fundamentalist" usually means, "goes by the book." And so, a religious fundamentalist goes back to the fundamentals of The Bible or The Koran and says, "nothing can change." Of course, that's not the case with any scientist, and certainly not with me. So, I'm not a fundamentalist in that sense.

Why not live and let live? Why not just say, "Oh, well, if people want to believe that, that's fine." Of course, nobody's stopping people believing whatever they like. The problem is that there's not that much tolerance coming the other way. Things like the opposition to stem-cell research, to abortion, to contraception -- these are all religiously inspired prohibitions on what would otherwise be freedom of action, whether of scientists or individual human beings.

There are religious people who are not content to say, "Oh, well, my religion doesn't allow me to use contraceptives, but I'm quite happy for anybody else to." Instead, we have religiously-inspired prohibitions on aid programs abroad, including in areas where HIV AIDS is rife, prohibiting aid going in any form that might be used to help contraception. That is religion over-stepping the bounds and interfering in other people's freedom. So, religion does not observe this "live and let live" philosophy.

TM: In other words, if it were just a philosophical belief that had no impact on the world, fine.

RD: Exactly. I don't think you'll find many people criticizing any gentle religion, like Jainism.

The other thing is that, as a scientist and an educator, it is impossible to overlook the fact that, especially in America, there is a vigorous and virulent campaign to suppress the teaching of scientific biology. In state after state, there are court battles being fought. Scientists have to go out of the laboratory and waste their time responding to these know-nothings who are trying to stop the teaching of evolution or give equal time to creationism or intelligent design, or whatever they like to call it. They actually are trying to interfere with the freedom of children to learn science and the freedom of science teachers to teach their science properly.

Originally posted by: Fraggable
You know what I find amusing? Is people who think they're so brilliant because they claim no religion can be proved, so they end up saying 'I don't believe in any of the religions on earth and I don't believe there is a God, but I don't have the answer to the truth'.

My mind is supposed to be changed by someone who claims not to have the answer? I'm supposed to see how weak my position is without physical proof while they stand on nothing?

Well, it's not about "proof", but you pretty much nailed the difference. Atheists are all about uncertainty at the deepest level, and the balance of evidence on the surface. Fanatics!

 

[Seekermeister]

Rob9874,

Yeah, not all Christians believe this. I would recommend reading an article called "Is The Bible Inerrant?" by Mark M. Mattison.

I didn't bother to read your link, because I have read plenty like it before. While the KJV does have a few minor mistranslations in it, they are not sufficient to discredit the Bible. These mistranslations are primarily from within the Old Testament, and since we have the Hebrew available to compare with, a person is able to fine tune their understanding, if they wish. The accuracy of the Hebrew Old Testament is unerring, because of the manner and methods that the Hebrews used in transcribing it. They did not allow ANY errors in a copy, although a scribe may have spent many months copying it by hand. To support this, the Dead Sea Scrolls has a copy of Isaiah which comes from around 200BC. It was found to contain about 13 minor differences from what the modern Hebrew version has [quoting my source, they were equivalent to crossing Ts and dotting Is]. It is my belief that instead of these scrolls from being hidden to prevent their destruction, that they were sealed and placed in the cave at Qumrun because of these errors. They would not have simply thrown them in the trash.

A person can easily find ample articles and books that are not even what I would call scholarly works that attempt to discredit the Bible, so no links are wanted.

 

[RaiderJ]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Rob9874,

Yeah, not all Christians believe this. I would recommend reading an article called "Is The Bible Inerrant?" by Mark M. Mattison.

I didn't bother to read your link, because I have read plenty like it before. While the KJV does have a few minor mistranslations in it, they are not sufficient to discredit the Bible. These mistranslations are primarily from within the Old Testament, and since we have the Hebrew available to compare with, a person is able to fine tune their understanding, if they wish. The accuracy of the Hebrew Old Testament is unerring, because of the manner and methods that the Hebrews used in transcribing it. They did not allow ANY errors in a copy, although a scribe may have spent many months copying it by hand. To support this, the Dead Sea Scrolls has a copy of Isaiah which comes from around 200BC. It was found to contain about 13 minor differences from what the modern Hebrew version has [quoting my source, they were equivalent to crossing Ts and dotting Is]. It is my belief that instead of these scrolls from being hidden to prevent their destruction, that they were sealed and placed in the cave at Qumrun because of these errors. They would not have simply thrown them in the trash.

A person can easily find ample articles and books that are not even what I would call scholarly works that attempt to discredit the Bible, so no links are wanted.

I think you missed his point completely. He's referring to the fact that you also have to take into account the bigger picture presented by the Bible, not each individual word. It's the same way you think of a forest without accounting for every single tree.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: RaiderJ

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Rob9874,

Yeah, not all Christians believe this. I would recommend reading an article called "Is The Bible Inerrant?" by Mark M. Mattison.

I didn't bother to read your link, because I have read plenty like it before. While the KJV does have a few minor mistranslations in it, they are not sufficient to discredit the Bible. These mistranslations are primarily from within the Old Testament, and since we have the Hebrew available to compare with, a person is able to fine tune their understanding, if they wish. The accuracy of the Hebrew Old Testament is unerring, because of the manner and methods that the Hebrews used in transcribing it. They did not allow ANY errors in a copy, although a scribe may have spent many months copying it by hand. To support this, the Dead Sea Scrolls has a copy of Isaiah which comes from around 200BC. It was found to contain about 13 minor differences from what the modern Hebrew version has [quoting my source, they were equivalent to crossing Ts and dotting Is]. It is my belief that instead of these scrolls from being hidden to prevent their destruction, that they were sealed and placed in the cave at Qumrun because of these errors. They would not have simply thrown them in the trash.

A person can easily find ample articles and books that are not even what I would call scholarly works that attempt to discredit the Bible, so no links are wanted.

I think you missed his point completely. He's referring to the fact that you also have to take into account the bigger picture presented by the Bible, not each individual word. It's the same way you think of a forest without accounting for every single tree.

Exactly. I am a Christian, and my dad is a Presbyterian minister. Neither I or the article tries to discredit the Bible. The point was that it's silly to argue about the inerrancy of the Bible, instead of it being infallible. For example, all versions of the Bible state the the universe was created in seven 24 hour periods. I don't believe that, but I do believe in creation, and don't see the point in arguing about that silly detail. I think clinging to insignificant details like that, which non-believers tend to love to bring up in arguments, weakens and discredits Christians' positions.

 

[Seekermeister]

Rob9478,

Exactly. I am a Christian, and my dad is a Presbyterian minister. Neither I or the article tries to discredit the Bible. The point was that it's silly to argue about the inerrancy of the Bible, instead of it being infallible. For example, all versions of the Bible state the the universe was created in seven 24 hour periods. I don't believe that, but I do believe in creation, and don't see the point in arguing about that silly detail

Actually the Bible does not say that the "days" were 24 hours. It simply says that the days began with the morning and ended at the evening. Since this was used to describe the first day, before He created the Sun, obviously that day was not as we know it. Of course, the Bible says that with God, a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day. All that we can really derive from this, is that the word "day" could have simply used the word "interval".

However, I won't comment on your remark about not believing in the creation, because I do not consider that to be a Christian perception. But, there is enough disagreement without arguing with another Christian.