Now that the church admits that the Bible contains errors, what are your thoughts? Please, no flaming in here, I want honest answers. Thank you.\n\nIf you would like to read about this news, go to:\n\nhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html
216133
judgement must be based on facts, not just beliefs, if we really want to know the truth.
91846
Just so you know where I stand. I asked a question of whether or not all the Bible should be taken literally or not. The best answer chosen was a good one.\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ales.wK5IftnZfqP3dD5hbHsy6IX?qid=1006012504879\n\nWhen Jesus said regarding the bread and the wine, "this is my body and this is my blood of the New Covenant", He was not speaking literally. When the Bible says that the blood of Jesus washes away sin, we do not go off to mount Calvary and look for spots of blood to wash our sins away. Jesus said, "I am the door, whoever enters by any other way is a theif." The disciples did not turn to Jesus and see a large board with hinges and a knob. Jesus was saying there is a single way to heaven, and He is the Way.\nQuite a bit of the Bible is spoken in allegorical and metaphoic language. Jesus said that He was the Light of the world, the Good Shepherd, Living Water, the Bread of Life, and more. He came as the Lamb of God. He will return as the Lion of the tribe of Judah. All of which is true, but all spoken in a metaphoric language.\n\nWrath, I have not run in to any Christians who believe the Bible is 100% literal. However, there are many areas of the Bible that ARE literal and many are trying to change the statement because it is not politically correct, or they have an agenda or they find it personally offensive.\n\nCase in point:\nRobert Anderson worked for Scotland Yard during the Victorian era. He was the main investigator for finding Jack the Ripper. He took the prophecy in Daniel and was able to calculate the coming of the Messiah to the DAY. This is in the his book "The Coming Prince". He started this project based on taking the prophecy as being literal. He was rewarded for this effort with knighthood from Queen Victoria and became Sir Robert Anderson. However, in this same book, he notes the prophecies about Israel being gathered together and becoming a nation once more. Seeing how this has never happened in history, he dismissed the literal meaning as pure fantasy. In May 14th 1948, this brilliant man was proven wrong. The idea that the Jews would return to the land and make it Israel was so preposterous that this brilliant man equated it to being metaphorical--the literal interpretation was too hard to believe. So we could easily make a mistake by either way.\n__________________________\n\nBTW-This topic reminds me of a very good movie called "Lady Jane". One of the main focuses was the rise of the Protestant movement against the Roman Catholic church--especially in regard to transubstantiation. The Roman Catholics took the sacraments as being literally the body and blood of Christ, while the Protestants kept arguing that it was metaphorical. Check it out sometime!
112746
Some have exploited these statements to argue their point that the Bible is unreliable or untruthful.\n\nBut, in a court judges WILL NOT BELIEVE statements by witnesses that are TOO PERFECT--without any minor inconcistencies. The judge's conclusion would always be that these statements--even under cross examination--were made up, or were too good to be true.\n\nIn reading contracts and law--w/c by the way the Bible is--we look for other provisions of these documents to really understand the whole thing.\n\nHere is a simplistic example:\n\nStatement (1): "Mike is fat".\nStatement (2): "Mike is thin".\nStatement (3): "When Mike was a kid he got sick with polio which severely affected his feet".\n\nIf you read only statements 1, and 2 you will conclude that these are really contradictory--or inconsistent--statements. But Statement (3) gives a clarification.\n\nSo, the correct conclusion considering Statement no. 3 is: "Mike is a fat man with thin legs". Agree, or disagree?\n\nNow let's go back to the 2 examples in question. Godshew(?) was correct. The case about God's warning to Adam, and his age could be reconciled. According to the apostle Peter's statement--a clarificatory one--1,000 years is just like 1 day to God. So, when Adam died at the age of 930, he died within one day in God's own time frame. \n\nAgain, Jesus did not contradict himself when he said that he and the father are one; and that the father is greater than he is. The apostle John was the one who wrote these statements and so he is the one in the better position to explain this (just like a witness in court). In John 17:20-22 he explains that the father, the son--including the disciples--are one in purpose, one in work, one in mind. \n\nFurther, if you will read John 10:25-33--and NOT just isolate John 10:30--then you will immediately notice that Jesus did not claim to be of equal power, or might, than his father. He and the Father are one in deeds (or works). Ps. read the account carefully.\n\nYou know what the problem is? some try to suit Biblical verses according to their beliefs--just like the ungodly trinity--and not suit their beliefs to what the Bible says.\n\nThis in turn is exploited by those eager to insist that the Bible is really unreliable.\n\nHope this helped a lot of people examine their Bibles closely.
256169
yes, I am intersted. I also have to remember that other writings outside of the Bible aren't always true. If what those "early Christians" wrote doesn't match up Biblically, than I have to choose to reject it. not to say that you can't learn things about the time period and culture from these writings.
658407
I asked this same question and the answers were hilarious. You are dealing with an irrational brainwashed mass of idiots. The bible was stolen from Pagans, Romans, Greeks, all kinds of people. And, used to cause more death and destruction than all wars combined (heck, most wars were caused by christians)
95516
My friend, you have hit on something that God is doing in this hour.  Pray!  He's leading you to a conclusion that the mainstream church may not agree with, but which God is expressing at this time.  God has a plan for His Church, and it is not to finish it's course on earth in corruption.  :)\nIf you want any further discussion, always feel free to e-mail me.
473610
True, and it is what I've been saying all along. When I was a Christian, I still didn't believe in the letters of Paul. Was it not the prophets of the ancient times that brought laws and the word of G-d through revelation (ie. a burning bush, the direct voice of G-d)? Then years later, the "new" testament is revealed through letters and secondary sources written by people who weren't even there.  Another great point, thanks for the question.
584378
Well Its to bad they don't understand. I don't like to see any walk in darkness. What they should understand is there has been a steady attack on the scriptures for as long as they have been around and by much better scholars than most or maybe any who have ever visited this site. Higher Criticism subjected it to all kinds of scholarly attack along with most of today's "institutions of higher learning". No book has been examined more closely than the Bible and no work could ever stand under that kind of attack. Yet the Word stands and carries on and the old saying that the shovel always verifies the Word remains true.
300619
You want to know the answers to why the Bible is historically accurate and reliable? Well this is going to be long but it will answer your question. This writing discusses common myths held by most people concerning the Bible and analyzes the evidence that points to the Bible’s authenticity.\n\nMyth #1: The Bible’s been copied, translated, and handed down for so long it looks nothing like the original and cannot be reliable anymore.\n\n    This is undeniably a misconception and misinterpretation that’s been around for over a century. It is probably the most common and told myth of the Bible. It has no doubt hindered many people from ever reading and even considering the Word of God.\n\nThe Facts\n    In the early nineteen hundreds scholars started to seriously question the Word of God particularly the Old Testament. Since the earliest copies we had dated to around 900 AD, they started to question how reliable are copies really were. Since we didn’t have the original and since they’ve been copied so many times, we had no idea how accurate our version was. Critics mocked believers of the Bible claiming that the prophecies (particularly about Jesus) could have easily been altered to fit history.\n\n    Enter a small Bedouin boy. In 1947 in an effort to recapture a lost goat he accidentally stumbled upon a cave with hundreds of clay jars found near the Dead Sea in Israel. Further investigation revealed that inside those clay jars lay ancient copies of the Bible written over a century before Jesus. Here were copies of the Old Testament dated around 130 BC written a thousand years earlier than our oldest copies!\n \n    When compared to our version of the Old Testament it was analyzed that the two versions were 95% identical. The 5% variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling. Not a single teaching or main passage of the Bible was in question or in error.  So now we can rest assured that our current Old Testament is completely and utterly reliable because it has not changed in over 2,000 years!\n\nMyth #2 of the Bible: It’s contradictory.\nThe Bible is unbelievably and completely harmonious with itself. In simpler terms the Bible addresses hundreds of controversial topics (i.e., marriage, divorce, salvation, morality) yet from Genesis to Revelation (the first and last books) the Bible is in complete agreement with all of these topics. \n\n    Let me just put this into perspective for you. How often do two people agree on anything? How often do three people agree on the same issue? How about 30? The point is that given the hundreds of books out there hardly any of them agree on any one issue. They are all horribly contradictory with each other. One book says to eat eggs, another says to not eat eggs, yet another one says to eat only the whites of eggs. Which one is right? \n\n    Yet when it comes to the Bible every single topic is completely in agreement with each of the 40+ authors. “But what about the contradictions in the Bible?” you ask. Well, show me them, or simply show me one. Every contradiction that people claim are never actually checked up on. People just believe what other people say and they believe because someone else said it, so on, and so forth. If they actually read the passage they might see that there is no contradiction. In any event saying that there are contradictions in the Bible is just an excuse to keep people from reading the Bible which might contain the very thing people are looking for.\n\nThe Facts\n    Most if not all contradictions are due to interpretation error. There are several tests or principles you must use to determine the meaning of any given passage in the Bible. Some include: 1. You must understand the context of the passage, 2. Interpret difficult passages in the light of clear ones, 3. The Bible uses non-technical, everyday language, 4. Note when the Bible uses different literary devices, 5. Don’t base teaching on obscure passages.
139987
I personally agree with much of what you are saying. The bible was written by many different men, and is missing parts that were in it many y&#92;centuries ago. We have the English version (thanks to Henry VIII0, and that is a translated version from thee original Hebrew, Arab and Greek. It is therefore, in my opinion, ridiculous to take it literally. I also believe in God but not in the bible, per say. I believe in the golden rule and being a good person but do not allow myself to be bullied into certain behavior and beliefs by the church out of fear.\nBelieve whatever you want, in the end you have to live with yourself, and should therefore be true to yourself. Who cares what anyone else thinks? Many of the people who would "bash you" for not believing in creationism are just narrow minded people who believe what they were brought up to believe and never questioned any of it.
17670
OK, I am way at the bottom here. I will keep it short. \n\nI can understand your frustration, musicimprovedme, but let me take your username as a starting point. Do you believe that the works of Bach are accurate? How do you know they were not changed over the years? Do they not have a signature TGABG (To God Alone Be Glory)? Do they not have his style? Isn't it for reverence to his brilliance that we copied the manuscripts painfully accurate?\n\nFirst, forget who compiled it, its not important. Is it accurate? The Dead Sea Scrolls proved that the entire book of Isaiah can be copied for 2,000 years and still stay 100% accurate.\n\nDo you believe that Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life?" If not, you have no hope. If you do, act on that alone. That is all you need for salvation. You have to ask yourself what you want. Do you want salvation? Do you want to believe the Bible? Do you want hope and truth? You need to be talking to God about this, not a bunch of Yahoos on Yahoo! (I include myself)\n\nDo you want proof of the Bible's authenticity? Read my studies below. Do you want to come in contact with your Creator? Read the first one below. But stop assuming things that are not true on the Bible. That is not the problem, the problem is your lack of personal relationship with your loving Creator.
297290
Being an historian I will reserve judgement until I see the evidence personally.  I've NEVER read from a credible source that scientists have stated that the Bible to be one of the most accurate books ever written.\n\n\nShow ME the source and I will decide for myself.
286925
First of all, to think with all the human intervention, that the Bible should have not only survived, but survived as CLOSE to what Jehovah probably intended is amazing in and of itself. With Jehovah using human secretaries with human, inadvertent errors, and to have said all those years ago that the earth "hung upon nothing at all" and that it was "a circle above which God dwells"; that the destruction of major peoples and cities and the lives of Kings and other leaders could be so well chronicled; that our entire way of keeping record of time changed because of the life of a man foretold in this book...is awe-inspiring to me. People can reject the Bible if they want, but they should at least have th intellectual honesty to admit that at the very LEAST, it is a reliable historical and scientific document!\n\n I am appalled at the people who will dismiss the entire book because of the small discrepencies myself! Or the folks who will down anothers interpretation because they don't agree with it. If God thinks we are doing our utmost to please HIM, do you think he will care how we pronounced a name, or whether or not we got an area of the Bible incorrect on a map?  I sure hope he remembers in the end that, after all, I AM human!! I have a friend who's name I can't pronounce to her liking even after knowing her for nearly 35 years!! My tongue just will not wrap itself around the pronunciation she prefers. Does that make me not her friend? Does that mean she never wants to be around me? Nope!! It simply makes me less learned than I wish I were! I'm thinking God will be as understanding about such mistakes, as long as I have not purposely offended anyone while I was here; murdered anyone, stolen, lied; etc...  But for me to completely reject the entire book because I can't agree on semantics, is not only ignorant, but dangerous spiritually!
644963
Wow thanks for the link, I actually think they are making a really good point!\n\nI guess when the Roman Catholic church stops making up their own rules, then it will stop.  The Bible is the one and only truth.  it is the infallible word of God, can't be changed, can't be destroyed!\n\nGod Loves YOU\nHeather :)
643619
i would love to read them.  However,   i  believe that main line Christians would fight it tooth and nail claiming that there was no way to prove it.  No matter what proof was providing.  I think that finding a gospel written by Jesus i think it would answer questions.  Another thing, we would just fight over how to translate it like we have been with the bible.
556839
Dear Allen T,\n I hear by subjugate your reality and implant my own.\n\nDid you know that the "Bible" has been changed over the past two millennia. Since the Catholic church has left out the good parts of the "Bible" we no longer know what is true, but in the name of Jesus, Christians have destroyed other faiths of the world to supplant their own beliefs on other nations and people which in the "Bible" God says do not JUDGE others or their way of belief.\nAnd I quote nowhere in Genesis does it state that the entire world was governed by God.\n\nIf we did find Atlantis it would rewrite everything we know.\n\n"And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived and bore him Enoch: and he built a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch."\nGenesis 4:16&17\n\nNod means to wounder in ancient Hebrew coptic scripts. And we have yet to find "EDEN". AND ENOCH WAS A GOOD PRE-FLOOD CIVILAZATION AND IRRONICLY THE CHILDREN ARE OF CAIN............\n\n*stps off soap box* "Thank you. I'll be back next week." bows and exits stage right.
70509
The article is interesting, but it seems to have some flaws. It was too long and involved to read carefully, but I skimmed the points it was trying to make. One that jumped out at me was worshipping on Sunday. The article says we do that because the Pope said to. The fact is that the earliest church worshipped on Sunday. Paul says the day doesn't matter, as long as we worship.\n\nAnother problem is that the Bible tells us that once the antichrist comes to power, we only have 7 years left before the end. The catholic church has been around for far longer than 7 years!\n\nThere are more, but I'm a very slow typer, so I'll let it go at two.\n\nI have a big problem with some of the catholic beliefs, but I really don't think this article should be taken seriusly. When I have more time, I am going to look at it more closely, though.