On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 12:45:49PM +0200, Joe Hart wrote: > > 2) The bible that you refer to is full of contradictions. If one is not > to commit murder, based in the Ten Commandments, then how can a god > request that one sacrifice one's son? That is murder. There are many > more examples, but that stands out to me. > Well, there are a few fallacies in your argument. 1) The Ten Commandments and in fact the whole law, were given *after* Abraham's test. 2) It was quite clearly a test from God. 3) Anything God does is, by definition, right. 4) The argument can be made based on Abraham's recorded words that he knew God would resurrect his son. > However, I will agree that Christianity does preach moral goodness, but > historically, that has seldom been the practice. > Well, anything involving people inherently gets fouled up. > 3) If the Bible didn't need updates, then why are new versions created? Because of any number of reasons: - people want to intentionally change The Word to fit their own views (the Jehova's Witnesses are probably the best known example, but there are plenty of others) - people are prideful (they think that previous translations are inferior and that they can do better) - many are the work of the devil - there are plenty of other reasons > Ah, differences in interpretation from the original. Can one really > know what the authors' meant with certain metaphorical phraseology? I believe yes. > When there is no known speaker of the original language because it was > written so many hundreds of years ago and languages evolve it makes it Really? Ancient Hebrew and modern Hebrew are essentially the same language (in terms of spoken word, written is a different story). At least, this is what I am told by friends are fluent in Hebrew. Now Koine Greek and modern Greek are a different story. > quite difficult to define precisely what ancient text means. Not to > mention people can quibble over what the definition if is is. (Clinton) > Sure, people can quibble over the meaning of words. But, for example, the King James Version (the one that I use) was translated by a committee of imminent scholars and men of God. While they may not have been in absolute perfect unanimous agreement over every single thing, every single disagreement was discussed until a general consensus was reached on each. > Note that I am not against Christianity. I am also not against any > other religion. All I am saying is that what is written in the holy > book(s) is open for interpretation. > See, and I look at it as "it says what it says." If you go in there looking for "open interpretation" and whatever else you want, you will likely find it. If, OTOH, you go in there looking for harmony and perfection, then you will certainly find it. (I am speaking of course of the Bible, since I cannot intelligently speak on the scriptures or holy books of most other religions). Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature