The King James Version is Perfect (page 5)

inquirer

---googlemagoogle---
so you think a "non-religious" point of view is problematic? as for your illustration: i always learned the bible would have been written for everyone... that's also the reason why it was translated.

the SAB is not stupid at all. and it's got nothing to do with moral opinions. it just shows how flawed "god's word" is. you wouldn't disagree on that, would you?

___

---inquirer---

I don't think it's as flawed as what other people think. I have looked into the most common criticisms of it. There are some ?'s but they are on very minor issues.

I meant he is already cynical of the Bible. He's probably one of those people if you explained what a certain Bible passage meant, he would just ignore you. He is only open-minded as far as his cynical mind will let him. It's very disappointing because I have (in the past) tried to explain the so-called contradictions in the Bible, and they just ignore you and become conservative in the process.

The Bible is a religious book. You should read it with a religious frame of mind. It's not suppose to be like a novel. It's not like any ordinary book -- it's suppose to help you with this life and how to get into the next: the kingdom of God.

You can't really say it's right or wrong, you have to accept it as authority. If you tried to read like a man's wisdom book (as an outsider), it doesn't work. Like with the Talmud, it was written by people who "drew" information from the Bible and their own tradition. It's what they think, not what God thinks. And I don't know what their writings are called, but you have wisdom writings in all kinds of religions like Buddhism. But this is just someone's opinion. Same with the comments on Skeptics Bible. But with these kinds of things it's just man's teachings. You can criticise the Bible all you like, but the Bible was written for instructions from God. The Koran and the Book of Mormon are of this kind of book too, but I don't believe in these holy books, obviously.

inquirer

Another thing: The Bible is as it is. Like that guy on the Skeptics Bible, he obviously has doubts about it. If he makes comments about the verses and has those symobls to show how he feels and thinks it's wrong, that's his choice to do so. If he thinks it's flawed, that's his opinion. It's up to him if he wants to accept or not. That's what the Bible is all about.

Man has made the Bible imperfect. Man can't make one step without making a possible mistake. Man cannot be trusted with anything. So that's why not all the errors have been corrected. But I still don't think it's as flawed as what other people make it out to be.

stillajwexelder

It contains no error and is perfect. No comment but beautiful Elizabethan English

googlemagoogle

... you have to accept it as authority.
says who?

it's what they think, not what God thinks.
says who?

you have wisdom writings in all kinds of religions like Buddhism. But this is just someone's opinion.
says who?

the Bible was written for instructions from God.
says who?

The Koran and the Book of Mormon are of this kind of book too, but I don't believe in these holy books, obviously.
what's so obvious about that?

inquirer

---googlemagoogle---
... you have to accept it as authority.
says who?

it's what they think, not what God thinks.
says who?

you have wisdom writings in all kinds of religions like Buddhism. But this is just someone's opinion.
says who?

the Bible was written for instructions from God.
says who?

The Koran and the Book of Mormon are of this kind of book too, but I don't believe in these holy books, obviously.
what's so obvious about that?

___

---inquirer---
q1 - Bible
q2 - These men
q3 - Buddha's opinion
q4 - Please read the Bible. It tells you all this.
q5 - People like me think they are false. But they are written in a "God wrote this" style. aka - a religious holy book!

I don't think you read my post properly. :( It seems as if everytime I say something good, people just ignore me.

By saying "says who," shows that you doubt it authenticity. I am not telling you to believe it's fine! NO WORRIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

googlemagoogle

ok. so you say you have to accept [the Bible] as authority because the Bible says so. would you accept me as authority, just because i say you have to?

People like me think they are false. But they are written in a "God wrote this" style. aka - a religious holy book!
the bible is written in the same style. where's the difference?

inquirer

to: googlemagoogle

If you had something reasonable to say! I would! :D ha ha ha

WAIT! I am not having a go at you I am just being hypothetical about it all alright! Honest! I am not angry at you, just having a discussion, alright?

You said: "People like me think they are false. But they are written in a "God wrote this" style. aka - a religious holy book!
the bible is written in the same style. where's the difference?"

Inquirer: You have to decide what is holy or what isn't. I said in the other post that philosophy is just a man thing, so how can it be from God? People that wrote those Apocryphal books knew that they weren't from God. They were just giving their opinion. It's more clear cut with Buddha writings.

You can think anything is false, no worries ok?

googlemagoogle

hi inquirer, don't worry, i wont get angry that quickly... ;-)

People that wrote those Apocryphal books knew that they weren't from God.
how do you know? and then again: the bible-writers didn't know their writings would be viewed as "god's word" centuries later. if they would have known, they would have probably written more carefully.

You have to decide what is holy or what isn't.
so it's a subjective decision, right? not provable? that's good. because if there's any truth about it (and there is not), then noone is to blame for not believing.

Englishman

King James was not a nice guy!

He sanctioned hanging, drawing (disembowelling) and quartering (arms & legs ripped off by heavy horses.) of people.

Englishman.

inquirer

googlemagoogle --
hi inquirer, don't worry, i wont get angry that quickly... ;-)

People that wrote those Apocryphal books knew that they weren't from God.
how do you know? and then again: the bible-writers didn't know their writings would be viewed as "god's word" centuries later. if they would have known, they would have probably written more carefully.

You have to decide what is holy or what isn't.
so it's a subjective decision, right? not provable? that's good. because if there's any truth about it (and there is not), then noone is to blame for not believing.

*Well, I guess it's a bit of a shame that people don't view it as God's word centuries later. ...

*The Bible is big enough as it is, how many pages do you want to make it now? Remember that Ethiopian Enuch? He didn't know what he was reading, but one of the disciples helped him out! :)

*The Bible is all about faith, I think I said this before. We don't see with sight. A lot of people have faith/respect in Jesus Christ - Christians, Muslims and Buddhists. In the Reasoning Book, it talks about Jesus from a historical point of view. Very interesting.

"Was Jesus Christ a real, historical person?

The Bible itself is the principal evidence that Jesus Christ is a historical person. The record in the Gospels is not a vague narrative of events at some unspecified time and in an unnamed location. It clearly states time and place in great detail. For an example, see Luke 3:1, 2, 21-23.

The first-century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of ?James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.? (The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus, Book XX, sec. 200) A direct and very favorable reference to Jesus, found in Book XVIII, sections 63, 64, has been challenged by some who claim that it must have been either added later or embellished by Christians; but it is acknowledged that the vocabulary and the style are basically those of Josephus, and the passage is found in all available manuscripts.

Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century C.E., wrote: ?Christus [Latin for ?Christ?], from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.??The Complete Works of Tacitus (New York, 1942), ?The Annals,? Book 15, par. 44.

With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The New Encyclopædia Britannica states: ?These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.??(1976), Macropædia, Vol. 10, p. 145."

And, even though it's wrong, well-intentioned people with the dating system said that the year 0 is Jesus birth, and this year 2005 is 2005 years after his birth. He had so much influence over people over all this centuries.

Also, that's why there are so many religions in the world. They deicide what's right and wrong. Someone choose to be a Jehovah's Witness, someone chooses to be Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, a Dreamtime believer... they just believe in it because of heritage, personal decision based on "truth" or because of being born into it. There are many Lords and gods.... and there are many different believes too.

Maybe with some people like you, you are just tired of religion at the moment, but you may think again and start believing something.

The King James Version is Perfect

Share this