for many christians, the bible is viewed as the 100% error-free, perfect book straight from god, where every single word was carefully chosen by god for a reason.
but, usually, when you have a discussion on the topic, these christians will end up saying that only the original copies written directly from the hands of the prophets and apostles were error-free, and all manuscript copies since then are subject to copyist mistakes and other errors.. since zero original copies are in existence, how do we know the originals were error-free?
why should we think the originals should be error-free to begin with?
The Synaptic Gospels are accounts of Jesus' sayings and acts gathered from eyewitnesses and faithful disciples and should not be expected to perfectly coincide chronologically or in every detail.
Well, they aren't, not unless Jesus was making puns in Greek to people that didn't speak Greek. Does that seem like something Jesus would do?
for many christians, the bible is viewed as the 100% error-free, perfect book straight from god, where every single word was carefully chosen by god for a reason.
but, usually, when you have a discussion on the topic, these christians will end up saying that only the original copies written directly from the hands of the prophets and apostles were error-free, and all manuscript copies since then are subject to copyist mistakes and other errors.. since zero original copies are in existence, how do we know the originals were error-free?
why should we think the originals should be error-free to begin with?
Even if it is, it would make more sense to use the good parts / good morality found in the Bible to reason with those who are still die-hard believers, rather than alienate them completely by telling them it's all shit.
What parts are those? The part where Jesus killed a tree for behaving like a tree? The part where he called people horrible names and predicted their death? The part where he said he was there to cause families to fight? The part where he was killed for sedition?
Which morality, exactly, are you claiming is unique to the Bible that we should use?
I actually have come to value kindness, hope, and love equally as much as truth. If there is no God and there is no afterlife, with no judgment on whether I believed in facts or falsehoods, shouldn't kindness and happiness take priority over truth?
Here's an example. A child is at risk for a disease. The only vaccination or preventative measure is via injection. The child is deathly afraid of needles. Should the parents, instead of recognizing the truth that the child could get ill and die, be kind in the moment to make the child happy and refuse the preventative measure?
If you don't like that example, please come up with one where kindness and happiness are more important than truth.
for many christians, the bible is viewed as the 100% error-free, perfect book straight from god, where every single word was carefully chosen by god for a reason.
but, usually, when you have a discussion on the topic, these christians will end up saying that only the original copies written directly from the hands of the prophets and apostles were error-free, and all manuscript copies since then are subject to copyist mistakes and other errors.. since zero original copies are in existence, how do we know the originals were error-free?
why should we think the originals should be error-free to begin with?
My point is, these people God was using to do His will were imperfect just like we are.
I view the Bible as containing the Gospel Message of salvation, and the teachings of Jesus, which are infallible, but the rest of the Bible can (and does!) contain many copyist errors, and perhaps, historical or scientific mistakes.
So... how do you know the salvation message is correct? What makes you think that, since the "fall of man" is allegorical (as you believe evolution is real), Jesus needed to die? That God will kill millions of people for not believing in a book riddled with errors? That gospels suddenly became the infallible work of fallible men, but the rest is not? Why do you pretend the many errors and contradictions in the gospels don't exist?
Sorry, the logic you are using is just as twisted and hacked as those that claim the infallibility of the Bible and makes just as little sense. Simon nailed it with his post.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/581439/rise-isis-earthquakes-warnings-before-armageddon-apocalypse-end-destroys-volcanoes-earth.
the "end" of mankind, which has been long predicted by jehovah's witnesses, could happen as soon as this year - according to latest announcement from the christian religion.. in the latest edition of jehovah's witnesses monthly publication watchtower, an article translated into 700 languages - urges people to join the religion or face certain death when god sends his forces from the heavens to "remove all world leaders," "exterminate his enemies" and "rid the world of satan".. critics have lambasted the warning of a coming armageddon as yet another "failed prediction" by the religion, which has previously delivered similar alerts such as a foretold apocalypse in 1975.. indeed, jehovah's witnesses have been warning people of the need to recognise jehovah or face certain death when the "end" comes for more than 100 years.. the christian-based religion was founded in the 1870s by charles taze russell in pittsburgh, pennsylvania, us, as an offshoot from the bible studies movement.. today, there are 8.2million jehovah's witness evangelists, while 19.9 million celebrated their annual memorial festival marking christ's death - worldwide in 2014.. followers do not believe in military service and will not accept blood transfusions.. in a new eight-page article, watchtower said jehovah's witness leaders are now "convinced" humans are in their "final days" before the armageddon.. they cite an increase in global armed conflict, such as the rise of the islamic state terror group, as well as natural disasters such as volcanoes and earthquakes.. the lengthy article, written by an unnamed author, said: "will god let humans continue to dominate one another and threaten the future of mankind?
no, as we have seen, he will step in and bring an end to centuries of misery and oppression.
I don't think that is correct. As far as I have seen and read, 1914 was to be the BEGINNING of Armageddon, and the start of the Earthly paradise was to be a little later, 1915-16 or so, I don't have the quote in front of me, but Russell on the wholesale collapse of governments etc
It is 100% correct.
"But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble. Zion's Watch Tower 1894 Jul 15 p.226
"THE "Time of the End," a period of one hundred and fifteen (115) years, from A.D. 1799 to A.D. 1914, is particularly marked in the Scriptures. "The Day of His Preparation" is another name given to the same period " Studies in the Scriptures - Thy Kingdom Come p.2
my wife has recently become very curious about my activity on my ipad.
i delete my browsing history but if she should discover this site and my identity here, she will gladly hand me over to the hangman, something i have managed to avoid for quite some time now,.
i hit the "sign out" button, but i find that i'm still logged in!
Private browsing often leaves cookies. I like the chrome idea...wiping everything clean every time. I hope the private/shared computer box works for everyone...
That's why you install a cookie manager and have it delete cookies for you that are either not marked favorite or have it always delete cookies from certain sites or ALWAYS refuse cookies in your browser.
"Wiping everything" is like using a shotgun to crack and egg.
my wife has recently become very curious about my activity on my ipad.
i delete my browsing history but if she should discover this site and my identity here, she will gladly hand me over to the hangman, something i have managed to avoid for quite some time now,.
i hit the "sign out" button, but i find that i'm still logged in!
Have two browsers installed, one for general use where you can leave the history untouched, and one purely for jw net, where you wipe it every time you shut it down
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203036
Not sure if Safari has the same ability, but if not you can always download the Chrome app.
See above :)
I was really panicking because I hadn't deleted my history before I went out.
Deleting history, all of it, is 100% suspicious. Just put the browser in private or incognito mode for the sites you don't want tracked. That way everything looks normal. See above :)
my wife has recently become very curious about my activity on my ipad.
i delete my browsing history but if she should discover this site and my identity here, she will gladly hand me over to the hangman, something i have managed to avoid for quite some time now,.
i hit the "sign out" button, but i find that i'm still logged in!
They do. But if his wife is savvy, she's going to be able to tell he is using private mode.
Huh? Use normal mode for normal browsing. When he wants to read JWN, open a private tab, browse, close. Any data associated with that tab or window (and than one only) is gone. Everything else looks normal. That's the whole point of private browsing :)
my wife has recently become very curious about my activity on my ipad.
i delete my browsing history but if she should discover this site and my identity here, she will gladly hand me over to the hangman, something i have managed to avoid for quite some time now,.
i hit the "sign out" button, but i find that i'm still logged in!
richard dawkins admitted that information inside of dna, and the origin of life on earth, might point to intelligent designers, perhaps extraterrestrials.
(see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boncjbrrdq8 )richard dawkins further admitted, in a debate with francis collins for time magazine, that science might point to a creator existing, but that this creator might not be anything like yahweh:.
time: "could the answer be god?
last night a young man in a bar struck up a conversation with me.
our town is having our pride parade soon and he brought it up, the bible and how it's against the bible.
me being me, i said that i couldn't care less that it was against the bible and that it was a horrible guide for morality anyway.
I'm sure that the person who was at the bar with Viviane was a liberal.
Oh, no no no. Southern Baptist.
I am not saying all Christians are ignorant of the Bible or that most Christians don't. However, there is a very large percentage, perhaps and I think probably a majority, that don't.
