It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who Needs The Bible to Know RIGHT from WRONG?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   
To the OP,

Agreeing with your post,

religion is just a massive game of telephone.

anybody remember playing that in gradeschool?




posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 10:44 PM
link   
The Bible has been translated so much that even if it was true originally true it's very different now.
I think the Hebrew god (and most of the other ones) was an alien.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

According to who, Snopes?

We all know they can't put anything on the internet that isn't true, right?


No one has ever been able to prove that the Bible was tampered with.

The Bible you have is the same which was first written.

There is more historical evidence for the accuracy and integrity of the Bible than any other ancient text.


originally posted by: stormbringer1701
...the manuscripts used to compile the KJV are still in the British museum. that means that these original texts are available to check on the good editors of the KJV and other version's editors. Furthermore in the case of the old testament because of the nature of Hebrew every line has a checksum. it cannot be edited or typo'ed without it showing up as a checksum error and of course things like ancient fragmentary copies of Isaiah show practically no divergence from our modern copies of it.

Manuscript evidence for the New Testament is remarkable, far surpassing that which exists for any other ancient book. And those who work with these ancient copies (called "textual critics") are convinced that they have been able to recover a Greek New Testament which is virtually identical to the original.

This evidence does not prove that the Bible is the word of God. But it does demonstrate conclusively that the Bible you have is the same which was first written by its authors. When Teabing (the Da Vinci Code's "historian") asserts, "History has never had a definitive version of the book" and claims that scholars cannot confirm the authenticity of the Bible, he's simply wrong. Is the Bible true?

It is occasionally stated that the Bible has been copied and/or translated so many times that it has become unreliable. The actual evidence refutes this idea. Does that mean the New Testament text we have today is perfect? No, but it is very close. Ezra Abbot places the purity of the New Testament text at 99.75% pure, and A. T. Robertson’s estimate is 99.9%.

Scholars testify there is not one essential doctrine of the Church that is in question because of an inaccuracy in the text. Not one! The facts of the case prove that the text of the Bible is the most reliably established of all the ancient writings. Not only is the New Testament text we have today very close to the original, the evidence shows that the Old Testament text is too.

Hasn’t the text been copied so many times it is unreliable?

originally posted by: stupid girl
The Bible everyone reads now is not edited by the "illuminati". That is a major FAIL. The Masoretic Text is true to the original Hebrew. And we have copious texts in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew of the New Testament. In fact, it is probably the most verified composite of ancient text in the history of mankind. When you have a gazillion copies of the same damn thing written, translated & copied over the course of hundreds of years, that makes it fairly easy to glean a base-sourced original context.

The "illuminati" as you say, didn't get their grubby paws into the mix until the 4th century AD when the Vulgate was done. Unless you count all their gnostic efforts in the first few centuries up to that point. And even so, most of the New Testament are letters written by the Apostles REFUTING gnostic heresy. That is why we have the canon, and that is why it does not include texts that were even suspect to the influence of gnosticism.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   
This disputes your claim that the bible is acacurate- as if it isn't obvious from the fact that so much of it was removed and our current versions are written very differently from each other.

www.goodreads.com...



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: searcherfortruth

In biblical Hebrew, the Ten Commandments are called עשרת הדברים (Asereth ha-t'bharîm) and in Rabbinical Hebrew עשרת הדברות (Asereth ha-Dibroth), "the ten words", "the ten sayings" or "the ten matters...

Biblical scholars have known for centuries that the 10 commandments are based on Egyptian, Hittite and Mesopotamian laws and peace treaties much older than the Bible.

If people bothered to read them and think deeply about them, they will see that there are 2 versions of the list in the Hebrew scriptures #1 =Exodus 20:1–17, and #2 =Deuteronomy 5:4–21

Also some of the so-called 10 Commandments are irrelevant

e.g. 'I am YHWH who brought you out of Egypt, you shall have no other gods before my face[s]...

You shall not make unto me any molten gods...

You will remember the Sabbath day and keep it apart [from the other days]...

You will not blaspheme the name of your clan-god...

You shall not covet your neighbour's house or his wife or his ox... (the word Khamad ('covet') also has the meaning of 'lust after' 'take' or even 'casting spells upon' ...)

So half of the so-called 10 commandments are basically useless in the 21st century...and 8 of them at least, were taken from the law code called the Egyptian Principles of Ma’at (the 42 negative Confessions found on Egpyptian tombs e.g. Behold Osiris, I have bhorne false witness against my neighbour, I jhave not committed adultery, I have not stolen, I have honoured my father and my mother etc.) and this was written at least 2000 years earlier than 'Moses" (Heb. Moshe, from the Egyptian root mshe (to be born of, son of) ...

So the 10 Commandments are not only useless today, they were hijacked from 'foreigners' who were an 'abomination to them' (see Gen 43:32 ("and they served Joseph at his own table, and his brothers were served at a separate table. The Egyptians who ate with Joseph sat at their own table, because Egyptians have an abomination for the Hebrews and refuse to eat with them.")

Just my $.02



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: grainofsand

I won't try to actually convince you of anything, then. Thanks for telling me your belief system, though.
Behave, it is not a 'belief system' when one does not believe anything which has zero supporting evidence.
I am open to believe anything if there is evidence to support the claim, but you and your 'souls' have nothing, zero, nada.

And I repeat, there is no requirement for belief in gods, souls, or whatever to live a moral life, just an understanding of philosophy.
Believe whatever you like, but don't push it as something which contributes to an understanding off the term moral, immoral, and amoral. To do so is just a childlike faith position lol.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand


Behave, it is not a 'belief system' when one does not believe anything which has zero supporting evidence.

Not believing in something is a belief. You don't have to believe that, but like you said, you have no realm of knowledge about something you haven't experienced.

Like you, I don't believe in mens interpretations of the Spirit, either. You mentioned the bible (written by men), you mentioned pixies, fairies, ghosts, whatever, also interpretations by people of things witnessed they don't 'understand or have any realm of experience for.

I've seen ghosts before so I can't lie and say I don't believe in them. I may not understand them or that realm, but I can't not believe in spirits or "no-thing", whatever you want to call it.

So don't confuse what I say about it, that, them, whatever, I prefer not to be labeled into some worldly group of religious zealots, I don't share their beliefs.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
Not believing in something is a belief.
No it is not.
A statement such as "There is no such thing as a soul" would be belief based.
My position is a lack of belief due to zero evidence.
It is a logic based opinion which requires no belief. Try again.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
originally posted by: grainofsand
originally posted by: intrptr


Not believing in something is a belief.



No it is not.
A statement such as "There is no such thing as a soul" would be belief based.
My position is a lack of belief due to zero evidence.
It is a logic based opinion which requires no belief. Try again.


Just bouncing of your initial reply to me…


I don't believe in gods, souls, ghosts, pixies, fairies, or anything else along the same lines.

You did say that? Kind of a conundrum, you can't say they don't exist without proof you don't have, or you don't believe in them (without proof).

I'm not going to go hot over this with you. I accept you don't believe in things you have never seen, after all your eyes only see one billionth of the Known Electromagnetic Spectrum.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Dude, you are clutching at straws, I don't believe in souls due to a lack of evidence.
I do not hold a belief that they do not exist, but I am open to believe in such things if any evidence were to be presented. Are you really struggling to see the difference.
No matter how much you may wish me to have a belief based opinion, I do not, it is solely based on logic.
Try again.

*Edit*
Oh, and don't invent words which I have not posted.
I have said nowhere that such things do not exist, just that there is zero evidence so I do not hold a belief similar to yours.
edit on 26.9.2015 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand


have said nowhere that such things do not exist, just that there is zero evidence so I do not hold a belief similar to yours.

For witnesses its no longer a matter of "believing or not believing", as you put it.

Your and my beliefs about it don't matter, all you can say is I've never witnessed something.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

That's cool, but my position is not a 'belief system' as you initially asserted.
That is all I disagree with, and it sounds awfully similar to the lame claims of religious folk who try to say my lack of belief in gods is a belief in itself. It is not, clearly.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: searcherfortruth

There are too many things that are not plain right or wrong, so to make it all plain by truncating it down to a list of ten is contrary to learning and the evolution of human understanding.
edit on 26-9-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: searcherfortruth

Of the Ten Commandments...5-10 are excellent tools for getting along in society.

Plus, when born, we as all animals, have no sense of right from wrong.

These things are social constructs.

As is, IMHO, religion.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand


That is all I disagree with, and it sounds awfully similar to the lame claims of religious folk who try to say my lack of belief in gods is a belief in itself. It is not, clearly.



Stop putting everyone else in the "lame claims" religion category, thats all I ask. I'm a refugee from there, its hard enough having recovered from it to constantly have to explain it all over again every time somebody mentions the word spirit.

Just because some organized religion exerts control over people by insisting only they have the truth, doesn't mean we have to disbelieve all things spiritual. Learn to separate out the difference.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: intrptr

Dude, you are clutching at straws, I don't believe in souls due to a lack of evidence.
I do not hold a belief that they do not exist, but I am open to believe in such things if any evidence were to be presented.


I have a theory you might consider. I'm not religious either so my theory is based on Darwin but on a Universal scale.

My theory is that the Universe is infinite and everything born with instinct is driven by an instinct to be infinite. So a survival instinct is also an instinct to survive death.

It stands to reason we could be evolving towards becoming infinite 'beings' given our evolution is based on the instinct to survive death/be infinite.

Perhaps when we dream at night, our energy is learning how to travel in 'intelligent' paths across neurons so that after our bodies die, the collective of energy at the moment(s) of death has learned how to have experiences, emotions, solve problems after our physical bodies die and can't provide a vehicle for the energy to travel through.

Dreams aren't actual experiences that take place in the material sense. And we spend so much of our lives dreaming, there must be a profound evolutionary need for it. If it were a useless trait -- to dream -- then the process of evolution would have weeded it long ago like any other useless trait.

Perhaps we are evolving souls, so to speak. Or maybe we're already there.




posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

If you had not asserted that my lack of belief in souls was a 'belief system' then we would not be having this discussion.
Don't start what you do not wish to discuss dude, and yes, your assertion regarding my lack of belief in souls is exactly the same as religious folk who claim the same about my lack of belief in gods.
Oh, and on-topic, philosophy is all one needs to understand the difference between moral/immoral/amoral, not any belief in souls (as you posted here) or belief in any gods or questionable 'holy' books.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: searcherfortruth

Of the Ten Commandments...5-10 are excellent tools for getting along in society.
Plus, when born, we as all animals, have no sense of right from wrong.



incorrect once the first couple knew good (right) and evil (wrong) everyone since knows right from wrong from birth. We are not animals who need to be taught. this is why a baby who learns that mama will come when they cry will cry just to get what they want held, food, attention and the being will do that for the rest of their lives.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Philosophy means love of wisdom. Wisdom is a gift from outside ourselves that shows us a better than written law, religious law or belief.

You can say you are the ultimate authority, but I doubt you believe that. So did you learn a love of wisdom by reading about it from someone else or do you profess to some greater good than yourself that taught you from within?

How do you see that? Is good something you were taught or is it innate?

We wouldn't be conversing if you hadn't snarky replied to my post. I wasn't addressing you.

But you lump everyone who thinks there is something besides what we see with our eyes as "religious". You're the one that said:


I don't believe in gods, souls, ghosts, pixies, fairies, or anything else along the same lines.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Oh, how can you possibly rant like this without even trying...

I have used the Blue Letter Bible extensively throughout my time researching the Bible.

Start here and keep going : Genesis 1:1

Enjoy the long investigation that you should have endeavored to pursue instead of railing against that which you do not know.

As well, even in the Bible, God does not declare that the Bible is necessary to know the difference between good and evil. As you well know, there was a lot of good and evil to punish WELL before the first divine writings by God on the first slabs.

But even if this very simple logic didn't clue you in, then I refer you to this verse in the Bible:

John 16:7-11


7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;

11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.


If you will read all of John 16, you will see that here, and other places even, it is mentioned that the Spirit of God tells us what is good and what is bad.

The Bible here is a physical proof, an evidence, of our observations and our convictions.

But only those people who are able to have wisdom and faith will be able to see these facts. Wisdom is the ability to use knowledge. The ability to acquire proper knowledge requires efficient reasoning faculties. Faith comes by hearing, but it can only be granted to the one who already has some kind of wisdom, or at least those who have chosen to have the capacity for it through their own humility.

Before you continue with your faulty definition of faith, let me tell you what faith is according to the very Word which you would further rail against :

Romans 10:14-17


14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.


Therefore, you see, faith isn't just something that you automatically have. You have to first hear to be able to have faith, and you cannot hear unless it is by the word of God.

Therefore, you rail against that which you haven't even aspired to understand.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join