It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by point
It must be very conforting for those that choose to actualy believe the Bible is the uncorrupted .'Word of God'.
No further tedious research is required. The search is over.
This popular path to 'truth' is a widely travelled.
In a perfect world there would be nothing to be wary about in this path.
However in a world such as ours, the popularity and ease of this path can also be indicative of a potential trap.
Even though I am a religious person, I do think that the Bible is often used to 'prove' things that are open to interpretation. Just look at all the different religions that use the Bible, and all the different translations. The Bible can be used to support or condemn homosexuality, support or condemn wars, or just about anything else. There's an old saying that you can prove anything you want by quoting the Bible, and that's probably not much of an exaggeration.
Originally posted by Beer_Guy
Have you ever done a search looking for what kind of person King James was? It's all a matter of recorded history, the answer may terribly surprise you.
No problem; The crusades, the witch hunts of the middle ages,
the extermination of the Cathar culture, slavery, right up to our President who claims the God of the Bible is talking to him, thus relieving him of responsibility for the invasion of Iraq.
its a sick little book written by power mad men, nothing more.
True Slavation Lies somewhere else, though it is by the words of Christ. Its unfortunate men have hijacked his Word.
Originally posted by truthseeka
It's obvious that the sun was implied on the first day? Oh, really. It's more obvious than a verse where it PLAINLY states the day the sun and moon were placed in the sky? Really?
I read it straight from the book where the sun comes after plants. Was this some pervasive light that shone throughout the universe when it was just planets and hunks of rock?
Not to mention the 2 creation myths don't even line up...:shk:
Originally posted by mytym
If I am to use the KJV1611 Bible, complete with a message the translators wrote to decipher what a bible passage actually means, doesn't that constitute an interpretation?
Feel free to use scripture to support your premise, just don't pass it off as factual proof, because it isn't. Just as you have the right to use scripture to support your case, I have the right to tell you what does and does not constitute factual proof.
If it is Fact to me, again, thats up to you to decide and deal with. It's not my problem if you opt to ignore it.
You have voted mytym for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.
Originally posted by mytym
For the purpose of this thread, lets assume that there is no debate over the
validity of the Bible as a truthful historical account.
Time and time again I notice members here on ATS citing Bible references as forms of proof to support a particular point of view. I have no problem with people believing in and following the teachings of the Bible, but when it comes to presenting quotes from the Bible as facts, I take issue with it.
"Proof is arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the available evidence."
Notice that this has absolutely nothing to do with being right or wrong. It also has nothing to do with science either, since you can have logical conclusions in Social Studies, English, or any other subject. The word proof is used a lot in law, and the idea isn't a lot different if we use it in science.
Proof does not equal truth.
The problem with 'proof', of course, is that it connotes certainty and completion.