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.

 

Is the BIBLE Truth Absolute?

page: 9
6
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
If "You" say so it must be true!


At any rate, out of all that wasted memory space I found one misunderstanding you seem to have about me worthy of correcting you about.

I "Michael" am here for a "time". you know in the bible where jesus said: "My time has not yet come"? We beings of my type, that you can not understand, are sent to grow up among you for a moment in time where "God" has aligned. Like the "No man knows the day or hour".

Please read the book, "The bible" and try to understand it this time around instead of looking for what you want to see. Start with the passage over to the on my miniprofile. The words go as follows: "AT THAT TIME... Michael shall stand".

Not your time. NOT even My Time. But God's time is God's will.




posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by joesomebody
I don't want to go into depth with one of my big long explanations, but Yes, the Bible is 100% true.

It is truly God-inspired through the Holy Spirit, is infallible, and... [blah blah blah]...


Far from it. There are many mathematical errors in the bible which put to death any absurd notion of infallibility.

Rejection of Pascal's Wager: Mathematical Errors in the Bible

I have used xian's own bibles to show them these blatent errors yet the most common response I hear is a denial of the form "Well I just believe the bible is the inerrant word of god."



"Be careful little ears what you hear..."




posted on Mar, 7 2008 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Here's a little documentary about the Gospel of Judas

www.youtube.com...

The Truth is out there!



posted on Mar, 7 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Incarnated
 


The truth may be out there, but it's not in a late-to-the-game book like Gospel of Judas.



posted on Mar, 7 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lilitu
Far from it. There are many mathematical errors in the bible which put to death any absurd notion of infallibility.


O rly?

www.tektonics.org...

Pay special attention to the Dr. Math update at the end.



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Original source


The Bible is one of twenty-seven books for which divine origin is claimed. Christians deny the divinity of all Bibles but their own. We deny the divinity of only one more than they do.

Out of 250 Jewish-Christian writings, sixty-six have arbitrarily been declared canonical by Protestants. The rejected books are of the same general character as those now published together as the "Holy Bible." Circumstances rather than merit determined selection.

For 150 years the Christian Bible consisted of the sacred books of the Jews. The New Testament was not formed until the latter half of the second century when Irenaeus selected twenty books from among forty or more gospels, nearly as many acts of apostles, a score of revelations and a hundred epistles. Why were these particular books chosen? Why four gospels instead of one? Irenaeus: "There are four quarters of the earth in which we live and four universal winds." The gospels were unknown to Peter, Paul, and the early church fathers. They were forged later.





 

Mod Edit: Please see Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ** and New Site Tag For Quoting External Sources Thank you - Jak

[edit on 10/3/08 by JAK]



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by kemo_d7
The Bible is one of twenty-seven books for which divine origin is claimed. Christians deny the divinity of all Bibles but their own. We deny the divinity of only one more than they do.

Out of 250 Jewish-Christian writings, sixty-six have arbitrarily been declared canonical by Protestants. The rejected books are of the same general character as those now published together as the "Holy Bible." Circumstances rather than merit determined selection.

For 150 years the Christian Bible consisted of the sacred books of the Jews. The New Testament was not formed until the latter half of the second century when Irenaeus selected twenty books from among forty or more gospels, nearly as many acts of apostles, a score of revelations and a hundred epistles. Why were these particular books chosen? Why four gospels instead of one? Irenaeus: "There are four quarters of the earth in which we live and four universal winds." The gospels were unknown to Peter, Paul, and the early church fathers. They were forged later.

The Bible did not assume anything like its present form until the fourth century. The Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, and Protestant canons were not adopted until modern times. The Bible was recognized as a collection of independent writings. The Council of Trent (1563) determined the Roman Catholic, Protestants denounce the Catholic Bible as a "popish imposture."

The Greek Catholics at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 finally accepted the book of Revelation. Their Bible contains several books not in the Roman canon. The Westminster Assembly in 1647 approved the list of sixty-six books composing the authorized version, the one most used in America. Our Bible, therefore, is less than 300 years old.


PLAGIARISM


The Bible is one of twenty-seven books for which divine origin is claimed. Christians deny the divinity of all Bibles but their own. We deny the divinity of only one more than they do.

Out of 250 Jewish-Christian writings, sixty-six have arbitrarily been declared canonical by Protestants. The rejected books are of the same general character as those now published together as the "Holy Bible." Circumstances rather than merit determined selection.

For 150 years the Christian Bible consisted of the sacred books of the Jews. The New Testament was not formed until the latter half of the second century when Irenaeus selected twenty books from among forty or more gospels, nearly as many acts of apostles, a score of revelations and a hundred epistles. Why were these particular books chosen? Why four gospels instead of one? Irenaeus: "There are four quarters of the earth in which we live and four universal winds." The gospels were unknown to Peter, Paul, and the early church fathers. They were forged later.

The Bible did not assume anything like its present form until the fourth century. The Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, and Protestant canons were not adopted until modern times. The Bible was recognized as a collection of independent writings. The Council of Trent (1563) determined the Roman Catholic, Protestants denounce the Catholic Bible as a "popish imposture." The Greek Catholics at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 finally accepted the book of Revelation. Their Bible contains several books not in the Roman canon. The Westminster Assembly in 1647 approved the list of sixty-six books composing the authorized version, the one most used in America. Our Bible, therefore, is less than 300 years old.


www.atheists.org...

[edit on 3/10/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Logic

The Bible is the Only Book that Mirrors yourself in good and bad ways that reality is we are going to Die in the Flesh as the 1st Death and then We will be Judge by our different own works in the day that we are living.

There is No other Book in the History that represent yourself conscience only the BIBLE (^^,)




[edit on 10-3-2008 by johnb1]



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD


PLAGARISM


The Bible is one of twenty-seven books for which divine origin is claimed. Christians deny the divinity of all Bibles but their own. We deny the divinity of only one more than they do.

Out of 250 Jewish-Christian writings, sixty-six have arbitrarily been declared canonical by Protestants. The rejected books are of the same general character as those now published together as the "Holy Bible." Circumstances rather than merit determined selection.

For 150 years the Christian Bible consisted of the sacred books of the Jews. The New Testament was not formed until the latter half of the second century when Irenaeus selected twenty books from among forty or more gospels, nearly as many acts of apostles, a score of revelations and a hundred epistles. Why were these particular books chosen? Why four gospels instead of one? Irenaeus: "There are four quarters of the earth in which we live and four universal winds." The gospels were unknown to Peter, Paul, and the early church fathers. They were forged later.

The Bible did not assume anything like its present form until the fourth century. The Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, and Protestant canons were not adopted until modern times. The Bible was recognized as a collection of independent writings. The Council of Trent (1563) determined the Roman Catholic, Protestants denounce the Catholic Bible as a "popish imposture." The Greek Catholics at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 finally accepted the book of Revelation. Their Bible contains several books not in the Roman canon. The Westminster Assembly in 1647 approved the list of sixty-six books composing the authorized version, the one most used in America. Our Bible, therefore, is less than 300 years old.


www.atheists.org...


First off: It's Plagiarism, not Plagarism as you posted, if you're going to say stuff, or shout it (using all caps) make sure you spell it correctly, or use a spellchecker.

This is just rich, in stead of addressing WHAT he posted, i.e. the content of it (which must come as a shock to some "believers" of the bible) you attack him with accusations of Plagiarism ?

That's a nice tactic, but it doesn't work, at all, and it shows me 1 thing: any given evidence that contradict your own idea's about the bible will be discredited, ridiculed, or distorted.

You could have addressed the content of the post, yet you choose not to (probably cause what he posted is true, and you can't debunk it)

Ok, the OP could have mentioned the source where he got it, but he never stated that he wrote it himself, so where's the plagiarism ? Even if he had posted the source(not everybody is good with forum tags), you'd probably have dismissed it in an instant as atheist propaganda.


[edit on 10-3-2008 by XyZeR]



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 08:10 AM
link   
It seems he copies and pastes A LOT!
It's against the T&C if you don't use ex tags. I got in trouble before for using quote instead of ex.
But, I didn't copy and paste and claim it for my own!
Back on topic,
The Byzantine manuscripts are the oldest. translated by Eusebius, which is what the King James Bible is based on.
The Sinaiticus and vaticanus are VERY corrupt! From where we get the westcott-hort translation.
To say that the bible is 300 years old is ignorant!
Eusebius collected manuscripts that had been painstakingly copied from the originals! He, then translated them, In the fourth or fifth century A.D.
To say that Peter, Paul and John didn't know about them is , first, saying that you believe in the Apostles and second, that you know what they knew when they didn't write anything to know.????



[edit on 10-3-2008 by Clearskies]



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by XyZeR
First off: It's Plagiarism, not Plagarism as you posted, if you're going to say stuff, or shout it (using all caps) make sure you spell it correctly, or use a spellchecker.




My spelling and grammar is usually impeccable. So, since this is the first time I have ever been called out on it, I will consider this a success.


This is just rich, in stead of addressing WHAT he posted, i.e. the content of it (which must come as a shock to some "believers" of the bible) you attack him with accusations of Plagiarism ?


I did address it on other threads. He also copied and pasted it onto another thread where he said the exact same thing. Not to mention, when he also pasted the exact same thing on my profile among other C&P comments before they were deleted. Then, not to mention the other half a dozen times he was caught doing the same thing on other threads. Then, not to mention a thread he started which was also (*ensures correct spelling*) plagiarized.

Now the mods are looking into his little C&P spam fest.

Or should I have copied and pasted my answers to all the threads he spammed with the same C&P job?


That's a nice tactic, but it doesn't work, at all, and it shows me 1 thing: any given evidence that contradict your own idea's about the bible will be discredited, ridiculed, or distorted.


Oh, but yes it does. Again, he has already been answered elsewhere before I caught on to what he was doing.

But thanks for the spelling lesson, my friend.

P.S. I updated the above comment for the correct spelling of plagiarism. I guess you'll have to find something else (and actually of substance this time) to criticize. Have a blast. I'm rooting for you!


[edit on 3/10/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by XyZeR

First off: It's Plagiarism, not Plagarism as you posted, if you're going to say stuff, or shout it (using all caps) make sure you spell it correctly, or use a spellchecker.

This is just rich, in stead of addressing WHAT he posted, i.e. the content of it (which must come as a shock to some "believers" of the bible) you attack him with accusations of Plagiarism ?


You dismiss TOS rules where 500 points are deducted for the infraction, alluding to AshleyD being somewhat desperate

Yet YOU in all your glorious respect for grammar spelling etc fail to see dichotomy you represent. Ill tell you what desperate looks like.

If you got Johnson,, then steal someone else's. If Ashley wanted to debate the person who wrote that stolen work,, then she would. I am sure she would find it more challenging and apparently so does the "plagarsit" and that's because he doesn't have the "stuff" as you call it, to come up with his own premise for his argument. Damn No spell check. Guess that will shoot my whole argument down.

Just like you tried to do with her,, YOU are the one that is missing the point but I guess if all else fails,,,

Attack Spelling.


You could have addressed the content of the post, yet you choose not to (probably cause what he posted is true, and you can't debunk it)


You don't see why she can't address that post? Are you serious??
Mmmm Ok Ill explain it to you.

She can't argue the post (cover your ears) BECAUSE THE PERSON WHO WROTE IT, ISN'T HERE TO DEFEND HIMSELF!

Get it now??

I am sure the original author wouldn't want his post defended by someone with any less writing skill much less someone who can't write at all.


That's a nice tactic, but it doesn't work, at all, and it shows me 1 thing: any given evidence that contradict your own ideas about the bible will be discredited, ridiculed, or distorted.


Hey, guy,, she was never seeking your approval in the first place.



Even if he had posted the source(not everybody is good with forum tags),


That's a nice tactic, but it doesn't work, and it shows me 1 thing:

When a Christian copy pastes a list of dates and names, ATHEISTS will call a Mod and make a federal case out of it. When Atheists steal entire chapters of books and / or essays,, well,, then it is an unmitigated attack done to hide the Christians "real" fear we have for being debunked.

Yet when an Atheist is caught red handed with his hands in the cookie jar they just never admit it. That's why it is OUR waste of time dealing with YOUR Dogma, Your Religion and your denial.

Ashley didn't JUST accuse him,,

SHE BUSTED HIM!

Deal with it

- Con













[edit on 15-3-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 05:17 AM
link   
I haven't gone through this whole thread, but there is something that has been beating about in my head that I've been wondering about for a while:


2 Timothy 3 : 16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness


First off, is this the criteria for having something as a scripture, or a fact about all things scriptural?
Like, when the different books of the Bible were being collected and canonised, was this the major criteria, or is it just a statement that literally all scripture is God-breathed?

Another point of interest for me: Would it be possible that someone today was 'inspired' to write something that became scripture? If no, why? Is it a reason to the time-frame? If it is the time-frame, then how far from the Death of Christ is the 'limit' of scripture?
Also, could someone be 'inspired' to do other things: translate, edit earlier scripture texts or translations, etc? Because this has happened before, and the excuse I've heard is that 'they were working under God's influence'. Were the writers of the KJV Bible working under the blessing of God? The writers of the NIV Bible?

Lastly, considering the criteria given, what about the parts of the Bible that do not live up to these criteria? Stuff that is definitely not righteous, nor an example of this unrighteousness used for reprimanding, or something that is not even related to God or religion in any way?



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (KJV)

First off, is this the criteria for having something as a scripture, or a fact about all things scriptural?



I to like you struggled to understand what scripture is because the bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the national geographic for that matter, could all be considered scripture, if the criteria for it being defined as such is only that they be given by the inspiration of God and that they be profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in right living.

In the end I concluded that all things inspired by God religious or non-religious are indeed scripture.

Only religion in order to maintain control must have a single source with which to direct people.

The same is the case with a country or nation they must have a written law to enforce in order for its government to maintain control of the population.

The study of the fact that the word which is interpreted from the greek into the english as scripture, is the word "graphe," is what lead me to my position.

Truth exist in the fabric of all things of substance, God is a living God when we seek to know truth in the belief that God exists then within us God lightens it, because we are made of the same stuff as all things of the universe.

That is to say scripture is designed to be interactive by God on purpose and can be anything written formed or made, which is God inspired and profitable for you in the reasons predetermined by God.

Truth is not shown to us from the outside in, but it is revealed to us from the inside out, what is true exists in an unlighted area of our reality, God illuminates that area so that we can see what has been there all along, that is why it can be defined as true because it exist in reality.

For this reason God challenges every individual to prove all things true for themselves.

He does not charge appointed overseers with the task of showing you the truth, because that is not the reality of how life works.

God demands you take up your responsibility to prove what is true for yourself, and for the mutual benefit of all parties involved.

Every single living person, except for those whom God has made special allowances for, if they desire to know truth, can prove for themselves it exists, by receiving enlightenments directly from God, just as the men and women in the past did before there was the bible.

It is my opinion that nothing has change with regard to how the truth is discovered since the canonizing of the bible it still works the same way with or without the bible.



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Incarnated
If "You" say so it must be true!



At any rate, out of all that wasted memory space I found one misunderstanding you seem to have about me worthy of correcting you about.


What this?

I "Michael" am here for a "time". you know in the bible where Jesus said: "My time has not yet come"? We beings of my type, that you can not understand, are sent to grow up among you for a moment in time where "God" has aligned. Like the "No man knows the day or hour"


Here son lets break it down shall we,

""Michael" am here for a "time"."
*yawn* yeah yeah, I know lots guys named "Michael" and besides everyone else,, those "Michaels" are only here for a "time" too.



you know in the bible where Jesus said: "My time has not yet come"?


Yeah I am familiar with it but I would expect as much from you not to give the passage and verse. After all you would think an Angel would know that off the cuff.



We beings of my type, that you can not understand, are sent to grow up among you for a moment in time where "God" has aligned. Like the "No man knows the day or hour"

"We beings of my type,"

It's "Beings of my type" Not "WE" Beings or try "Beings like me"
Or you can tell it like it is, using the Genus or say "Human Beings" LIKE YOU, who still needs to grow up at this moment in your time. Aligned? Aren’t you forgetting something?



Like the "No man knows the day or hour"


Yeah so what was so "worthy" of correcting? You haven't shown me what it is about you I "can not understand"? Unless it's that area of your psyche, in that I would have to agree, a PhD in Psychology or Doctorate in Psychiatry notwithstanding,, Ill use the axiom it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure you out.



Please read the book, "The bible" and try to understand it this time around instead of looking for what you want to see.


Don't patronize me inconartist, and don't be so presumptuous about what YOU, think I, see.


You sure give yourself away a lot for someone with such supernatural powers. Yet you suggest I read the bible then admit you know I didn't try to understand it, so don't recommend it as a "first time read".

Just say "Next time you read the Bible". Unless of course you were attempting to be as condescending as you have been to most of the people in this thread.

If you are going to assume a position of Authority then it is incumbent on YOU to establish your credentials. Again something you refuse to provide yet don't seem to have a clue why we should take what you say as Gospel.

I have copy pasted your paragraphs to style writer using the Bible add-on up until you finally got that spell-check,, your posts average a 6th and occasionally 8th grade level. So I figure you are either a kid or an adult who would do well to get checked for Bi-polar or perhaps start thinking about others here who are kind enough to give you the benefit of the doubt expecting that you AT LEAST substantiate your "supernatural" title as Angel because beings of my type, get little ticked off that you waste so much of their time arguing with someone who insists equivocating his arguments using a call to his status as a high ranking Angel for his Authority.

Then when we call you on it,, it isn't enough we spend so much time copy pasting verse and checking where or how you arrive at your conclusions but then makes snide little comments, words to the effect;
"If "You" say so it must be true!
as if it is an unusual request to have an Angel back up his assertions with something above Jr. High School Grade level posts much less anything supernatural.

If that wasn't enough, you make THAT our fault saying "Try to understand it this time" as if YOU do more then we do.

Then their is this last item of contention where I wish ATS had a list of names we could see for writers claiming to have talents and abilities far greater then mortal men. The most aggravating habit I see you do to these well intentioned people, is when you assume they are looking for things THEY want to see, that would somehow corrupt their understanding.

You then offer that as a foregone conclusion, telling them they don't understand it yet offer no clue to assist them much less tell them what they don't comprehend.



Not your time. NOT even My Time. But God's time


Yeah that doesn't mean YOU should waste OUR time which is NOW.

I'm serious guy,, you might think it's cute and think you are getting away with it because most are too gracious to tell you,, but I'm telling you,, I hear it all the time about your threads and you are pissing people off.

You want to think you are "special" fine but dont jerk people around thinking your specialness gives you a license to be insulting everyone’s intelligence then making THAT their fault too.


Start with the passage over to the on my miniprofile. The words go as follows: "AT THAT TIME... Michael shall stand".


Oh Brother,,, *sigh* yeah yeah, in the meantime,,,

Michael, should

SIT DOWN.

- Con











[edit on 15-3-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Could someone read and condense this story about the castle.
www.bib-arch.org...



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 12:42 AM
link   
It Is True and Absolute (^^,)








[edit on 17-3-2008 by johnb1]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join