The bible – god’s word or mans?

Jesus is real as Satan is real.....the King James bible is the true word. This is why they want to change it........simple

Which religious scholars have suggested than God himself ever wrote any of the words in the bible?

God wrote it......EVERY SINGLE WORD. The translators in the 17th century you will find made a few errors in numbers or colors but there are no contradictions. He wrote it by using man's hands and mind but his inspiration. Jesus, God incarnate, spoke and people wrote. Finally the Holy Spirit has been speaking to man's hearts every since.

Originally posted by andre18
Whales apparently are fish, Jonah 1:17 Mathew 12:40

Ever consider that there was not a word for whale in those times . . . they simply called them large fish. There would be no point for them to write “whale” if no one knew what it was. However, even today, if you say giant fish, the first thing that comes to most peoples’ minds is a whale. Not to mention your great transgression of hubris; If G*d says that whales are fish, whales are fish, end of story.

Leviticus 5 "The cherogrillus which cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof, is unclean." - it really depends what bible you're referencing from, it could be rock badgers, coney etc

ok? It’s saying not to eat a particular animal. I don’t see the problem

While i was at it i found some more proof no god could have inspired this book.

another lovely opinion

Leviticus Chapter 20 Verse 2
"Tell the Israelites: Anyone, whether an Israelite or an alien residing in Israel, who gives any of his offspring to Molech shall be put to death. Let his fellow citizens stone him."

This is saying don’t kill your kids in the name of “Ra” or you’ll “get it”. I see no problem with this.

Leviticus Chapter 20 Verse 9
"Anyone who curses his father or mother shall be put to death; since he has cursed his father or mother, he has forfeited his life. "

ok? Wish ill will upon your mother or father and you deserve to die. I see no problem with this.

Leviticus Chapter 20 Verse 10
"If a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. "

Sounds good to me.

Leviticus Chapter 20 Verse 11
"If a man disgraces his father by lying with his father's wife, both the man and his stepmother shall be put to death; they have forfeited their lives."

um, I couldn’t agree more, don’t *&^% your mom.

Leviticus Chapter 20 Verse 12
"If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death; since they have committed an abhorrent deed, they have forfeited their lives. "

don’t ^@#$ your daughter, sounds sensible to me.

Leviticus Chapter 20 Verse 13
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. "

Hey, nothing against gay people, but it’s pretty obvious that G*d is not down with the gays. Deal with it. I’m not here to be politically correct.

Leviticus Chapter 20 Verse 14
"If a man marries a woman and her mother also, the man and the two women as well shall be burned to death for their shameful conduct, so that such shamefulness may not be found among you."

don’t $%^& your daughter, again, I couldn’t agree more.

Leviticus Chapter 20 Verse 15
"If a man has carnal relations with an animal, the man shall be put to death, and the animal shall be slain. "

Don’t $%^& animals, sounds sensible to me.

Leviticus Chapter 20 Verse 16
If a woman goes up to any animal to mate with it, the woman and the animal shall be slain; let them both be put to death; their lives are forfeit.

Don’t %^&* animals or you’ll be killed. Are these laws really so hard to follow???

Yep, truly god inspiring words

they are, because people don’t follow these rules at all. If the proper punishment was enforced, I bet you the world would be a better place. I don’t think the world would miss people who %^&* animals and their own daughters.

Wait, so i have to actually interpret your quotes for you instead of you just explaining it in normal terms

You don’t “have to” do anything.

Well then bloody hell speak properly and clarify what you're saying in the first place so i don't assume things you're not saying.

It’s easy, don’t assume things.

What is it my fault i don't understand you're gibberish analogy that only you can understand and when someone tries to make sense of you say they've taken it out of context

there’s a difference between misinterpreting something and distorting it to make your interpretation more agreeable with your beliefs and assumptions.

Originally posted by JPhish
I never claimed the bible had no mistakes nor did i give my personal view of it.

Originally posted by andre18
Yes you did, you said those mistakes are just truths that haven't been releazed yet.

No, I didn’t say that, I said they might be.

Deuteronomy 22:11
"You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.

Doesn’t sound so hard to uphold nor does it seem it would hurt anyone. What’s the problem?

Originally posted by JPhish
That’s a logical fallacy. To assume that the byproduct of something flawless must be correspondingly so, is completely absurd.

Originally posted by andre18
Completely not absurd, if god is all powerful, all knowing and all loving - he would not inspire man to write a book filled with the content that it does. That is logic.

Your response to my quote is completely random but none the less; unless YOU are all powerful, all knowing, and all loving; there is no way you could know that. THAT’S logic. So since you’re not G*d, you can’t make that claim.

[edit on 2/7/2009 by JPhish]

the article in that link i posted... the phelps guy sounds a bit....erm.... well he's off the richter scale. i'm not sure how much of what he says is true, primarily because he appears to keep making connections to things based on scant evidence or conjecture or no evidence at all. so i wouldn't accept everything he says as the gospel truth.

also, i may be wrong about the vatican and the popes. it could be someone or something else entirely. that was just one of the areas of study i followed and for all intents and purposes, it seemed as if that was the case. but now that i've seen this phelps guy go at it, i'm not so sure. with that much history to compare, there's sure to be countless ways to attribute any powerful organization to just about anything. not saying it isn't true, just not as sure as i was before, due to the overwhelming amount of compiled data and potential leads that may just seem like leads and be nothing more than politics as usual. who knows. a similar case could be made for just about any world power

anyway, if you read (past tense) the black pope link, i think you'll agree... that phelps guy has more connections to more things per square inch than anything i've ever seen. how can he be so sure with that much data, that he isn't auto assuming some or many of the connections he makes because he's building his case (many times on things he hasn't witnessed himself) and finding so much material to quote from that it almost seems crazy. then again, he could be right.

i apologize to anyone who read it and thought... eek, data overload. whew. before i was even half way down the page, he had already lost me several times. and i felt kinda depressed. so much negativity and death and darkness. was like reading david icke, which i only do sparingly due to the extreme negative impact it has on my emotional state. so let that be fair warning: if you haven't read the black pope link, and are prone to be easily depressed or don't appreciate negative data, don't read it.

would be horrible if they were not the problem at all and were blamed for it, even if their history is infamously difficult. i think i just need to focus on happier stuff, cause this kinda thing is a little too dark for me.

[edit on 7-2-2009 by undo]

Ever consider that there was not a word for whale in those times . . . they simply called them large fish. There would be no point for them to write “whale” if no one knew what it was. However, even today, if you say giant fish, the first thing that comes to most peoples’ minds is a whale. Not to mention your great transgression of hubris; If G*d says that whales are fish, whales are fish, end of story.

But, if the bible is of god's wisdom then even if the people didn't have the word for it, god would still call it a mammal instead of a fish. God should have had the forsight to know in the future we would enevatably find out what it was. Why give us false knowledge?

The fact that you said they didn't have the wording for whale, should be evident that it was purely written by man and had no god involvement to it. Such verses demonstrate the ignorance of the time and that such ignorance demonstrates the lack of evidance of god's involvement in the book.

"If God says that whales are fish, whales are fish, end of story" - lol, What kind of mentality is that? if god says whales are fish then god's wrong....not much of an all knowing god

ok? It’s saying not to eat a particular animal. I don’t see the problem

Well firstly, people do eat rabbits, are they going to hell because of god's ridiculous law? Why would god even have such a law? It makes no sense to the sane. The fact that god says we aren't allowed to eat certain animals little own rabbits is just ridiculous and illustrates the kind of verses that should make you and every Christian rethink their belief system.

Just really think about this for a second - god doesn't want you to eat rabbits........do you really think that's a god saying that, or man. Really give that some thought.

Leviticus Chapter 20 Verse 2
"Tell the Israelites: Anyone, whether an Israelite or an alien residing in Israel, who gives any of his offspring to Molech shall be put to death. Let his fellow citizens stone him." This is saying don’t kill your kids in the name of “Ra” or you’ll “get it”. I see no problem with this.
Leviticus Chapter 20 Verse 9
"Anyone who curses his father or mother shall be put to death; since he has cursed his father or mother, he has forfeited his life. " ok? Wish ill will upon your mother or father and you deserve to die. I see no problem with this.
Leviticus Chapter 20 Verse 10
"If a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. "Sounds good to me.
Leviticus Chapter 20 Verse 11
"If a man disgraces his father by lying with his father's wife, both the man and his stepmother shall be put to death; they have forfeited their lives." um, I couldn’t agree more, don’t *&^% your mom.
Leviticus Chapter 20 Verse 12
"If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death; since they have committed an abhorrent deed, they have forfeited their lives. " don’t ^@#$ your daughter, sounds sensible to me.
Leviticus Chapter 20 Verse 13
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. " Hey, nothing against gay people, but it’s pretty obvious that G*d is not down with the gays. Deal with it. I’m not here to be politically correct.
Leviticus Chapter 20 Verse 14
"If a man marries a woman and her mother also, the man and the two women as well shall be burned to death for their shameful conduct, so that such shamefulness may not be found among you." don’t $%^& your daughter, again, I couldn’t agree more.
Leviticus Chapter 20 Verse 15
"If a man has carnal relations with an animal, the man shall be put to death, and the animal shall be slain. " Don’t $%^& animals, sounds sensible to me.
Leviticus Chapter 20 Verse 16
If a woman goes up to any animal to mate with it, the woman and the animal shall be slain; let them both be put to death; their lives are forfeit Don’t %^&* animals or you’ll be killed. Are these laws really so hard to follow???

I LOVE THIS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I COULDN'T HAVE ASKED FOR A MORE LUDICROUS RESPONSE

If the proper punishment was enforced, I bet you the world would be a better place.

Yep, let's just kill everyone. Sounds good

don’t assume things.

I wouldn't have to if you spoke properly in the first place.

No, I didn’t say that, I said they might be.

And eventhough you said they 'might' you still insinuated it by preposessing it.

Deuteronomy 22:11
"You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.
Doesn’t sound so hard to uphold nor does it seem it would hurt anyone. What’s the problem?

It's not about whether or not it's hurtful or hard to uphold as it is just a law that simply stupid. It's like saying don't wear blue shoes. There's no point to it.

Your response to my quote is completely random but none the less; unless YOU are all powerful, all knowing, and all loving; there is no way you could know that. THAT’S logic. So since you’re not G*d, you can’t make that claim.

I said - "These are mistakes - this is that kind of proof needed to show the bible is not the word of god in any sense because of the mistakes a book inspired by god on any level simply wouldn't have - period"

Then you said - "That’s a logical fallacy. To assume that the byproduct of something flawless must be correspondingly so, is completely absurd."

Then i said - "Completely not absurd, if god is all powerful, all knowing and all loving - he would not inspire man to write a book filled with the content that it does. That is logic."

And your response now is - "Your response to my quote is completely random but none the less; unless YOU are all powerful, all knowing, and all loving; there is no way you could know that. THAT’S logic. So since you’re not G*d, you can’t make that claim."

And my response to that is - There is nothing random about my response - it answers your point directly. Your response though is not logical, what is logical, is that we can see by the content of the bible that a god that has attributes that are all powerful, all knowing and all loving, would not comand us to kill eachother for any reason. And Christians say their morals come from the bible -

The way we can judge god's morals without having to be god ourselves is by the same way we judge other peoeple, and can take that to a god standered - if a god wanted us to kill our own people becuase we swore at our parents, we can then logically tell that an all loving god would not tell us to do such a thing becuase he simply wouldn't be all loving if he wanted us to kill eachother. That my friend is logic.

[edit on 8-2-2009 by andre18]

Originally posted by andre18
But, if the bible is of god's wisdom then even if the people didn't have the word for it, god would still call it a mammal instead of a fish.

No, they’d call it a giant fish for the reason I’ve already specified. It needs to transcend time and the vernacular of whatever period it is being rehd in.

God should have had the forsight to know in the future we would enevatably find out what it was.

what do you mean find out what it was??? Do you mean change its’ name? G*d said that it is a giant fish. It’s a giant fish. Sorry bro, you’re wrong.

Why give us false knowledge?

what false knowledge? Whales are giant fish. You’re not using the archaic definition of fish which is (more or less): any creature which resides in the sea. Whales are aquatic animals, whales are giant fish. Unlike jellyfish and cuttlefish which are small fish. Pun intended.

The fact that you said they didn't have the wording for whale, should be evident that it was purely written by man and had no god involvement to it.

No, it merely shows it was written for man.

Such verses demonstrate the ignorance of the time and that such ignorance demonstrates the lack of evidance of god's involvement in the book.

there’s no evidence that G*d didn’t have involvement with the book.

"If God says that whales are fish, whales are fish, end of story" - lol, What kind of mentality is that? if god says whales are fish then god's wrong....not much of an all knowing god

no, if G*d says whales are called “giant fish”, they’re giant fish. It’s not a mentality, it’s a FACT.

Well firstly, people do eat rabbits, are they going to hell because of god's ridiculous law?

i don't believe so

Why would god even have such a law?

I couldn’t presume to know, and neither could you.

It makes no sense to the sane.

Makes sense to me and I’m considered sane.

The fact that god says we aren't allowed to eat certain animals little own rabbits is just ridiculous and illustrates the kind of verses that should make you and every Christian rethink their belief system.

why is it ridiculous? That’s your opinion.

I LOVE THIS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I COULDN'T HAVE ASKED FOR A MORE LUDICROUS RESPONSE

Ludicrous? So you’re telling me that people sexually exploiting their daughters, cheating on their spouses, having sex with animals, and screwing little boys in the butt is alright?

Yep, let's just kill everyone. Sounds good

Hate to burst your bubble, but not everyone does all of the horrible things on that list.

I wouldn't have to if you spoke properly in the first place.

that’s your opinion

No, I didn’t say that, I said they might be.

And eventhough you said they 'might' you still insinuated it by preposessing it.

I was making a proposal in the form of a proposition. There is a difference.

It's not about whether or not it's hurtful or hard to uphold as it is just a law that simply stupid. It's like saying don't wear blue shoes. There's no point to it.

says you, and once again, that’s your opinion.

I said - "These are mistakes - this is that kind of proof needed to show the bible is not the word of god in any sense because of the mistakes a book inspired by god on any level simply wouldn't have - period"

You’re giving your opinion declaring “G*d wouldn’t create something that wasn’t perfect”

Then you said - "That’s a logical fallacy. To assume that the byproduct of something flawless must be correspondingly so, is completely absurd."

paraphrased: I said you were thinking illogically because you claimed that G*d wouldn’t/couldn’t create something that wasn’t perfect.

Then i said - "Completely not absurd, if god is all powerful, all knowing and all loving - he would not inspire man to write a book filled with the content that it does. That is logic."

Then you gave your opinion again and stamped LOGIC to its tail.

And your response now is - "Your response to my quote is completely random but none the less; unless YOU are all powerful, all knowing, and all loving; there is no way you could know that. THAT’S logic. So since you’re not G*d, you can’t make that claim."

And I was correct, your response is completely random because you still have not provided proof for why G*d wouldn’t create something flawed. Instead you simply reiterated your original opinion.

And my response to that is - There is nothing random about my response - it answers your point directly.

No it doesn’t, you still have not explained why G*d can not create something that is flawed.

Your response though is not logical, what is logical, is that we can see by the content of the bible-

who is we?

-that a god that has attributes that are all powerful, all knowing and all loving, would not comand us to kill eachother for any reason.

and once again, unless you’re all knowing all powerful and all loving, then you can’t make that call.

The way we can judge god's morals without having to be god ourselves is by the same way we judge other peoeple, and can take that to a god standered-

Judge other people??? I try not to judge others.

- if a god wanted us to kill our own people becuase we swore at our parents, we can then logically tell that an all loving god would not tell us to do such a thing becuase he simply wouldn't be all loving if he wanted us to kill eachother. That my friend is logic.

no it is not, because it is illogical to presume to know the possible intentions, demeanor or motives of an all powerful being in the first place.

However if you had indeed given me any sort of logical retort, I would have simply presented myself as viable evidence of an imperfect creation of G*d.

[edit on 2/8/2009 by JPhish]

It needs to transcend time and the vernacular of whatever period it is being rehd in.

But it doesn't, describing a whale as a giant fish is misleading. A child reading the bible as if it were fact would learn false information. That's not transcending time in any way.

what do you mean find out what it was???

Describing whales as a fish means they didn't know they were mammals. God should have had the foresight to inform us what mammals are instead of describing it with the only words they had at the time. He should have had the foresight to use the correct wording that isn't misleading, no matter if we enevatably found whales to be mammals, it shouldn't be contridictory to the bibles words used to describe it.

WHY ARE YOU NOT GETTING THIS?

Imagine if we never found out whales are mammals, Christians would still think whales are fish because it says so in the bible. 'Giant fish' doesn't sufficiently inform us what whales are and because it doesn't, it doesn't transcent time what ever time period it's read in.

No, it merely shows it was written for man.

If it was written for man it would be written so no matter how much man advanced the wording would be constantly adequate no matter what new knowledge is yet to be discovered.

no, if G*d says whales are called “giant fish”, they’re giant fish.

And to call whales giant fish is misleading.....

Well firstly, people do eat rabbits, are they going to hell because of god's ridiculous law?

i don't believe so

Well it's in the bible, so it's not like you can cherry pick - unless that's what you do. God said don't eat rabbits but people do anyway. Christians do - so why don't you believe people are going to hell for not eating rabbits?

Why would god even have such a law?

I couldn’t presume to know, and neither could you.

Oh but i could, the law is there because man made it and god didn't. The simple fact that it's a stupid law in itself proves no god would make a law like that in the first place because of the very fact that it's stupid.

Makes sense to me

It makes sense to you but you don't presume to know???

why is it ridiculous?

Because there's nothing wrong with eating rabbits.

Ludicrous? So you’re telling me that people sexually exploiting their daughters, cheating on their spouses, having sex with animals, and screwing little boys in the butt is alright?

No, but having them put to death is completely over the top and morally wrong in our modern society - only in countries like America where christianity dominates the government is the death penalty still prevalent.

We don't put everyone to death for swearing at their parents - that's a tad bit over kill on the whole punishment deal.

Hate to burst your bubble, but not everyone does all of the horrible things on that list.

And for that people that do, are you seriously saying we should kill them???

lololololololol - Christian mentality people, check this guys out!

I was making a proposal in the form of a proposition. There is a difference.

??? - no there isn't, it's the same damn word. If i propose something I'm making a proposiiton.

why G*d wouldn’t create something flawed

Why make the bible flawed when he can make it perfect in the first place? Besides, if you're saying that bible may be flawed then you're saying, yes there are mistakes in there. And if there are mistakes, then god didn't have a hand in it becuase god is telling us how to live our lives throught the book. If god f'd up his his own book in which we're are meant to live and learn from then how are we meant to live and learn from it properly if what we're learning and living by is false???????

[edit on 8-2-2009 by andre18]

reply to post by andre18


for all we know, it may have been a submarine. it looks like a giant fish. remember this is from jonah's perspective. He's using words and concepts that he is familar with to describe the experience.

the english word is fish. the original hebrew is dag (fish) from dagah (cover over in something, such as in darkness or from the multitude of something covering the land or a multitude of fish). also has its roots in the semitic dagon, the fish god. we have no idea what jonah encountered, we just assume since the translators said big FISH, that this was what it was...a whale. the text doesn't say whale, though.

Originally posted by andre18

Ludicrous? So you’re telling me that people sexually exploiting their daughters, cheating on their spouses, having sex with animals, and screwing little boys in the butt is alright?

No, but having them put to death is completely over the top and morally wrong in our modern society - only in countries like America where christianity dominates the government is the death penalty still prevalent.

so what you are saying essentially is that no-one should be able to condemn you for having sex with your sister (if you so choose too), but you can condemn god for saying that its wrong?

im not sure what your point is. are defending incest?

i failing to see how your argument proves that the bible was written by man. sounds like your saying ¨the bible was written by man because i disagree with it, and god would never state laws i disagree with.¨

Originally posted by andre18
But it doesn't, describing a whale as a giant fish is misleading. A child reading the bible as if it were fact would learn false information. That's not transcending time in any way.

1. It’s not misleading
2. It’s easy enough I child would understand it
3. Apparently it is transcending time, it’s one of the oldest books in recorded history.

Describing whales as a fish means they didn't know they were mammals.

No it doesn’t as I’ve already proved to you. A fish is any aquatic animal. Try to actually read what I’ve written before you make your hasty responses. Whales are fish. Whether or not those fish are mammals is irrelevant.

God should have had the foresight to inform us what mammals are instead of describing it with the only words they had at the time.

Good that you know what G*d should have done.

He should have had the foresight to use the correct wording that isn't misleading, no matter if we enevatably found whales to be mammals, it shouldn't be contridictory to the bibles words used to describe it. WHY ARE YOU NOT GETTING THIS?

There’s nothing to get, you don’t understand the archaic meanings of words, and that’s not my problem. Whales are fish, they just happen to be mammals. End of story.

Imagine if we never found out whales are mammals, Christians would still think whales are fish because it says so in the bible.

They ARE fish.

‘Giant fish' doesn't sufficiently inform us what whales are and because it doesn't, it doesn't transcent time what ever time period it's read in.

that’s your opinion, and I’m inclined to believe that the majority of the world would disagree with you.

If it was written for man it would be written so no matter how much man advanced the wording would be constantly adequate no matter what new knowledge is yet to be discovered.

and it is constantly adequate. Thanks for proving my point.

And to call whales giant fish is misleading.....

No, it’s not, because whales are FISH and they are GIGANTIC.

Well it's in the bible, so it's not like you can cherry pick - unless that's what you do. God said don't eat rabbits but people do anyway. Christians do - so why don't you believe people are going to hell for not eating rabbits?

No where in the bible does it say you will go to hell for eating rabbits.

Oh but i could, the law is there because man made it and god didn't. The simple fact that it's a stupid law in itself proves no god would make a law like that in the first place because of the very fact that it's stupid.

if man made the law, I’m going to guess that it would be a hell of a lot easier to figure out why it was/is a rule. Claiming “it’s stupid” is your opinion. I happen to have no problem with the rule.

It makes sense to you but you don't presume to know???

Simply because I can see the sense in something doesn’t mean I know the truth.

there's nothing wrong with eating rabbits.

that is your OPINION.

No, but having them put to death is completely over the top and morally wrong in our modern society - only in countries like America where christianity dominates the government is the death penalty still prevalent.

not only did you give your unneeded OPINION as usual, but you just made a very false statement about other countries and how they handle criminally perverted persons.

We don't put everyone to death for swearing at their parents - that's a tad bit over kill on the whole punishment deal.

in your OPINION.

Hate to burst your bubble, but not everyone does all of the horrible things on that list.

And for that people that do, are you seriously saying we should kill them???

I’d have no problem with it personally.

lololololololol - Christian mentality people, check this guys out!

Well that’s one more oversight to add to your mountain of mistakes Andre.

Originally posted by JPhish
I was making a proposal in the form of a proposition. There is a difference.

Originally posted by andre18
??? - no there isn't, it's the same damn word. If i propose something I'm making a proposiiton.

not necessarily, but thanks for proving my point. Proposal in the form of a proposition is an idea, offer, or plan put forward for consideration or discussion. That’s all I did. I did not claim that anything was a truth nor did I voice my personal beliefs.

Originally posted by JPhish
why wouldn’t G*d create something flawed?

Originally posted by andre18
Why make the bible flawed when he can make it perfect in the first place? Besides, if you're saying that bible may be flawed then you're saying, yes there are mistakes in there.

you’re saying the bible is flawed, not I. You haven’t proved that it is, but even if the bible were flawed, that’s still not proof that G*d didn’t inspire it.

And if there are mistakes, then god didn't have a hand in it becuase god is telling us how to live our lives throught the book.

that makes absolutely no sense. The equivalent to what you just wrote might sound something like this. “If it’s cold outside in Brazil, then Barrack Obama is not from there, because Barrack Obama is a democrat.”

If god f'd up his his own book in which we're are meant to live and learn from then how are we meant to live and learn from it properly if what we're learning and living by is false???????

1. You have no proof that G*d “f’d” up the bible
2. You have no proof that we are suppose to live and learn from the bible.
3. You have no proof that people who learn from and live by the bible are doing so falsely.

hypothetical scenarios are fun, but let’s deal with the facts.

reply to post by miriam0566


yes that seems to be his only case against it. He doesn't agree with it so it must be wrong. :shk:

for all we know, it may have been a submarine. He's using words and concepts that he is familar with to describe the experience.

we just assume since the translators said big FISH, that this was what it was...a whale. the text doesn't say whale, though.

Ok wtf. A submarine? Yes because of course submarines were around thousands of years ago. ?????? Why did you even propose a submarine as a plausible theory? It's like you know your just saying idiotic things but you don't care.....

I think i need to clear something up before this goes any further....
When you read stories of sea monsters, those sea monsters sailors reported back centuries ago are whales. Because they didn't know what a blue whale for example was , they'd see something humongous swimming about in the ocean. Sea monster da daa....

Yes Jonah is using words and concepts that he is familar with to describe the experience. Because of his lack of knowledge/understanding of what a whale is, he can only describe it to the limits of what he knew in the current tongue of his time.

Of course if you dont know what a whale is you're not going to describe it as a whale because you don't know what a whale is.

the text doesn't say whale, though.

Yes it does - depending on the version. Look at the different versions of the same text -

bible.cc...

"for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER"

"Just as Jonah was in the belly of a huge fish for three days and three nights"

"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly"

"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the stomach of the great fish"

"For as Jonas was in the whale's belly three days and three nights"

"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale"

ETC ETC ETC.......

And so we can clearly see the giant fish is meant to be a whale. There's no need to theorize what Jonah might have seen. And so to wrap things up, the bible clearly says Jonah wasswallowed by a whale. Because we in present times know what a whale is, we can logically conclude what the bible describes as a giant fish is actually a whale.

And because we had to change the wording to the modern understanding of what a giant fish is to a whale, we can then see that the bible was cleary written by man without gods involvement because it has this basic fault of describing a whale as a fish. If god had a hand in the bibles creation, he would have made it clear what a whale was. He would have desribed what a whale is and not as a giant fish.

[edit on 8-2-2009 by andre18]

i'm saying the hebrew, the language it was written in, doesn't say whale. and i'm a proponent of the ancient astronaut theory -- to a limited degree, so the idea there might have been an underwater craft of some sort in that timeframe, is not against my belief system.

so what you are saying essentially is that no-one should be able to condemn you for having sex with your sister

No, I said you should't be able to condemn someone (eg for having sex with thier sister) to the extent/degree of the death penalty. For some crazy reason you think the death penalty is ok, that's insane!

but you can condemn god for saying that its wrong?

Well that's because it is wrong damn it. If god says the death penalty is ok, then I personally have more morals then god lol. It makes sense to say because of the culture of the time that the bible was written in, the death penatly was moral. At that time - not now.

im not sure what your point is. are defending incest?

How did you even come to that conclusion??? I'm against the death penalty, but are you actually for it? - yep christians, great moral values there

the bible was written by man because i disagree with it, and god would never state laws i disagree with.

No, it's more like anyone with a brain can see a book claiming to be the word of god and yet says it's ok to kill someone just because they swore at their mother or had incestrial relations, is obvisouly not the word of any god. The fact that you think so simply illustrates the kind of person you are who would beleive such a thing

Originally posted by andre18
The fact that you think so simply illustrates the kind of person you are who would beleive such a thing

lol

andre, really, you tire me

Whales are fish. Whether or not those fish are mammals is irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant? There is not one scientific term where a whale is catoforized as a fish. Not one.

Whales are fish, they just happen to be mammals.

There is no and i mean it, no scientific term that describes whales as fish. They don't just happen to be anything, whales are mammals and have nothing to do with fish what so ever. You are the one claiming they do - provide the evidance.

that’s your opinion, and I’m inclined to believe that the majority of the world would disagree with you.

Yes it is my opinion....your point? simply addressing the fact that i've voiced my opinion doesn't simply make you right over me. The majority of the world would not disagree with me, they're not fish. Can someone please tell this guys his wrong because he simply isn't listening to reason.

No, it’s not, because whales are FISH

Ok this has got to stop. en.wikipedia.org...

Whales are marine mammals of order Cetacea

en.wikipedia.org...

The order Cetacea (IPA: /sɪˈteɪʃiə/, L. cetus, whale, from Greek) includes whales, dolphins, and porpoises. Cetus is Latin and is used in biological names to mean "whale"; its original meaning, "large sea animal", was more general. It comes from Ancient Greek κῆτος (kētos), meaning "whale" or "any huge fish or sea monster".

I couldn't have found more perfect proof of everything i've been saying. In ancient Greek whale is the same as huge fish and sea monster.

No where in the bible does it say you will go to hell for eating rabbits.

Leviticus 11.5 "The cherogrillus which cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof, is unclean."

Apprently we are not allowed to eat rabbits. If god doesn't what us to eat rabbits then he's officially saying don't do this or i'll send you to hell. If god made laws that we didn't have to obey and still get into heaven then there'd be no point in have the law in the first place.

there's nothing wrong with eating rabbits.

that is your OPINION.

And it is your opinion that it is ok to eat rabbits. You're not making a point by just saying it's my opinion.

We don't put everyone to death for swearing at their parents - that's a tad bit over kill on the whole punishment deal.

in your OPINION.

An opinion that is correct. Let me guess - it's my opion that it's my opinion lol

And for that people that do, are you seriously saying we should kill them???

I’d have no problem with it personally.

You know i don't think there's any point continuing this debate with you because obviously you're f@($!%G insane.

nor did I voice my personal beliefs.

You voice your personal belief, as soon as you make an opinion. As soon as you speak you are in affect voicing your opinion.

Originally posted by JPhish
why wouldn’t G*d create something flawed?

, but even if the bible were flawed, that’s still not proof that G*d didn’t inspire it.

If the bible's flawed, if that's the case then why still believe in the bible in the first place if it’s not god’s word but mans? If man deliberately altered the bible during its creation for his own benefit then how does one decipher god’s true word from mans alterations? How do you know which is which? Why still keep believing the bible is the true undeniable word of god?

The fish VS mammal argument is so foolish. Do you really think people in
844 BCE knew whales were mammals, or just a big type of fish? Seriously pick on something with more substance to make your points.

These kind of conversations are fun to watch.

the passion from both sides is intense!

I have been on both sides of the issue. I understand the Christian side and I am understanding the non-religious side. The one thing I am not seeing, and please forgive me if I missed a post, is fact.

so far in my Christian years and non-Christian few years no one has ever showed facts that their genre's holy book is truly from God. At least I have not seen any. The only answers I get is what I used to do when faced with that question, and these were not answers of fact only quotation of said holy book and diversion, "well, prove its not".

Of course this question eventually leads to the questions............

"Is there a God?", "What is the meaning of life, the universe and everything?" (42) sorry, I am a Hitchhikers Guide Fan, Don't Panic.

One thing I find interesting about Christianity is that each version is the true path to God, whether they really are or not. And to top that off, every Christian I have every talked to is also their own sub-version, in other words, they have an opinion that is a little different from the teachings of their version. How many Bible translations and versions are out there? Which one is the correct one? I also found out there are several Bible canons out there. I didn't know that till very recent. Depending on your versions traditions you may accept other books into your Bible, while the other versions don't.

Ya know, some of these conversations probably should be on ones own blog or myspace page. I wish conversations like this could be conducted without getting heated, and I am GUILTY of that myself.

Have fun and keep posting!

Originally posted by JPhish
Whales are fish. Whether or not those fish are mammals is irrelevant.

Originally posted by andre18
Why is it irrelevant? There is not one scientific term where a whale is catoforized as a fish. Not one.

It doesn’t matter what they are categorized as, they are fish. A fish is any creature that lives in the water. I explained this 3 posts ago.

There is no and i mean it, no scientific term that describes whales as fish. They don't just happen to be anything, whales are mammals and have nothing to do with fish what so ever. You are the one claiming they do - provide the evidance.

I already did provide evidence. By it’s archaic definition, (which applies to the bible because of its’ age) Fish are any aquatic animal. Therefore, whales are fish.

Yes it is my opinion....your point? simply addressing the fact that i've voiced my opinion doesn't simply make you right over me.

I never said it did. I merely said that opinions are not needed.

The majority of the world would not disagree with me, they're not fish.

Sorry Andre, you’re mistaken. Whales are fish.

Can someone please tell this guys his wrong because he simply isn't listening to reason.

The truth is objective Andre, no matter how many people tell me I’m wrong. It doesn’t change the fact that whales are fish.

Ok this has got to stop. en.wikipedia.org...
I suppose you think that Pluto is not a planet either right?

Whales are marine mammals of order Cetacea

en.wikipedia.org...

The order Cetacea (IPA: /sɪˈteɪʃiə/, L. cetus, whale, from Greek) includes whales, dolphins, and porpoises. Cetus is Latin and is used in biological names to mean "whale"; its original meaning, "large sea animal", was more general. It comes from Ancient Greek κῆτος (kētos), meaning "whale" or "any huge fish or sea monster".

the archaic definition of fish which predates your wikipedia article says that whales and dolphins are fish. No matter how many times you deny it, you are wrong.

I couldn't have found more perfect proof of everything i've been saying. In ancient Greek whale is the same as huge fish and sea monster.

too bad it’s not proof against anything I’ve been saying. BY THE ARCHAIC DEFINAITION OF THE WORD FISH, WHALES OCTUPII DOLPHINS ETC ARE ALL FISH.

Leviticus 11.5 "The cherogrillus which cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof, is unclean."

Apprently we are not allowed to eat rabbits. If god doesn't what us to eat rabbits then he's officially saying don't do this or i'll send you to hell. If god made laws that we didn't have to obey and still get into heaven then there'd be no point in have the law in the first place.

I must be missing the part where it says you’re going to hell if you eat rabbits. You assume too much.

And it is your opinion that it is ok to eat rabbits. You're not making a point by just saying it's my opinion.

I never said it was or wasn’t. I’m trying to make a point that your opinions are not needed here.

An opinion that is correct. Let me guess - it's my opion that it's my opinion lol

no, it’s your opinion. It’s a subjective statement, and they’re not needed in serious debate, so refrain from using them.

You know i don't think there's any point continuing this debate with you because obviously you're f@($!%G insane.

ad hominem at it’s finest.

Originally posted by JPhish
nor did I voice my personal beliefs.

You voice your personal belief, as soon as you make an opinion. As soon as you speak you are in affect voicing your opinion.

I have given no opinions, only information that is recognized as human knowledge.

If the bible's flawed, if that's the case then why still believe in the bible in the first place if it’s not god’s word but mans? If man deliberately altered the bible during its creation for his own benefit then how does one decipher god’s true word from mans alterations? How do you know which is which? Why still keep believing the bible is the true undeniable word of god?

that’s a lot of what "ifs". Again, hypothetical situations are fun, but let’s stick to reality, especially when you're going to accuse others of being insane.


[edit on 2/9/2009 by JPhish]