Evidence for God from Science

What proof to you offer for "the bile has been altered numerous times". Examples examples.... Have you been reading into athiest.org too much recently, because there is no evidence for alteration of the bible. If you want evidence against such accusations, read into the multi-thousand year old dead sea scrolls.

How about I put it this way...when I say "mistranslations" or "misinterpretations" I don't literally mean they just got words wrong. I mean, can you tell me what the ridiculous number of allegories, metaphors, indirect passages and figures of speech originally said in the Hebrew (or Greek) Bible? The Bible is poetic and hardly literal in almost its entirety. But our modern allegories, metaphors, figures of speech and so on are most certainly not literally the same ones the writers of the bible used. Heck, those aren't even the same when translating between languages today! So just seeing that the words are properly translated isn't the issue. It's the not-quite-so-cut-and-dry parts (and by that I mean all the important parts). Can anyone account for that? Because I can't imagine how we could.

For a practical example, take the English Bible and translate it word for word into German or French or Latin or whatever. Even if you changed the grammar and word order to be correct, most of the Bible would have no tangible meaning. All of the subtle phrasing and poetry would be gone, and the figures of speech lost in translation. Now, imagine you are a scribe charged with translating the Greek Bible into some old germanic language. You have two options: Leave the words the same and thus the meaning and phrasing of the Bible is heavily altered (probably not a good idea), or you add your own poetry and flow and rhythm in the new language so that it fits the culture and language better. More than likely, this second method was chosen, but the problem in that is that it sounds nice and perfect, but because you have fundamentally changed the words and phrases to fit the new readers, the original version and the new one are no longer the same. And when this process happens dozens of times throughout history, that problem is compounded.

To comment on the two articles thrown at my argument (from the main site). The one about the legitimacy of the Bible translations doesn't address the problem above. In fact, it simply opens up my argument more because he admits that there is minimal change in words at all since the original new testament. See above for why that's a bad argument. The second one about the Bible being written by man is irrelevant. I never said that the people just made it up. I'm saying that the Bible is not complete nor is it necessarily a perfect representation of the original writing. The Bible is an anthology, a collection of many author's works. But those who put together the Bible itself did not include the whole thing. And the could very easily have changed parts of it that were contradictory or didn't fit the ultimate view of their religion. I have no proof, no, but it is reasonable to expect. And I also don't see why the article pointing out that the authors/disciples were a bunch of losers helps the point at all? Could someone explain that to me?

Also, that's a rather ignorant of you to claim I'm just reading too many atheist websites and such. I'm not even an atheist! That's the one thing I hate about people who argue against others....when they spend their time distracting the audience from the topic by making baseless attacks on the other people in the discussion. If you have a valid point to make, Murray, then you should be able to make it without sticking a personal attack in the middle of it.

Ivellious wrote:But those who put together the Bible itself did not include the whole thing. And the could very easily have changed parts of it that were contradictory or didn't fit the ultimate view of their religion. I have no proof, no, but it is reasonable to expect.

You are going to have to accept that the Bible will make no sense to you and leave it at that. Understanding the Bible comes by the Holy Spirit and in your present situation, you will not - and cannot -understand. Let it go and move on to another subject.

FL

What is there to not understand? I fully understand it, as far as I know and have been told. I've been to church enough, I've read the Bible cover to cover multiple times. I'm only pointing out the fallacies in literally taking the Bible because of historical problems, perfectly logical. I see no problems with the Bible, I think it is a wonderful source of inspiration and a good guide for how to live your life, when taken with a grain of salt. There are many details that no decent christian should honestly believe in, but on the whole I feel like the Bible is great. The only issues arise from humans who bastardize and manipulate it to push their wholly un-christian agendas.

Ivellious wrote:What is there to not understand? I fully understand it, as far as I know and have been told. I've been to church enough, I've read the Bible cover to cover multiple times.

Read it as many times as you like, and this is commendable. However, without faith and the Holy Spirit guiding your life, your understanding of the Scriptures will always be steered by this:

Ivellious wrote:I have no proof, no, but it is reasonable to expect.

Move on to another topic. You will never receive a satisfactory answer here. Listen the answers that are given - as an interviewer would - and move on.

FL

If someone has an answer, I will certainly listen. But this forum is for expressing thoughts, not choking out those who aren't the ideal christian. Yeah, my views aren't yours, but respect me for my opinions. I'm not looking for answers, but rather for discussion. If that opens my eyes to something new or I can open someone else's eyes to something, then it's a good discussion, but that doesn't happen when one side dominates a conversation and tells someone like me to essentially "shut up and leave because I disagree with you."

As for my argument that you continue to quote...it was an unfortunate choice of words and I concede the point. But as far as everything else in that post, I see no reason why my not being christian like you should exclude my thoughts and concerns from the forum. As I said to Murray, if you're not here to further the discussion and just make personal attacks, then I see no reason for YOU to be here.

Stu wrote:First off let me say my intention is not to deliberately offend any members who might be Roman Catholics (though I fear it might), but from what I can see the Roman Catholic church has a lot to answer for. Bottom line is we are all Christians first and anything that seeks to harm Christianity or corrupt the Bible should be exposed, as God has told us to do.

It was actually while having a discussion that an atheist that he pointed out to me that the Catholic Church had rewritten the Ten Commandments. At first I didn't know what to think, thought it might an atheist trick of some kind but I soon found out that he was indeed right. I was right flabbergasted..
Given this is a part of the Bible in which God sets down something as profound as the Ten Commandments, it makes it that much more shocking

Why is more not made of this?
Are members of the Catholic Church aware of these alterations?

How can they not be utterly shocked and angry as I was..

Man has altered God's law, it's that simple -- rewritten God's Commandments to suit himself. I believe there's a passage in the Bible that warns of just that, and the severe punishment for those who do.


A few points:

1. Alteration of the Ten Commandments.
I still find this unbelievable.

1.1 Firstly they deleted the entire 2nd Commandment altogether. One that plays a significant role in Christianity
Original 2nd Commandment, now deemed unnecessary:

Exodus 20:4-6 You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my Commandments.

I'm guessing this commandment was erased to allow for statues of Mary and the saints to be erected and prayed to?

1.2 With the 4th Commandment they deleted almost all of the text relating to the commandment.
Original 4th Commandment:

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD your God: in it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger that is within your gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

New 4th Commandment:

Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.

1.3 And then to make up for the deletion of the 2nd Commandment, they simply split the last one in two
Original 10th Commandment:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

New 9,

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.

and 10th Commandment:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.

2. Praying to Saints
There are two variations to this.
One, (the official position of the Roman Catholic Church I think) that Catholics only pray to Mary / saints asking the saints to pray for them. Two, some actually do pray to Mary / saints for help.
However neither of these methods have any Biblical basis.

Mary and the saints have died, they have no power, never did -- only God does, and if they did heal while on earth, it would have been through God (think Moses and the parting of the Red Sea) not their own doing.

3. Priests forgiving man's sins
This is big. God never gave the power of forgive man if sin -- it is the whole reason Jesus was sent to earth! No matter how many years you study, or the cost of your fancy robes you cannot do what only God can. It has to come from your heart, and has to mean something.

From what I can see Catholicism has severly corrupted Christianity by deleting, altering and creating new laws, setting man up on a pedestal where he should never be.

Stu wrote:

DannyM wrote:No you are not the only one, Stu. Can you give me a genuine link to these claims?

Sorry no link that I could say is official or genuine.
Think I'll pop into my local library and do an actual book by book comparison.

Been a bit busy lately so haven't had a chance to respond properly to some of the other posts; will do so soon.

I just wanted to address the original post and say that a simple google search would have sufficed to answer silly little questions like did the Catholic Church alter the 10 Commandments.

The very first link I found here explains exactly what the deal is. Here is a summary (for those not interested in reading the link):

- The commandments are found in 2 books, Exodus (20 & 34) and Deuteronomy (5:6-21). The most commonly referenced book for the 10 commandments is Exodus 20.

- Chapter and verse divisions, including the numbering schemes did not come about until medieval times and certainly are not part of the original text.

- Grouping of the 10 commandments and their abbreviated form differs slightly but that doesn't mean the original text was changed in any way.

- FYI, The Eastern Church (of which I am a part) and which is in full communion with Rome, lists the 10 commandments as Protestant churches do and not as the Latin version, yet they are still in communion with Rome, which has no problem with it (see the grouping chart in the link). This is a little factoid people who are looking to disparage the Church tend to overlook.

- When the Latin version groups the graven images as part of the first commandment, it is not so it could be eliminated as a commandment but simply because it is seen as part and parcel of that commandment and only in the short-hand version. After all, the original text hasn't changed so why would they attempt to conceal it when it is still right there in the long form for anyone to see?

I think this should be enough for now to address point 1. As to points 2 & 3, I've addressed them a million times already but I will again if there is any interest.

As for the Sabbath day, the day of rest became the day of Our Lord, the first day of the week as opposed to the last day.

Really? When did that happen?

To comment on the two articles thrown at my argument (from the main site). The one about the legitimacy of the Bible translations doesn't address the problem above. In fact, it simply opens up my argument more because he admits that there is minimal change in words at all since the original new testament. See above for why that's a bad argument. The second one about the Bible being written by man is irrelevant. I never said that the people just made it up. I'm saying that the Bible is not complete nor is it necessarily a perfect representation of the original writing. The Bible is an anthology, a collection of many author's works. But those who put together the Bible itself did not include the whole thing. And the could very easily have changed parts of it that were contradictory or didn't fit the ultimate view of their religion. I have no proof, no, but it is reasonable to expect. And I also don't see why the article pointing out that the authors/disciples were a bunch of losers helps the point at all? Could someone explain that to me?

This thread is about RCC. I would suggest that you start a new thread if you want to discuss. The first thing I would do is provide some sitation and evidence as to your opinions. I have exhaustive research as to the reliability of the bible as we have it today, and would be more than happy to discuss.

jlay wrote:

As for the Sabbath day, the day of rest became the day of Our Lord, the first day of the week as opposed to the last day.

Really? When did that happen?

March 24 64 ad.

I don't know, LOL !

Ivellious wrote:As I said to Murray, if you're not here to further the discussion and just make personal attacks, then I see no reason for YOU to be here.

I don't see any evidence of personal attacks, Ivellious. Can you point out what offended you?

Murray said "Have you been reading into athiest.org too much recently?"

That's a direct attempt to undermine me without any base or provocation. It was made to try to mock me and/or damage my integrity. I find that both disrespectful and ignorant to assume that just because I disagree, Murray feels justified in shooting me down with insults.

Furstentum Liechtenstein, in short, said that my points are invalid because I'm not part of the christian faith. That insults my intelligence by saying I'm not capable of getting it unless I convert. It's the same idea as Murray...just attack my credibility with ludicrous statements instead of actually trying to make a discussion. Intelligence and ability to challenge your faith should not just be limited just because I disagree, and it's insulting to be excluded on the basis of religion alone.

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:

Ivellious wrote:As I said to Murray, if you're not here to further the discussion and just make personal attacks, then I see no reason for YOU to be here.

I don't see any evidence of personal attacks, Ivellious. Can you point out what offended you?

As Monica asked,

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:Can you point out what offended you?

No offense was intended and I'm rather surprised you took it that way.

In any event, since you say this:

Ivellious wrote:I've read the Bible cover to cover multiple times

You must be aware that the Bible itself says an unbeliever will not be able to understand it. Faith is needed for understanding, and you have none. Therefore, you will not understand any answer that a Christian may give you.

If you really want to understand, here is what you must do: Pray to the God you don't know and ask His Holy Spirit to enlighten your reading of the Scriptures. Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. (Matthew 7:7) That's God's promise to you.

FL

Often , Iveliius, we see people who come here and claim that they have "such and such" knowledge but when we delve deeper we see that the knowledge comes from a very very biased source, like an atheist site. (These sites often don't examine the issues deeply and many times resort to convenient and easily refutable arguments).

So when we see someone using stock arguments it's pretty easy to leap to the idea that they have been getting their arguments from these sites.

There was no offense intended, as I read through it. However, if you are here to honestly seek, then it would be wise to ask those of us that can answer your questions. You are on our site and we do have answers. If you are not here to honestly ask questions, then you will be pretty frustrated pretty quickly.

If you qualify a question as an personal attack you might take things to deep to the heart.............