Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Sat Dec 24, 2011 9:44 am**

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

Precisely, Murray. In my experience with non-believers, not only are they the ones to first offend us (myriad of ways, I'm sure you are aware of) but then they become offended when all we do is challenge their non-belief. You have not offended us, however, I can perhaps see why you imposed something between the lines.

If YOU believed that Murray was insulting you simply by asking if you've been to that website, that means you aware of the massive amounts of errors they make on it, or else you would not come to such a conclusion. You consider yourself above the lies they tell there (and to that we commend you) or else there would be no grounds for offense to be implied. However, I am certain he was simply asking a question, no more, no less. Please, trust that

I think there is a deeper sorrow that is afflicting you, Ivellious.

Posted: **Sun Dec 25, 2011 1:22 am**

Look, I did overreact a bit. I just don't like being labeled specifically with a group that I don't really associate myself with and having that being used as a sort of backhanded statement. My other problem was more of a problem with being told to go away because I'm not part of the group that most of you associate yourselves with, and I don't take kindly to being excluded based on something dumb like that.

Yeah, I understand it being frustrating to have your beliefs challenged and then having someone get insulted when you push back at theirs. I would just like to point out that I never meant to insult anyone with my statements. I just wanted to give my views on the subject broadly speaking, and as far as I can tell I never get personal about it. When you take me posting the way I see something, then turn around and not attack my beliefs but rather attacking me personally, that's where I get offended. I'm not here to discuss personal issues with anyone, but in return I was hoping not be personally attacked myself.

Posted: **Sun Dec 25, 2011 4:15 am**

I can see how the that question Murray or someone put up was offensive, as it does have a component of labeling and a component of undermining intellectual integrity by essentially putting a connotative association to a person as being unoriginal or shallow minded.

But these thoughts were a bit familiar as common objections. I can't tell how many of my friends tell me essentially the same things. It's fustrating. But as for the concrete validity of these statements, this is the wrong thread. But It does not matter much will post my random thoughts too anyway:

Ivellious wrote:Just to post my random thoughts on the topic...

1.The Bible in its current form has been altered numerous times throughout history. First, the Bible itself is a construct of man, not God, and written by a few powerful (see:literate) men back a couple thousand years ago. They picked and chose what would and would not be in the Bible and left out/edited it to fit their view of the religion.

2.Second, the Bible was written in Hebrew. Literally thousands of translations and (likely) mistranslations along the way to today, and you have quite a mess. The first issue there is that there never can be a perfect translation of a document (much less one so poetic and massive) from one language to another. Stack these variations and different interpretations over time, and you have some serious discrepancies. This is particularly relevant when discussing very specific parts of the Bible. General ideas might be easier to use, but phrases, figures of speech, and metaphors are almost certainly not accurately representing the ancient source material. Interpretation of the Bible's numerous vague passages becomes skewed because of this.

3.I admit also that at various times in history humans have changed the Bible, again often to fit their agenda or desires. Not just the Catholics, but all varieties of Christians utilize their own versions and interpretations of the Bible.

4.Also, I think it's not really logical to assume that the first church of Christianity obviously had it right. By that measure the ancient Middle-Eastern People that wrote the epic of Gilgamesh must have had it right. They were likely the first to develop a major societal mythology/religion.

1. You make an extremely strong statement here by essentially saying God had no part in the construction of the bible. Also it was not written by the elite powerful, one of the main themes in the bible is to undermine the supreme authority of worldy royalty. Unlike the Egyptians here, we don't think our leaders are actually devine.

2. There is A LOT of study that goes into this. Also scholars are not blind to the idioms and poetic and we are always debating interpretations over and over because of this and other reasons.

3. It is a bit awkward that you are admitting something that you already put in fact form in the first part of the reply. But what I think you trying to point at is that Catholics are not the only one to blame for what they are being accused of in this thread. So in a sense it does contain a lot of relevence but is still mostly material for another nonspecific thread.

4. The first church has nothing to do with the creation of the ten commandments. Historical fact already proves this since they are in the dead sea scrolls which date before the time of the first church.

Posted: **Sun Dec 25, 2011 4:21 am**

Dang it as I read my own post I see a snobbish tone myself.

Posted: **Mon Dec 26, 2011 1:12 am**

Hi, I'm new here.

I'm a Catholic, too, so I'm eager to join this discussion.

Please read Exodus 20:1-6 in the Douay-Rheims Bible (http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id398.html). That version is, by the way, about two years older than the King James Version.

Posted: **Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:59 pm**

Byblos wrote: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.

Is that really necessary? Altering the Ten Commandments is hardly a 'silly little question'?
My first post I actually copy and pasted from another site from where I originally raised the topic a while back; if memory serves me correct that info was indeed gathered via google....

Anyway, I went past my local library and they didn't have a Catholic Bible

So will have to go to a larger one. Think I'm also gonna approach a pastor friend of mine -- he might have access to some of the original texts and translate them direct.

Posted: **Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:08 pm**

Stu, Bill's link directly above yours gives a link to an online text. Also, I believe that some of the online Bible Text sites include this translation as an option to display. You should be able to find what you need online, with just a little searching.

Posted: **Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:24 pm**

Canuckster1127 wrote:Stu, Bill's link directly above yours gives a link to an online text. Also, I believe that some of the online Bible Text sites include this translation as an option to display. You should be able to find what you need online, with just a little searching.

Thanks yeah I had a look at the link. It's just kinda tricky with so many sources out there, you don't quite know where to look you know

Anyway I'm no biblical scholar so thought it might be a better idea to contact someone who has studied these issues like a pastor.
Hey I hope the RCC didn't alter the texts

perhaps it's not true and I've been fed a lie by a once-Christian-turned-atheist (that's how the topic got started on the other forum), I was just looking for some clarity on the subject.

Posted: **Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:38 pm**

I'm a former pastor who's done academic work in the area of Biblical Literature, will that work?

Seriously, this is a version that's in the public domain so there should be multiple online sources since there's no copyright to be concerned about, unless there's additional notes or commentary which then can be copyrighted exclusive of the Biblical Text.

Here's a source I founf easily as well that should work.

http://www.drbo.org

I don't see any flags there that would make me believe that it isn't what it presents itself as being.

Posted: **Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:47 pm**

Canuckster1127 wrote:I'm a former pastor who's done academic work in the area of Biblical Literature, will that work?

I guess

Seriously, this is a version that's in the public domain so there should be multiple online sources since there's no copyright to be concerned about, unless there's additional notes or commentary which then can be copyrighted exclusive of the Biblical Text.

Here's a source I founf easily as well that should work.

http://www.drbo.org

I don't see any flags there that would make me believe that it isn't what it presents itself as being.

Thanks appreciate it

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:39 am**

Everybody,

I don't mean to overwhelm you with things to read. But this Historical Introduction is essential to this conversation, I think. because it shows the Council of Ephesus thought it taught infallibly and that Pope Celestine taught with St. Peter's authority. You'll find the same introduction in Hendrickson Publishing Company's 38-volume set of patristic writings in the volume called The Seven Ecumenical Councils and in the online library at (http://www.ccel.org). Now here's a link to the Medieval Sourcebook's copy of that introduction to the documents that council wrote in 431 A.D.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.asp

Bill

Posted: **Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:41 pm**

Bill -- a late welcome and thank you for this wonderful information! The history alone is so fascinating to me, the religious implications are simply a bonus

Evidence for God from Science

Catholicism

Re: Catholicism

Re: Catholicism

Re: Catholicism

Re: Catholicism

Re: Catholicism

Re: Catholicism

Re: Catholicism

Re: Catholicism

Re: Catholicism

Re: Catholicism

Re: Catholicism

Re: Catholicism