Evidence for God from Science

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 ass, 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.

I've moved this to this section as more appropriate than where it was.

A reminder please, discussion and disagreement in the area of denominations, or other branches of Christendom is fine, and part of why this forum exists.

Demonizing or jumping on other branches which goes beyond addressing issues and begins to stereotype entire groups of people is not in keeping with our Discussion Guidelines.

Not saying this post does that, but a word of caution is called for, I believe.

You do realize that RC do NOT worship saints or Mary, right?
Praying to them to interceed ( which I disagree with) is not the same as worship.
RC do NOT worship any idols either by the way.
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.
The son of God IS Lord of the Sabbath by the way.
That RC and the vast majority of Christians mark the day of His resurrection as their Sabbath is in honour of Our Lord and Saviour.
Priests do NOT forgive sins, sins are forgiven ( and confessed to) by God and Christ, priests give you the penenace of your confessed sins ( which I don't agree with either).
It is right to be critical of ALL organized religions ( test everything you are taught) but if you are gonna be critical at least be correct in your critique.

PaulSacramento wrote:You do realize that RC do NOT worship saints or Mary, right?
Praying to them to interceed ( which I disagree with) is not the same as worship.
RC do NOT worship any idols either by the way.
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.
The son of God IS Lord of the Sabbath by the way.
That RC and the vast majority of Christians mark the day of His resurrection as their Sabbath is in honour of Our Lord and Saviour.
Priests do NOT forgive sins, sins are forgiven ( and confessed to) by God and Christ, priests give you the penenace of your confessed sins ( which I don't agree with either).
It is right to be critical of ALL organized religions ( test everything you are taught) but if you are gonna be critical at least be correct in your critique.

PaulSacramento wrote:You do realize that RC do NOT worship saints or Mary, right?
Praying to them to interceed ( which I disagree with) is not the same as worship.

Fair enough, though doesn't praying to saints to intercede not also go against scripture.

RC do NOT worship any idols either by the way.

Never said they did -- they did however remove the commandment!!
You don't think statues of Mary count as an idol? Praying for help.

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.
The son of God IS Lord of the Sabbath by the way.
That RC and the vast majority of Christians mark the day of His resurrection as their Sabbath is in honour of Our Lord and Saviour.

My point was that they deleted a large portion of text relating to the commandment.

Priests do NOT forgive sins, sins are forgiven ( and confessed to) by God and Christ, priests give you the penenace of your confessed sins ( which I don't agree with either).

From the wiki:

Essential to the sacrament are acts both by the sinner (examination of conscience, contrition with a determination not to sin again, confession to a priest, and performance of some act to repair the damage caused by sin) and by the priest (determination of the act of reparation to be performed and absolution). Serious sins (mortal sins) must be confessed within at most a year and always before receiving Holy Communion, while confession of venial sins also is recommended.

They even make distinctions between the various sin and give a timeline for confession..

It is right to be critical of ALL organized religions ( test everything you are taught) but if you are gonna be critical at least be correct in your critique.

Well that's why I posted it We can't be right all of the time, so I thought it would be interesting to get some feedback.


What's your take on the most critical aspect though -- that the Ten Commandments have been altered?
I mean am I the only one who finds this completely and totally unacceptable!!?

What if some church today decided they need to tweak a commandment here or there so it fits in better. It's no different.
God set his commandments down literally in stone; for man to even think of altering them is wrong. I'm not sure how it could be seen in any other light.

If man can alter one of the most critical aspects within the Bible, what stops us from changing it again.

Canuckster1127 wrote:A reminder please, discussion and disagreement in the area of denominations, or other branches of Christendom is fine, and part of why this forum exists.

Demonizing or jumping on other branches which goes beyond addressing issues and begins to stereotype entire groups of people is not in keeping with our Discussion Guidelines.

Not saying this post does that, but a word of caution is called for, I believe.

Yeah it's a sensitive issue. One I've thought about quite a bit since I first heard it.
Discussed it briefly with a pastor friend of mine and he holds a similar view.

To be honest, I'm really just a little amazed.
I just don't get why it's acceptable to alter the Bible, let alone delete a commandment.

You're projecting and comparing a standard within Protestantism that was historically part of why the schism took place. Catholics at times in history have appealed more to the authority of the Pope it Church Tradition. Since the reformation there was actually a counter-reformation within the Catholic church that addressed some of this; not to the extent of Protestantism. Since then, the second Vatican council has addressed some things and made clearer the role of Scripture as opposed to the standards of some of those in the past.

It's a fair question but it assumes an underlying point if view that is not consistent with Catholicism's point of view. It's a fair observation to say an Apple is not an Orange. It's another thing to criticize an Apple for not being an Orange.

I think confession is a good thing. It's so much more real.

I grew up Catholic.. I can't help but feel like there has to be one church that still exists from the start that had it right. But man is fallible. I dunno.

Short1 wrote:I think confession is a good thing. It's so much more real.

I grew up Catholic.. I can't help but feel like there has to be one church that still exists from the start that had it right. But man is fallible. I dunno.

Me too James 5:16 commands us to do it, i attend an Anglican church but i think confession is lacking ( not completely ).

Dan

Stu wrote:I just don't get why it's acceptable to alter the Bible, let alone delete a commandment.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Martin Luther didn't do this? Just saying

But really, I just made an enormous post that is related to this (in a way). I suggest you check it out.

There is also this huge misunderstanding that papal infallibility means everything that came out of the Catholic church is based on that infallibility, and that's not true at all. Also, not everything is doctrinal. There are so many misconceptions about the Church going around, it's kind of annoying

Just to post my random thoughts on the topic...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ivellious wrote:The Bible in its current form has been altered numerous times throughout history.

I must disagree:
http://godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html

Ivellious wrote: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.

Again, I must disagree:
http://godandscience.org/apologetics/wh ... false.html

By the way, I'm not accusing you for chronological snobbery, but I hope you don't see an issue with Bible being thousands of years old.
What is true today, it was true in the past, and will be true in the future.

Ivellious wrote: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 Old Testament was written in Hebrew. The New Testament was written in Greek.
And again, I have to disagree, and advise you to look up some of the materials on the main site, such as this:
http://godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html

Ivellious wrote: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.

That's why there's still the original version of the Scripture in existence, so people who know ancient Hebrew or Greek, can always look it up.

Ivellious wrote: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.

If it was a mythology, then obviously nobody got it right, and in that case we could talk about "evolution of religion".
There are resources that cover such claims:
http://www.tektonics.org/copycathub.html

Stu wrote:What's your take on the most critical aspect though -- that the Ten Commandments have been altered?
I mean am I the only one who finds this completely and totally unacceptable!!?

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

A quick reference about the 10 commandments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

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.