Definitely, but quoting the Bible Out of Context, is what most people do!! This is especially true of people who attack it!!
Definitely, but quoting the Bible Out of Context, is what most people do!! This is especially true of people who attack it!!
Unfortunately, your reading of the Bible is flawed. I lecture in Hermeneutics and unless you follow certain principles (which you do not), you can make the Bible say anything (which you attempt to do)!! You make sweeping statements that have not been substantiated. You also need to examine the Bible using its original languages (which I do), rather than translations which frequently don't give the full meaning, or intent of the original!!
Unfortunately, your reading of the Bible is flawed. I lecture in Hermeneutics and unless you follow certain principles (which you do not), you can make the Bible say anything (which you attempt to do)!! You make sweeping statements that have not been substantiated. You also need to examine the Bible using its original languages (which I do), rather than translations which frequently don't give the full meaning, or intent of the original!!
So I am simply reading it all wrong then. I do not have high opinions of myself but my personal IQ level is 133. IQ is by no means the key to do everything right but it helps when it comes to putting things together. If I after an excess study of the content of this book after a previous life within christianity are still not able to read this book the "right" way, who does? You? Bush?
Would you need the same "please do not read this the wrong way" warning sticker on the book of Universal declaration of human rights? I consider it to be an accurate document of what the majority of the western civilization agree to be good ethic behavior. It's straight forward, easy to read and there's no way people regardless of age of academic level would "read it wrong". Would you disagree with it's content? I know the christian bible does, including the ten commandments.
I have had my share of the earliest bibles, including the lost gospels. A noteworthy European "upgrade" after the 2nd world war was to rewrite 2 Samuel 12:31. In the new bibles, David put his prisoners under forced labour. In the earlier versions, he burns them in great ovens. The stuff I talked about earlier though have stayed the same from the earliest bible up to now.
Impressive group of authors! I think I'd like to read that!This is an example of a plan which would strengthen industry, improve economies, and help end dependence on foreign oil.
http://www.oilendgame.com/
I don't understand why people can't accept both theories ?
Isn't it possible a greater being created the concept of evolution ?
Isn't it possible the greater being made the big bang in the first place and that it slowly but surely the human race was born through evolution ?
I believe it's more of a book on how to behave, a book of ethics. Also many western societies have developed their laws according or following the Scriptures and its laws.
However it is a question of belief, of faith if you wish to believe in everything that happened in the book.
Do you mind telling me where you got the information about the bibel being written in 650BC ? and everything you said about the history of the bible ?
Because a lot of what I've heard and read suggests that the Bible is as close to an historic book of the periods written about in that time.
Also, as a side note, for believers it doesn't matter if traces of the Hebrew people haven't been found in the desert since it could easily have been god who destroyed all evidence of the exodus.
It is people who are responsible for their actions and not a relegion.
What you're saying is that any relegion that describes this as a fault that should be punnished would become worthless after reaching the level of acceptence of that fault.
I hope you will study on, because this opinion is nothing more then the propagandistic bullshit of atheïsts who actually form a relegion themselves.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. -> You can read as if you can not put someone in jail, because that is degrading. You can read as if you can give someone a lethal injection, because it is mercifull and quick. There are a lot of blank spots in what you call straightforward.
You have missed the point of christianity and salvation. It's strictly based on Genesis. Without Adam, there's no point with Jesus as a savior. Unfortunally many of our sciences of today are based on evolution so you kind of need it for many disciplines.
There are only two reason for anyone to claim this.
Either they have not actually read the bible. If they did they would see that the bible is very different from our laws and modern ethics.
Or they have, and in that case they are scary.
That kind of thinking is not even rational for a christian.
By the way, I actually believe Christianity, or Catholicism to be more precise is one religion which doesn't follow the Bible as it doesn't even follow one of its most basic Principles of the Ten Commandments : You can't have a representation of god or something like that. I don't know the exact words, sorry.
But if god made the big bang happen he actually created Adam (which could be a representation of the human race which developed/evolved from other creatures).
So, if Adam (Adam= Human in Hebrew) did exist, and Genesis happened (not literally), then why can't both concepts be true ?
I'm talking about the basic ethics, not the punishment for them, even though some countries do carry those punishments out.
I'm talking about the way you are supposed to treat your family, the days of resting, the part of no killing, no stealing,...
Yes, some of those ways have evolved now, but the Bible was the base of the ethics of today.
About Bible Unearthed, are you talking about the National Geographic Documentary ?
Who says christians are right? Who says jews, muslims, buddhists, confucianists, hindus, pagans are right?
Maybe it's just their belief that god wouldn't do that ? But why ? He could, no ? If he was the greater being he is supposed to be ?