Are you talking about the first 5 in the New or Old testament cause the new is the gospels I'm not sure about the old but I know its not that. When the rapture happens you will be sorry you didn't listen to us YOU NEED JESUS JUST DEAL WITH IT [/b] YOU NEED A SAVIOR[b]
Lets clarify here, the Bible is 99.999% accurate from what it originally was. It is certainly misinterpreted allllllll the time but it is not mistranslated. We have well over 7000 ancient manuscripts of the bible and they all cross reference in some way. Ie:
*Sighs.* Do you know that those manuscripts weren't incorrectly translated from the original one? Do you know how old they are? Do you realize that terms mean different things now? (A good example: the word "nice" used to be a grievous insult.) You need evidence to verify the validity of those manuscripts, their age, their language, all of that stuff. Also, there is a huge punctuational difference between a period and a semicolon. ------- Paint, you need to realize that not everyone "needs a savior." Okay? You are under the assumption that everyone needs Jesus. You sound like one of the egregious people here on AG who just accept what they are told and parrot it around like mad. Your posts are so blatantly useless thus far that I'm tempted strongly to flag them. Contribute to the argument or don't post ppppplllllllleeeeeeaaaaaasssssseeeeee. ------- Btw, I'M NOT ATHEIST so if you make that assumption then I'll go crazy.
Paintballer: Even if your god exists, I refuse to bow to someone who is a cross between an ever-unsatisfied artist and a psychotic despot. (The Tanakh consists of the first five books of the OT, btw) I utterly reject any authority any god or similar entity may claim over me.
And if you ask me, paintballer, I don't need saving. It appears that you, however, might need some saving...from yourself.
Yet another concept that was clearly invented by Protestant Christians. Honestly, though, I wish someone would round up all the good faithful Christians and send them somewhere to be rewarded. At least then they'd leave me the hell alone.
*Sighs.* Do you know that those manuscripts weren't incorrectly translated from the original one? Do you know how old they are? Do you realize that terms mean different things now? (A good example: the word "nice" used to be a grievous insult.) You need evidence to verify the validity of those manuscripts, their age, their language, all of that stuff. Also, there is a huge punctuational difference between a period and a semicolon.
I'm astounded that I must debate this quite frankly. We have manuscripts dating as close to 50 years from the death of christ, and the gospels weren't written until 20+ years after Christ. Giving us like a 30 year gap. In the year 50a.d. information and texts didn't get around all that fast. Since it took months just to get from one city to the next, we can't say that 30 years is a whole lot of time for error to be introduced, especially since these early Christians were so violently persecuted, they would have cherished writings from Paul, the leader of the movement, immensely. They would have been as careful as possible with these writings, careful enough to have scribes write their gospels (men paid just to copy works of literature...they didn't make a whole lot of mistakes). So ok, it'd be kinda hard to believe in the inerrency of the bible unless your a believer, but you can't say that a whole lot of error entered in. Not enough to change the entire foundation by which the church was standing upon. "Do you realize that terms mean different things now?" Its almost as if the 7000 manuscripts were written in Greek, and there are still people who know Greek and can translate it. The reason we have different "versions" is to cover all the different meaning that Greek words have. One greek word very commonly has multiple english meanings, therefore we have created like 20 versions of the bible so that the people of different ages can read and understand it. Ie: The KJV is almost never used nowadays because the Language doesn't make a whole lot of sense to the layman nowadays.
I'm not writing a scholarly paper thats perfectly correct and perfectly documented, if you want the evidence for yourself go research it. I pull my information from what I have read and been taught, some of this including papers written by people who have researched and come up with the evidence. I'm not going to bust my butt to argue with somebody over AG...sorry...
I'm astounded that I must debate this quite frankly. We have manuscripts dating as close to 50 years from the death of christ, and the gospels weren't written until 20+ years after Christ. Giving us like a 30 year gap. In the year 50a.d. information and texts didn't get around all that fast. Since it took months just to get from one city to the next, we can't say that 30 years is a whole lot of time for error to be introduced, especially since these early Christians were so violently persecuted, they would have cherished writings from Paul, the leader of the movement, immensely. They would have been as careful as possible with these writings, careful enough to have scribes write their gospels (men paid just to copy works of literature...they didn't make a whole lot of mistakes). So ok, it'd be kinda hard to believe in the inerrency of the bible unless your a believer, but you can't say that a whole lot of error entered in. Not enough to change the entire foundation by which the church was standing upon. "Do you realize that terms mean different things now?" Its almost as if the 7000 manuscripts were written in Greek, and there are still people who know Greek and can translate it. The reason we have different "versions" is to cover all the different meaning that Greek words have. One greek word very commonly has multiple english meanings, therefore we have created like 20 versions of the bible so that the people of different ages can read and understand it. Ie: The KJV is almost never used nowadays because the Language doesn't make a whole lot of sense to the layman nowadays.
But at the same time, 2000 years and many translations over the years and burning of manuscripts by the Romans means that the Bible we have today is so far from the original that it really isn't plausible to believe it. Despite how many manuscripts we've recovered, there are many more and many that are not in the original language which presumably have been translated over they years, so really the amount of error ranges from little to extreme. We just don't have enough evidence yet to assume one way or another.
We still have the Bible at least! Why would God keep a phony misinterpreted Bible here on Earth? Then we'd all be worshiping in the wrong way and everyone would ge screwed. If the books of the Bible were not here then God and everyone would be screwed because now we aren't worshiping him so we all end up in Hell. If all the Bibles in the world were to suddenly go up in flame, I bet God would send down a golden one printed in every language know to man and impervious to any damage what so ever. He would most likely do something like that.
Evidence please? Besides, it's human error, and any human making any assumption about a creature of the epic proportions God is attributed to be is ridiculous. If the Bible is true as you say it is, then you don't know a thing about how God thinks and shouldn't assume things like that. *tsks sarcastically* ----------- This argument pertains to the Rapture almost directly, because it challenges the accuracy of the entire book of Revelation.
God wants humanity to worship him right? Yes, SO he would LOVE the idea of Bibles. If we didn't even have a Bible in the first place then some day or another I bet he'd send one down anyway so there really is no point in arguing about how true the Bible is or not.
Your point is plain wrong. You can't assume what God will do by the Bible's own description. According to the Bible, God is perfect and great, and any human wouldn't be able to guess at his actions. He may not want Bibles. YOU DON'T KNOW! You are talking of what you would do if you were God, and you have nothing even close to evidence backing up what you are saying accurately. ----------- The Rapture is just one of those things in the Bible that sounds implausible. I'm seeing this from an unbiased view, because I haven't fully decided yet what to definitely believe in, and from a logical standpoint, the Rapture is a long shot.
I haven't made an exact decision yet, but I do believe that there is something after death. Perhaps like a deep sleep with no dreams? Perhaps nothing? I haven't decided yet.
I would eventually get used to hell. That is, as long as the unholy flame stays the same temperature. Besides, I don't have to worry about that yet, after all I'm only twelve! -------------- Koolface, you're starting to sound like a pastor trying to convert me. . .you won't be successful, so please for the sake of keeping this thread tidy and not annoying me, please don't try to convert me. I'll make the decision on my own.
I understand. Just saying. ------ Anyway, how many fragments of the Bible do you think were lost when Rome did it's huge scourge of Christian literature? I think that a good deal were lost, but we can't know for sure. It would probably fill in a lot things in Revelation if we could somehow recover them.
