*Yawn*

The writers of fiction intend to write fiction.

Also, you have two other points to address.

I have no idea what you said here?? Seriously.

I read the first one and stopped on the basis of your ridiculous argument. Dude - that is my point is that the book is a fictional tale. And the fact that you can find a city that existed during biblical times does not prove that god existed. It just doesn't, and to say it does is crazy talk. So please address that point realistically so I can move on, because I just can't get past that.

English only in the forums please.

You are attempting to falsify by strained analogy.

Let's pretend for a moment that there is some post-apocalyptic distant future in which the knowledge of our technology has been lost -- much like the Dark Ages. Someone stumbles across an old textbook about the History of the US. After much study, he translates a section about it on the "Wright Brothers" and discover that they made a "plane" that can apparently fly. They can't find much evidence of such flying machines and cannot replicate the flights described.

Based on the logic you are applying, the Wright Brothers did not exist and the book is entirely fiction.

Edit: And the "Mcgraw" character, who is apparently a Hill god, can't possibly exist because to think it existed it absurd.

I'd call that the most reliable conclusion based on the evidence available, yes.

But does it make it factually true?

Edit: Or false? I guess it depends on how you read "it"...

What conclusion would you come to?

Based on that one fact, I would think it's probably false.

However, the textbook does not consist of just one statement. If the people are able to research the area where this country supposedly existed, and find evidence of things like the Statue of Liberty and Mt. Rushmore, this starts to lend credibility to the rest of the document despite the fact that "planes" have not yet been found.

I think it was pretty clear where you were taking this. I will wait for Busy's reply.

Nah, I don't think so. I mean, it does a little bit of narrowing in that it establishes the setting was based on a real setting, but that's true of most fiction. It's true of Gilgamesh, it's true of the Iliad, it's true of the Mahabharata.

Do you think those things are true just because the places they describe really exist?

The Bible has more than just a couple places. For the length (physical) and expanse (temporal) of the content, it's very very good and in a different league than the Epic of Gilgamesh. And the most relevant part of the Bible, the New Testament, is stronger from an archaeological perspective than any other book of antiquity, and its contents are more likely to be accurate to the original than the works of Shakespeare.

Edit: Forgot to answer the question!

No, I don't think those have as much chance of being true as the Bible.

This fairy tale was written over thousands of years lets not forget - so of course its really really long - and very boring in parts. Don't believe? Read numbers. And who is telling you that it is stronger archeologically than any other book? Link or its not true. And to say its contents are more accurate - come on man - its been translated 20 times and botched to all hell. This pope didnt like that ,that king didnt like this, etc, etc. And how do you explain the dead sea scrolls and all the other writings they are finding, but are not in the bible? I mean - why were they not put in? because it is all a really nice tale - like santa claus.

And your analogy of the wright brothers is way way off. You are comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing technological ability to sticks turning into snakes. You see, we had been trying to fly for centuries - Da Vinci among others. So men knew it was possible to do it - just a matter of figuring it out from a technology standpoint. We all know that parting a sea with the wave of a hand is just crazy. Fitting all the animals of the world on one boat is impossible. A woman turning into a pillar of salt for not obeying god is just strange and creepy.

Your response demonstrates a lot of ignorance about the Bible.

The Bibles you pick up have been translated exactly ONCE. The NIV was not translated from the KJV. The scholars went back to the best versions of the original Greek/Hebrew texts available and translated from there.

You need to google the canonization of the Bible.

You understand "technology" from a 21st century perspective. At one point, astrology and mystic chants were "technology." In another few hundred years, people will look back at our primitive attempts to understand the universe and laugh at our "technology." This applies not only the results we claimed to have, but also the ways in which we attempt to describe what's going on.

Not all the ancient writings are intended to be strictly literal readings (in fact, most aren't). The Hebrew language itself is extremely poetic, filled with analogy and metaphor. Therefore, it needs to be read and understood in the context of the peoples for whom it was written.

I have not claimed anywhere that the Bible is a 100% literal account.

*Yawn*

It seems clear to me at this point you're not interested in increasing knowledge or understanding. You're arguing from a huge base of ignorant claims and you don't seem interested in engaging in meaningful discussion.

I didn't read every post in this thread. But I hope someone mentioned that the prohibitions in Leviticus don't all apply to Christians. Because that is an important thing to notice. The Jewish dietary laws are outlined in Leviticus (what is/isn't Kosher), and Christians are obviously free to eat pig, frog, shellfish and bugs, be uncircumcised, and get tattoos.

Christianity was originally a sect of Judaism. It was eventually decided that the arrival and ascension of Jesus made the Old Law unnecessary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council...es_and_outcome

Except you're overlooking one MAJOR factor; technology builds on previous technologies. When someone 500 years from now looks at the history of technology, they will be able to see how things got to where they are. They can laugh all they want about how primitive we were, but it won't change the fact that we developed things through rational thought processes.

Can the same thing be said about the astrology & mystic chants you mentioned? Or sticks turning into snakes?

http://www.av1611.org/niv.html

There is a page DEDICATED to letting people know what a bad translation the NIV is - there is always another side. So please get off of your pulpit and start understanding that christians will always find a way to justify the bible and god.

Best part is NIV is owned by the same company that publishes the satanic bible - LOL

Technological growth is not as linear as you make it out to be. Certainly there are some technological advances that are so important that it changes the fundamental landscape (such as the printing press). But there are other minor technologies that people worked on that disappear with time. Consider the state of medicine today. Do you really think that the ideas we have about medical technology are fundamentally built upon the ideas of the medical technology in the dark ages? Or do you think it's much more reasonable to point to big fundamental shifts of understanding, such as those introduced by Louis Pasteur?

Can you name *ANY* idea of medical technology at the time just before Pasteur? Probably not (unless you're an immunologist). Does this mean that there was *NO* medical technology at that time? It depends on how you perceive the state of medical technology. From our perspective, we would call it crude and primitive at best. However, there *WERE* things that would be called "state of the art" technologies at that time. And I'm sure that if you had access to any sorts of documents at that time, you would be able to learn about them. (Leaches, maybe? I have no clue.)

Gee, did you google "bad NIV Bible" and take the first link that came up? Did you even *READ* that link? Is it even *RELEVANT* to the statements I made?

I argued:

Is there *ANYTHING* on that page that addresses this?

I'm unlikely to respond to any further posts from you until you start to make a cogent argument.

You are trying to talk around the point of your other argument now. But you're not gonna get me with your double speak. My point was that man knew we could somehow fly eventually and it wasn't a far fetched idea, therefore we continued the attempt. We understand that the events that occurred regularly in the bible are impossible to achieve. We are not going to sit around and try to turn sticks into snakes because we KNOW it is ludicrous.

you like to talk around the issues. the original issue was that the bible isnt even a good translation and you claimed that the NIV was a good translation. that page says that the NIV is a terrible translation of the original texts. That is the point.

This was not the point. Here is what you argued:

The contents with respect to the "accurate" is a reflection of the quality of the original Greek/Hebrew texts. Scroll to the bottom of this link.

I interpreted your bolded comment as a statement of linear repeated translations of the Bible leading to compounding errors in the Bible. I based this on the statement that followed. The fact that it has been re-interpreted in different times by different people does not in any way negate the first statement.

Edit: I would also be interested in seeing where I argued that the NIV was a "good translation" of the Bible. I said that the NIV was not translated from the KJV.

Edit #2: Do you see how you're just flinging stuff and hoping it sticks?

Why are so few people interested in the blasphemy that is eating shrimp?

I'VE EVEN BEEN SERVED SHRIMP IN A CHURCH DINNER! It will corrupt the children and make a mockery of the fine American tradition that is lunch.

Very simple. Not eating shrimp is a ridiculous idea, so we can easily toss that one aside and focus on interpreting the Bible to fit more important issues in our lives.

Christianity is a little better than other religions at throwing out scriptures that are primitive and moving forward into 21st century society.



Islam, not so much.

I don't know. To somehow think that what grown consenting men do with their penises is an important issue in your life shows an unhealthy concern with your neighbour that is very 500 BCish if you ask me.

Atleast shrimp can is one of the most common source of potentially dangerous allergens and can hurt you bad - even kill! Much worse imo.

I think they should have thrown away the homosexuality thing and probably kept the one about shrimp.