Not everything in the Bible is true...

[city]

thanks for generalizing. thank God you're not a typical atheist. most of them are much more open minded than you....




...oh my gosh!! i just thanked God! i am going straight to non-hell!! :hysterical:

may godless you.

[Chip]

seriously OT:

ah basta sa tingin ko walang masama pag naka-uniform ang maids!

[wren]

:bwahaha:

basta wag lang dalhin sa simbahan na naka-uniform.

[CoDer]

seriously OT:

ah basta sa tingin ko walang masama pag naka-uniform ang maids!

:excl: :headache: :evillaugh

[m2's kumander]

ayos ito! haha
:lol: at fxt and coder

[GasJunkie]

Birthday suit would be my choice.




:hysterical:

[GasJunkie]

:spider:










:ninja:

[Psalm136:2]

Hi Psalm,

Can you tell us which VERSION of the bible is the original bible without revision and which church is using it?

What's your views on the new gospels found by the scientists which are proven to be authentic?

Thanks,

city

Hi City,
First let me tell you about the 66 books that was compiled and later came to be the Bible. The OT was written originally in Hebrews because obviously, that's the language of the Jews. Now thousands of years later, more and more people are speaking Aramaic, so some of the books were written in this language. When Jesus came, there are now 3 official language in Jerusalem, Hebrews, Aramaic and Greek which was the language of the invading Romans. Hebrews was slowly fading out.

The NT was written in Greek so that more people could be reached. Halos pawala na rin ang Hebrews this time. Again, thousands of years later, when the Romans finally realized that Christianity is spreading like wildfire, they accepted it, thus the Roman Catholic came into being. Scribes during those times were ordered to re-write the OT and NT into just one language, for obvious reason, wala pang CD recorder noon at mga computers to preserve the original books, so the first Bible was written in Latin (called the Latin Vulgate), the official language of the Roman Empire during those times, pawala na ang Aramaic at Greek.

Again, hundreds of years later, the bible was translated into different languages for the sole purpose of preaching the Word to every country. Walang dagdag, walang bawas, again because of the curse in the book of Revelation. Now some words may have been omitted or changed, mainly because those words don't have translations to other languages, kaya pinapalitan ng ibang words para mas madaling maintindihan ng mga tao in their own native language. But this doesn't mean that binago, dinagdagan or binawasan ang Bible, the context is still the same. Now if you don't believe me, try to read just one book of the modern Bible and compare the whole context with the Greek Bible which is still in circulation.

Some churches in other parts of the world still use the original Greek NT and some churches in the Middle East still use the original Hebrews OT. Don't quote me literally when I say "original" dahil gutay-gutay na to in museums somewhere. I meant re-written in the original languages.

What's my views on the new gospels found by scientists? Simple lang naman ang sagot ko, "All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Now if these newly discovered "gospels" run contrary to what the above verses say, therefore makakasama sa tao, di makakatulong sa kanyang buhay, except maybe head knowledge, then di sya Scripture. Yes, they're authentic, found to be thousands of years old, but this doesn't mean that they're God-breathed.

[Psalm136:2]

This is confusing. The NT is not based on OT? How come it was called OLD and NEW? How come it's published in one book? How come preachers and priests pluck verses from both during sermon and homilys?

Fullfillment of what was not achieved? What was not achieved? If it's the fulllfilment of what was not achieved then it's basically a continuation and therefore the NT is based on the OT, correct?

Maraming salamat sa tanong mo. Isa-isahin natin:
How come it was called OLD and NEW?
As I've said in my previous post, the Bible is composed of 66 books, written by hundreds of men, who lived in different places and thousands of years apart. They don't even know each other, more strikingly, they don't have any idea about the other books. - This is one miracle, papano nagkaroon ng pagkakadugtong-dugtong? There was no "New" and "Old", 'books' were written in scrolls, leaves, tree barks, stones, etc. Tinawag lang na OT and NT to separate the 'books' written before Christ from the 'books' written after Christ's ascension.

How come it's published in one book?
Di ba mas mahirap magbasa ng sangkatutak na libro?

How come preachers and priests pluck verses from both during sermon and homilys?
This is to prove that even though it's composed of a lot of books, there is unity, relation and continuation.

Fullfillment of what was not achieved? What was not achieved?
Sinabi ko na diba? Salvation.

If it's the fulllfilment of what was not achieved then it's basically a continuation and therefore the NT is based on the OT, correct?
Ok, let me put it this way. Yes, you're right that there's a continuation. But, OT contains stories about wars, nations against nations, punishments, judgements, songs, etc. while the NT contains more on encouragements, perseverance, love and warning. So, if you still think that NT was based on OT, then it's your choice.

[Psalm136:2]

Psalm,

I used to be a catholic, a believer in the supreme almighty god. Now i discovered and learned that it's all in the mind. It isn't real. It's a product of what i was thought to believe by my parents and the school when i begin to ask questions when i was a kid.

Now, I am an atheist. I dont believe in the supernatural, in ghosts, in whatever i was thought to believe about the bible, religious texts, etc.

An yes you are right. There are atheists who from natural birth have not been fed with unreal things.

Unbeliever is the term created by a certain group of religious people who dont hold the same beliefs.

I do respect your stand of being an atheist or whatever you may call it. I too used to be a Catholic. But let me ask you something; what is the opposite word of "believer"? Di ba "unbeliever"? So this term was not created by a certain group of religious people, it's in the dictionary, encyclopedia, thesaurus, etc. Plain and simple.

[Monseratto]

When I was still living in America a few months ago, there was a short time that some religious sects were all over the news. They were so fanatical that they said on live news that during the time of Adam and Eve, there were dinosaurs and that the dinosaurs could talk to Adam and Eve much like how the serpent(snake) did. It is an obvious attempt by fanatics to explain what the bible couldn't explain.

Atheist ba to o faithful according to the book of *oldblue?

[Monseratto]

mga self-righteous my a$$

[Jun aka Pekto]

*Shields Down*

I haven't really glanced too much at this thread. But, I do recall at one time someone cautioning about taking the Bible literally. The Bible is composed of different books written by different authors whose writings may have been deeply affected by current events of their time.

What's important are the lessons those writings are trying to impart. Other than that, it boils down to faith which has no need for explanation.

*Shields Up*

[Psalm136:2]

*Shields Down*

I haven't really glanced too much at this thread. But, I do recall at one time someone cautioning about taking the Bible literally. The Bible is composed of different books written by different authors whose writings may have been deeply affected by current events of their time.

Supposed you're right about this "deeply affected" thing, will somebody please explain the fluidity of the Bible from one generation to thousands more generations? Ganun ba kaayos ang mga "current events" noon? Parang sinalansan? I do understand that sometimes we don't have to take the Bible literally, but what I posted are historical facts, hindi yung laman ng Bible. The scientists themselves were the ones who concluded on the dates each book were written.

What's important are the lessons those writings are trying to impart. Other than that, it boils down to faith which has no need for explanation.

*Shields Up*

You're absolutely right on this. But let me ask you this, if what's important to you are the lessons those writings are trying to impart, how then do you read your Bible? :peace:

[oldblue]

Did I get this right? Some people don't believe because there's no proof nor evidence of god. In as much as proof or evidence works in reciprocity, shouldn't the same people rethink their belief since they likewise couldn't prove or give evidence that god does not exist? :confused:

now i'm also confused. sir tanong na lang, atheist ka ba or believer? I'm a believer.

talking about proof or evidence, there's a blind man since birth who haven't seen the moon. does it mean that he should not believe that there is a moon because he couldn't see it? even when he is bombarded with various unseen information or even brought to the moon, he will find it hard to believe because he still can't see it? or is the deaf entitled to believe that the dancer is moving crazily because the deaf couldn't hear the music?

i think we should ask them.

[Jun aka Pekto]

Supposed you're right about this "deeply affected" thing, will somebody please explain the fluidity of the Bible from one generation to thousands more generations? Ganun ba kaayos ang mga "current events" noon? Parang sinalansan? I do understand that sometimes we don't have to take the Bible literally, but what I posted are historical facts, hindi yung laman ng Bible. The scientists themselves were the ones who concluded on the dates each book were written.

You're absolutely right on this. But let me ask you this, if what's important to you are the lessons those writings are trying to impart, how then do you read your Bible? :peace:

I'm certainly no expert in Bible lore. But, I do remember reading somewhere that the early Christian Church decided what went in and what stayed out of the Bible. So, in a way, there had been "editing" that went on a long time ago.

I don't doubt many of the people, places, and dates being verified by scientists. A few years ago, we went to Turkey and visited the excavation of St. Paul's home in Tarsus, Turkey. We also visited the 7 Churches and one of the churches St. Peter established near the spot where he boarded a ship for Rome (and eventually to his death).

As for reading the Bible..... I'm not an avid reader. I do read selections on impulse. I mean, my wife has to drag me kicking and screaming to church every Sunday. I suppose I could do better.....

[oldblue]

Fundamental Atheistm is also a religion by itself... Closing the doors to other possibilities and disrespecting existing religion is just the same as believing in one.

In this sense, City and Old Blue are in the 2 boats of the same ocean heading a different direction, and will just eventually crash again hehe.

Me, I prefer to just float hehe...

ah no sir. me and *city will not crash. he is the only reason why I'm staying on this thread. I was hoping that I can convince him to return to God as a Christian, I should try.

d'ba sir *city? I still believe you can be saved for the very reason that you're just angry with God.

[oldblue]

to atheists: which are you ba talaga open-minded or skeptics?


I just cant reconcile how non-believers can claim that they are open-minded and skeptical at the same time.

[city]

Hi City,
First let me tell you about the 66 books that was compiled and later came to be the Bible. The OT was written originally in Hebrews because obviously, that's the language of the Jews. Now thousands of years later, more and more people are speaking Aramaic, so some of the books were written in this language. When Jesus came, there are now 3 official language in Jerusalem, Hebrews, Aramaic and Greek which was the language of the invading Romans. Hebrews was slowly fading out.

The NT was written in Greek so that more people could be reached. Halos pawala na rin ang Hebrews this time. Again, thousands of years later, when the Romans finally realized that Christianity is spreading like wildfire, they accepted it, thus the Roman Catholic came into being. Scribes during those times were ordered to re-write the OT and NT into just one language, for obvious reason, wala pang CD recorder noon at mga computers to preserve the original books, so the first Bible was written in Latin (called the Latin Vulgate), the official language of the Roman Empire during those times, pawala na ang Aramaic at Greek.

Again, hundreds of years later, the bible was translated into different languages for the sole purpose of preaching the Word to every country. Walang dagdag, walang bawas, again because of the curse in the book of Revelation. Now some words may have been omitted or changed, mainly because those words don't have translations to other languages, kaya pinapalitan ng ibang words para mas madaling maintindihan ng mga tao in their own native language. But this doesn't mean that binago, dinagdagan or binawasan ang Bible, the context is still the same. Now if you don't believe me, try to read just one book of the modern Bible and compare the whole context with the Greek Bible which is still in circulation.

Some churches in other parts of the world still use the original Greek NT and some churches in the Middle East still use the original Hebrews OT. Don't quote me literally when I say "original" dahil gutay-gutay na to in museums somewhere. I meant re-written in the original languages.

What's my views on the new gospels found by scientists? Simple lang naman ang sagot ko, "All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Now if these newly discovered "gospels" run contrary to what the above verses say, therefore makakasama sa tao, di makakatulong sa kanyang buhay, except maybe head knowledge, then di sya Scripture. Yes, they're authentic, found to be thousands of years old, but this doesn't mean that they're God-breathed.

How do you know which one god-breathed?

[city]

Maraming salamat sa tanong mo. Isa-isahin natin:
How come it was called OLD and NEW?
As I've said in my previous post, the Bible is composed of 66 books, written by hundreds of men, who lived in different places and thousands of years apart. They don't even know each other, more strikingly, they don't have any idea about the other books. - This is one miracle, papano nagkaroon ng pagkakadugtong-dugtong? There was no "New" and "Old", 'books' were written in scrolls, leaves, tree barks, stones, etc. Tinawag lang na OT and NT to separate the 'books' written before Christ from the 'books' written after Christ's ascension.

How come it's published in one book?
Di ba mas mahirap magbasa ng sangkatutak na libro?

How come preachers and priests pluck verses from both during sermon and homilys?
This is to prove that even though it's composed of a lot of books, there is unity, relation and continuation.

Fullfillment of what was not achieved? What was not achieved?
Sinabi ko na diba? Salvation.

If it's the fulllfilment of what was not achieved then it's basically a continuation and therefore the NT is based on the OT, correct?
Ok, let me put it this way. Yes, you're right that there's a continuation. But, OT contains stories about wars, nations against nations, punishments, judgements, songs, etc. while the NT contains more on encouragements, perseverance, love and warning. So, if you still think that NT was based on OT, then it's your choice.

Ack. Thanks.