Sorry Gina, the Bible being changed and heavily edited over the ages is historical fact. There are entire books that were removed (censored) and have been lost forever thank you Spanish Inquisition.
Gina, Everything does seem like an illusion doesn't it. Everythings becoming confusing. What's real and what is fake ?<br />All we have to do is follow god and spread love.<br /><br />I had a thought a little while ago. The age of aquarius has to do with water. The symbol for this age is a man carrying a jug of water. Also, there is Lundon's Bridge and the Three Keys. Is there a famous bridge in the city of London going over water ? I will look it up. I don't know if this has anything to do with the true "ark". There is the ark of the covenant, but there is also the "ark" which is a boat or a ship.<br /><br />Love and Peace
<br />Sorry Gina, the Bible being changed and heavily edited over the ages is historical fact. There are entire books that were removed (censored) and have been lost forever thank you Spanish Inquisition. <br />
<br />Historical fact? I've seen no evidence of this historical fact. Maybe there is evidence but I didn't see it.<br /><br />A book removed doesn't mean the content of the others was changed. But who can really confirm that book was removed?
Misquoting Jesus provides much background into how the Bible became the Bible. It happened through numerous human decisions over the centuries. For instance, the first time any Christian of record listed the 27 books of the New Testament as the books of the New Testament was 300 years after the books have been written (page 36). And those works have been radically altered over the years at the hands of the scribes “who were not only conserving scripture but also changing it.” Ehrman points out that most of the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among the manuscripts were “completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance.” In short, they were innocent mistakes involving misspelling or inadvertence.<br /><br />On the other hand, the very meaning of the text changed in some instances. Some Bible scholars have even concluded that it makes no sense to talk about the “original” text of the Bible. (Page 210). As a result of studying surviving Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, Ehrman concluded that we simply don’t have the original words constituting the New Testament.<br /><br /> Not only do we not have the originals, we don’t have the first copies of the originals. We don’t even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later-much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another, and many thousands of places . . . Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts and there are words in the New Testament.<br /><br />In Misquoting Jesus Bart Ehrman spells out the ways in which several critical passages of the New Testament were changed or concocted. They are startling examples:<br /><br />A.) Everyone knows the story about Jesus and the woman about to be stoned by the mob. This account is only found in John 7:53-8:12. The mob asked Jesus whether they should stone the woman (the punishment required by the Old Testament) or show her mercy. Jesus doesn’t fall for this trap. Jesus allegedly states “Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.” The crowd dissipates out of shame. Ehrman states that this brilliant story was not originally in the Gospel of John or in any of the Gospels. “It was added by later scribes.” The story is not found in “our oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Nor does its writing style comport with the rest of John. Most serious textual critics state that this story should not be considered part of the Bible (page 65).<br /><br />B) after Jesus died, Mary Magdalene and two other women came back to the tomb to anoint the body of Jesus, according to Mark 16:1-2). They were met by a man in a white robe who told them that Jesus had been raised and was no longer there. The women fled and said nothing more to anyone out of fear (16:4-8). Everyone knows the rest of Mark’s Gospel, of course. The problem with the remainder of the story is that none of it was originally in the Gospel of Mark. It was added by a later scribe. Those additions include all of the following:<br /><br />Jesus himself appeared to Mary Magdalene. She told the eleven apostles (minus Judas) about this vision, but they did not believe her. Jesus then appeared to the apostles, chastising them for failing to believe. He tells them that those who believe will be saved and those who don’t will be condemned. Then follows a critically important passage of the Bible.<br /><br />
And these are the signs that will accompany those who believe: they will cast out demons in my name; they will speak in new tongues; and they will take up snakes in their hands; and if they drink any poison, it will not harm them; they will place their hands upon the sick and heal them.
I see some of you mentioning that this is all God's play, a theater, an illusion, etc... and I just wanted to add that the original greek and hebrew describe the earth in a similar way. I was reading 2 Peter 3 and came across verse 13 which says, "But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness." (NIV) I wanted to know what the original greek word for "earth" was and what they may have been trying to convey in the verse so I checked Strong's Greek Concordance (the greek word used in that particular verse is "gé") and it said the following:<br /><br />http://concordances.org/greek/1093.htm<br /><br />
gé: the earth, land<br />Original Word: γῆ, γῆς, ἡ<br />Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine<br />Transliteration: gé<br />Phonetic Spelling: (ghay)<br />Short Definition: the earth, soil, land<br />Definition: the earth, soil, land, region, country, inhabitants of a region.<br /><br /><br />1093 gḗ – properly, the physical earth; (figuratively) the "arena" we live in which operates in space and time which God uses to prepare us for eternity.<br /><br />The physical earth (1093 /gḗ) is the temporary, probationary place to live out moral preferences "through the body," i.e. as free moral agents (cf. 2 Cor 5:1-10). In this way, God makes an eternal record of everything we do on the earth. Through faith, each scene of life becomes equally, eternally significant (cf. Mt 13:31,32,17:20; cf. also Lk 16:10; Lk 17:6; 2 Pet 1:1).<br /><br />[The OT Hebrew term, 776 /asitía ("earth"), also refers to the physical earth as "God's arena" – "the physical theater" in which our eternal destiny freely plays out.]
<br /><br />Just thought it was interesting. Of course, now this has me questioning what they mean when they say "eternal", lol. Why is an eternal record necessary? Why is each scene eternally significant? More studying for me. :geek:
<br />@Gina: I didn't just make it up.<br /><br />
Misquoting Jesus provides much background into how the Bible became the Bible. It happened through numerous human decisions over the centuries. For instance, the first time any Christian of record listed the 27 books of the New Testament as the books of the New Testament was 300 years after the books have been written (page 36). And those works have been radically altered over the years at the hands of the scribes “who were not only conserving scripture but also changing it.” Ehrman points out that most of the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among the manuscripts were “completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance.” In short, they were innocent mistakes involving misspelling or inadvertence.<br /><br />On the other hand, the very meaning of the text changed in some instances. Some Bible scholars have even concluded that it makes no sense to talk about the “original” text of the Bible. (Page 210). As a result of studying surviving Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, Ehrman concluded that we simply don’t have the original words constituting the New Testament.<br /><br /> Not only do we not have the originals, we don’t have the first copies of the originals. We don’t even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later-much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another, and many thousands of places . . . Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts and there are words in the New Testament.<br /><br />In Misquoting Jesus Bart Ehrman spells out the ways in which several critical passages of the New Testament were changed or concocted. They are startling examples:<br /><br />A.) Everyone knows the story about Jesus and the woman about to be stoned by the mob. This account is only found in John 7:53-8:12. The mob asked Jesus whether they should stone the woman (the punishment required by the Old Testament) or show her mercy. Jesus doesn’t fall for this trap. Jesus allegedly states “Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.” The crowd dissipates out of shame. Ehrman states that this brilliant story was not originally in the Gospel of John or in any of the Gospels. “It was added by later scribes.” The story is not found in “our oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Nor does its writing style comport with the rest of John. Most serious textual critics state that this story should not be considered part of the Bible (page 65).<br /><br />B) after Jesus died, Mary Magdalene and two other women came back to the tomb to anoint the body of Jesus, according to Mark 16:1-2). They were met by a man in a white robe who told them that Jesus had been raised and was no longer there. The women fled and said nothing more to anyone out of fear (16:4-8). Everyone knows the rest of Mark’s Gospel, of course. The problem with the remainder of the story is that none of it was originally in the Gospel of Mark. It was added by a later scribe. Those additions include all of the following:<br /><br />Jesus himself appeared to Mary Magdalene. She told the eleven apostles (minus Judas) about this vision, but they did not believe her. Jesus then appeared to the apostles, chastising them for failing to believe. He tells them that those who believe will be saved and those who don’t will be condemned. Then follows a critically important passage of the Bible.<br /><br />
And these are the signs that will accompany those who believe: they will cast out demons in my name; they will speak in new tongues; and they will take up snakes in their hands; and if they drink any poison, it will not harm them; they will place their hands upon the sick and heal them.
<br />
<br /><br />
on 1303309272:
<br />
But I wonder where those words of wisdom in the gospells came from ......the writer must have been really inspired.
<br /> (A bit off-topic, nevertheless.) <br /><br />Writers of the Gospels is what most religious scholars posit today. Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman has written several books on the origins of the Gospels, the Bible as a whole, and Christianity in general including his latest: http://www.amazon.com/Forged-Writing-God--Why-Bibles-Authors/dp/0062012614/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324769919&sr=8-1 . <br />Although I haven't read Ehrman's latest book, I have read some of his earlier books on the subject. He is a respected scholar in his field, but of course, there are other scholars who beg to differ with his perspective who are just as respected. <!-- s;) --> <!-- s;) --> <br />
<br /> <br /> @Gina<;br /> <br /> Hi! There are many religious scholars out there who write about the origins of the Bible, but Bart Ehrman's work, which Bec quotes above, is IMO, very interesting reading. On my personal bookshelf, I have Ehrman's Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don't Know About Them) and Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Another good book on the subject, which focuses primarily on the Old Testament, is Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliott Friedman, another religious scholar who has written several books on the general subject.<br /> <br /> Happy Reading (that is, if you choose to go down this rabbit hole)! albino/ ;D
<br />Sorry Gina, the Bible being changed and heavily edited over the ages is historical fact. There are entire books that were removed (censored) and have been lost forever thank you Spanish Inquisition. <br />
<br />Historical fact? I've seen no evidence of this historical fact. Maybe there is evidence but I didn't see it.<br /><br />A book removed doesn't mean the content of the others was changed. But who can really confirm that book was removed?<br />
<br /><br />just my personal opinion, but Gods own name has been edited out of the bible for two reasons a) years ago (middle ages) people were supersticious and was considered too scared of a name to mention and b) to support catholic and other church taught doctrines.<br /><br />the catholic church itself (i should say herself) admits in the catholic encylopaedia to forgery and changing of the bible from the middle ages. here is an article that explains the forgery. http://www.sabbathcovenant.com/doctrine/catholic_church_admits_to_forger.htm<br /><br />the article i make reference to is NOT JW information. it is common knowledge if you research it amongst encylopaedias, historical books and various religious books / texts.<br /><br />the bible itself warns against those who try to change it.<br /><br />"I warn everyone who hears the words <br />of the prophecy of this book: <br />If anyone adds anything to them, <br />God will add to him the plagues <br />described in this book. <br />And if anyone takes words away <br />from this book of prophecy, <br />God will take away from him <br />his share in the tree of life."<br />(Revelation 22:18,19)(NIV)-BibleGateway (not as JW bible - I try to use other versions so as not to be accused of referring to JW bible only.) <br /><br /><br />i know here there are some who are not bible readers or even believers. this next comment is for those who do read the bible and believe in its authenticity. how you you feel if you found out that you HAD BEEN LIED TO about Gods name.... here is a very interesting article to read and consider. http://removinggodsname.xanga.com/329800252/item/ (not a JW website by the way)<br /><br />NB - again, not intending to get into debate. just putting some information out there that others may not be aware of.<br /><br />
<br />Sorry Gina, the Bible being changed and heavily edited over the ages is historical fact. There are entire books that were removed (censored) and have been lost forever thank you Spanish Inquisition. <br />
<br />Historical fact? I've seen no evidence of this historical fact. Maybe there is evidence but I didn't see it.<br /><br />A book removed doesn't mean the content of the others was changed. But who can really confirm that book was removed?<br />
<br /><br />I assume you have read the bible. And i also assume that you are christian. Didn't you ever realize the paradoxes in the bible??? Well this is the M A I N evidence that the bible has been changed during history. If that was not the case, then you wouldn't find all these strange stuff that contradict each other.
Gina,<br />Anyway, I tend to believe the whole universe is an illusion, like the dream of the Creator, we live in his dream.<br /> Well, I'm not sure, but sometimes I have this strong Matrix feeling as well. Like nothing is real, just an illusion.<br />
<br />Oh, like in the movie, Inception? I've sometimes thought that the known universe might be a box sitting on some creatures shelf in another universe that is completely different from ours. Afterall, where is the boundaries of the universe?<br /><br /><br />I like the story of Horton hears a Who, where he discovers a whole little world living on this speck on a flower.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />There's also talk of alternate universes. And do you realize that God could have written the starting scenario of Adam and Eve (not Adam and Steve or none of us would be here, lol), completely different in a trillion different ways. They say every action/word has an effect of those around them and perhaps history itself. There's trillions of ways history could have gone. Perhaps we will each help lead on another planet in our resurrected future. The possibilities are endless. There's been discussion on the Illuminati/TPTB trying to carry out the scenario in Revelation and create self-fulfillment, and a staged rapture, second coming, anti-christ, which may in fact end up being the very one predicted in the Bible. God is outside time, and sees the end from the beginning.<br /><br /><br />Well, in any case, we can enjoy this MJ ride to see what will happen in 2012, and hopefully BAM, whatever it looks like! This is the biggest adventure of my life so far, and I will stay till the end, or is that the beginning?
<br />Sorry Gina, the Bible being changed and heavily edited over the ages is historical fact. There are entire books that were removed (censored) and have been lost forever thank you Spanish Inquisition. <br />
<br />Historical fact? I've seen no evidence of this historical fact. Maybe there is evidence but I didn't see it.<br /><br />A book removed doesn't mean the content of the others was changed. But who can really confirm that book was removed?<br />
<br /><br />I assume you have read the bible. And i also assume that you are christian. Didn't you ever realize the paradoxes in the bible??? Well this is the M A I N evidence that the bible has been changed during history. If that was not the case, then you wouldn't find all these strange stuff that contradict each other. <br />
<br /><br />I am sorry but I've never found contradictions in the Bible. I've read large parts of the Bible, not all of it, and I am a christian.<br /><br />I've also seen JW Bibles and they are the same with our Bible.
A.) Everyone knows the story about Jesus and the woman about to be stoned by the mob. This account is only found in John 7:53-8:12. The mob asked Jesus whether they should stone the woman (the punishment required by the Old Testament) or show her mercy. Jesus doesn’t fall for this trap. Jesus allegedly states “Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.” The crowd dissipates out of shame. Ehrman states that this brilliant story was not originally in the Gospel of John or in any of the Gospels. “It was added by later scribes.” The story is not found in “our oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Nor does its writing style comport with the rest of John. Most serious textual critics state that this story should not be considered part of the Bible (page 65).
<br /><br />But bec how do we know this Ehrman really saw the manuscripts of the Gospel of John? I am sorry but how is it that he had access to the manuscript? That line "who is without sin let him throw the first stone" is brilliant anyway, who could have gave such an answer if not Jesus?<br /><br />Anyway, I wish i would see proof from the original manuscript that the story didn't exist there before I trust someone else telling me the story was not there.
Just like this MJ hoax, the Bible raises more questions than gives answers, IMO. Endless speculation, endless debate, endless circles. Deliberate? I love this hoax, and I love the Bible.
A.) Everyone knows the story about Jesus and the woman about to be stoned by the mob. This account is only found in John 7:53-8:12. The mob asked Jesus whether they should stone the woman (the punishment required by the Old Testament) or show her mercy. Jesus doesn’t fall for this trap. Jesus allegedly states “Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.” The crowd dissipates out of shame. Ehrman states that this brilliant story was not originally in the Gospel of John or in any of the Gospels. “It was added by later scribes.” The story is not found in “our oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Nor does its writing style comport with the rest of John. Most serious textual critics state that this story should not be considered part of the Bible (page 65).
<br /><br />But bec how do we know this Ehrman really saw the manuscripts of the Gospel of John? I am sorry but how is it that he had access to the manuscript? That line "who is without sin let him throw the first stone" is brilliant anyway, who could have gave such an answer if not Jesus?<br /><br />Anyway, I wish i would see proof from the original manuscript that the story didn't exist there before I trust someone else telling me the story was not there.<br />
<br /><br />I provided multiple sources to disprove your statement, Gina. All were found in a few minutes using a search engine. If you have further questions on the topic you are welcome to look into it further.
You can find anything on the net. Why should we trust those links more than an ancient book? Who can prove those who wrote about Bible being changed are more to be trusted than the Bible itself?
@GINA: well I dunno, Gina. You never seem to ever research a damn thing for yourself. I guess we now know why. The internet is full of lies. Who knew. I guess we should all stop using the internet. We should limit our research to, what, Gina? Library books? Well now you know they are full of lies too. Perhaps live lectures by professors. Oh I forgot, they're usually the type that's into science and that's a big lie too. Perhaps we should simply always gain first hand knowledge of any subject we are interested in and rely only on that... completely disregarding that first hand knowledge is limited to experience and is purely anecdotal. If first hand knowledge isn't available then we should simply plug our ears and close our eyes and yell NEENER NEENER NEENER until all the confusing things in the world go away and leave us alone in our fortress of solitude and simplicity.
LOL bec, that was so funny to read !<br /><br />Who is to say what deserves research and what not? I don't waste my time with false research subjects.<br /> bearhug.<br /><br />PS: but you don't know the answer to my stupid little question, do you?<br />Why should we trust them more than the Bible? Because they "researched" it? They saw the original manuscripts from 2000 years ago and made a comparison? How can I believe this?? Who knows where the manuscripts are and even if they are somewhere, who knows there are the original ones?<br /><br />See, too many unknowns in this puzzle.<br /><br />
Bec<br />[color=rgb(51, 51, 51)]If first hand knowledge isn't available then we should simply plug our ears and close our eyes and yell NEENER NEENER NEENER until all the confusing things in the world go away and leave us alone in our fortress of solitude and simplicity.[/color]
Bec<br />[color=rgb(51, 51, 51)]If first hand knowledge isn't available then we should simply plug our ears and close our eyes and yell NEENER NEENER NEENER until all the confusing things in the world go away and leave us alone in our fortress of solitude and simplicity.[/color]
<br /><br />hahhahahhahh!!!!<br />but we still can coordinate hand-mouse-post button <br />bec you are adorable bearhug<br />ps: I would believe it if they would show it on Discovery Channel <br />
If anyone is interested here is a great debate between an evangelist, Dr. Kent Hovind, and three scientists:<br /><br /> /><br />There are 15 videos so it is a long debate but I thought it was pretty interesting.
@Heartsong, the separation of faith and science doesn't actually make sense; belief in a "scientific" theory requires faith. In my opinion, it requires just as much if not more faith than one who believes in God and/or The Bible. One definition of religion according to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is: "devotion to some principle; strict fidelity or faithfulness; conscientiousness; pious affection or attachment," thus almost everyone, including agnostics and atheists, do have some form of religious faithfulness in their lives. <br /><br /> The scientific theories such as: evolution/the big bang theory, are purely based on conjecture or some scientist's imagination that soon get replaced by the next theory(ies) that someone comes up with. This is simply due to the fact that there was and is no historical evidence or proof that these theories are true. So to reiterate: belief in these theories or anything, requires faith.<br /><br /> The mathematical design or rules in nature I was referring to are not a "claim", but fact. It is called 'The Fractal Geometry in Nature' or geometric patterns in nature, and can be found by a simple google search. Sacred geometry not only exists within a flower for example, but living creatures including humans. Of course over time these things (nature) has evolved, but they had to have an origin. Also, mathematical rules and boundaries exist within our solar system; atheism teaches that this "order" came about by mere "accident", out of chaos. That implies the order had to know where to place the sun in the solar system in order for life to live upon earth; thus this "order" would had to have known how far to place the sun away from the earth, or else we (life) would all die. This order also had to know what type of sun it was, and the important role of Jupiter in helping to protect earth, along with the Van Allen belts, would have too come about by "accident". Etc, etc... So while you don't believe nature was designed, I do, as it is impossible for all of this math to be accidental.
People can believe in what they wish; but we should have all learned by now to question everything; not just believe certain things only because we WANT to, whilst ignoring other important things. <br /><br /> I do believe it is important to question the Bible and everything in general in order to find the truth. Inquiry leads to answers thus: knowledge. <br /><br /> Aussie I agree with your posts, both are informative. And to people who seem confused over whether hell exists or not, justice CAN happen without the existence of hell. The mistranslation of "hell" along with the emission of God's name, account for some of the contradictions and editing that occurred and is within the Bible. It is a well known fact among many religions that the Bible was "corrupted". However, this does not mean all Bibles are corrupted, but many versions are; this is why we must research from all perspectives to find the truth.<br /><br /> The King James Version, NWT and others are 99% accurate with the Dead Sea Scrolls; the only differences are merely translations. Some translations do account for some versions of the Bible to have completely different meaning in some scriptures. Again, this is a reason for some of the "corruption". There is no evidence showing huge portions of the Bible were removed, nor what specific portions are missing, so that is a baseless claim. If much of the Bible was "missing/removed", it wouldn't be as harmonious as it is, which is strong proof it wasn't written based upon mere memory or human intelligence alone; but is inspired by God.<br /><br /> The Christian Bible consists of the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Old Testament, and the 27 books of the Christian Greek Scriptures, often called the New Testament. Thus, the Bible is compiled of 66 books written by some 40 men in the course of 1,600 years of history from: 1513 B.C.E. to 98 C.E.<br /><br /> So, the Bible, written by many men over the course of many years, is harmonious for a reason. If they based everything off of memory alone, they all had one heck of a memory.
Comments