Matt. 25:31-46

rob · #31 (**permalink**) 08-22-2006, 03:56 PM

Thanks for the explanation, I am going to do some research on my own and will share it later today hopefully.

rob · #32 (**permalink**) 08-22-2006, 04:00 PM

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html

Here is a link that goes into great detail about New Testament Canon. It is a good read.

Dom1 · #33 (**permalink**) 08-22-2006, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BARK

The Qur'an is still availble in the original language with the same exact words and tone.

BARK, you wouldn't argue that it is all interpreted the same way it always has would you. Admittadly I have a lack of knowledge of the Quran, but I would say that it doesn't seem like it is even interpreted the same way by every Muslim now.

Is it necessary for religion to 'evolve' with the times, or do you think that religion is better kept entirely in it's original so to speak?

BARK · #34 (**permalink**) 08-22-2006, 09:20 PM

Religious books are books that are supposed to speak to every single nook and crany in the human population. These books try to do alot. No it is not always interpreted the same way. There is much division. Having the original text to fall back on is good, but still... You are right Dom. Truly I think it is better to evolve with the times. Islam has problems with this.

Areyouforreal · #35 (**permalink**) 08-22-2006, 10:30 PM

I read everything that you wrote Bark and it is intresting to say the least.
I still have faith in God, believe in heaven, and trust the Bible.
If I believe the Bible and accept Jesus and live the way it teaches what have I lost? If i die and there is no heaven then I lost nothing, infact I lived a good life with good morals and principles, but and the other hand if i do not believe and die then find out there is a God and heaven is real then I have lost enerything and eternity.

Dom1 · #36 (**permalink**) 08-22-2006, 10:41 PM

Somewhat like the Blaise Pascal argument. He was a French mathematician who basically said in his early life (before conversion I believe) that even if it is a small percentage that their is a heaven, one Sunday a week on the chance that their is one is not too much to endure when you consider the chance of an eternity in Hell.

Politicon · #37 (**permalink**) 08-23-2006, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BARK

Yup bibles are different. Some faiths beleieve that it is more important to stress some aspects over others. The bible has changed many times. Everytime it is translated the translator is allowed to interject his opinion. Every new edition is subject to change as well. There are some books that used to be there and there are some new ones. Thus the evolution of religion. Well no just the bible. The Qur'an is still availble in the original language with the same exact words and tone.

I would disagree Bark. First, I don't buy into the fact that the Bible has changed many times. Aside from the Apocrypha being included in the Catholic Bibles, it has largely remained the same. The Bible (as known by the Protestants) was accepted cannon since the time the books were written. If you don't want to take my word for that I understand. If it's really that big of a deal let me know and I'll give you my reasons for saying that but that would take more time then I wish to right here. To keep things simple I will say this. In 393 the Council of Hippo officially accepted the New Testament list as listed by Athanasius of Alexandria. This same cannon was also accepted at the Council of Carthage in 397. If you wish to go back a little further you may even find references to the cannon at the Council of Nicea in 325, but that did not have to do directly with the cannon. I would also like to note that the Council of Hippo and Carthage was NOT to establish the cannon. That had been accepted long before hand. The only reason that the cannon had to be officially stated during these councils was to reject heretical ideas entering the Church at that time. As far as the Apocrypha goes, here is a website telling its history: http://www.watch.pair.com/apocrypha.html To save you the time, the Apocrypha was brought into the Catholic Church on April 8, 1546 A.D. at the Council of Trent. If you want to know all the history behind all of this check the website. Now, with all that aside I would like to ask how you say that the translators were allowed to interject their opinions. If you mean the direct translations of the word, fine. Some of the meaning is lost when the books of the Bible are translated from Hebrew and Greek into English and other languages. Words that would normally be emphasized or carry emphasis are lost in translation. If you mean to say that the translators made slight changes to the MEANING on the other hand, then I strongly disagree. If that is also the case, please let me know and I will outline why I disagree with that.

Politicon · #38 (**permalink**) 08-23-2006, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BARK

As noted, Luke's other account of the ascension, in Acts 1:9-11, tells a different story. Instead of the ascension taking place on the same day as the resurrection, as in Luke 24:50-53, the ascension takes place after 40 days. Why the discrepancy?

Copied and Pasted from http://www.tektonics.org/af/ascloc.html

Luke 24:50-1 When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven.

Mark 16:14, 19 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen...After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.

Acts 1:9-12 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. "Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day's walk from the city.

Some critics think these verses provide contradictory locations for the Ascension. We have noted (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/markend.html) that Mark 16:8ff is not to be taken into consideration, skeptical disregard for the principles of textual criticism aside. As for the other two cites, Bethany is located on the slope of the Mount of Olives, so the verses are in agreement; they merely use different geographical referents to establish the location. (Note that Luke's gospel refers to the vicinity of Bethany, whereas Acts refers specifically to the Mount of Olives.)

Politicon · #39 (**permalink**) 08-23-2006, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BARK

A Controverted Old Testament Text
Genesis 2-11 presents Adam and Eve and their sin (Ch. 2 and 3), Cain and Abel and the origin of culture (Ch. 4), a genealogy of long-lived heroes (Ch. 5), the flood and the repopulating of the earth (Ch. 6-10), the Tower of Babel (Ch. 11), and a final genealogy funneling down to Abraham. Throughout the ages, Jews and Christians have looked to these chapters to understand God's purpose in creating the world, the nature and destiny of human beings and the root causes of sin and disorder. For much of that time, readers assumed unreflectively that the chapters were "historical," that is, they described the actual creation of the world.

Ussher's literalism lives on today only in ultra-conservative Christian and Jewish circles. Still, while most people read Genesis for its inspired theological reflections, they remain somewhat puzzled by questions of historicity: Did Adam and Eve exist? Was there a flood? Did Abraham actually live to the age of 175? The Catechism of the Catholic Church is surprisingly, and quite uncharacteristically, literalist in its analysis of these chapters. Though properly insisting on the significance of the sin of Adam "for the whole of human history," the catechism assumes that it was "a primeval event" (No. 390).

What kind of literature is Genesis 2-11? What is its genre? Today we can confidently answer that the chapters are a "creation-flood story," several examples of which have been found in ancient Mesopotamia (today Iraq) and elsewhere, including the Sumerian flood story, the tale of Atrahasis, Tablet XI of Gilgamesh, and an account in the work of the Greek writer Berossos. The plots of the stories are similar: the gods create a world; some kind of fault (divine or human) spoils things, with the result that the gods send a flood to destroy it; the god of wisdom alerts his client (variously named Ziusudra, Utnapishtim, Atrahasis or Noah) to build a boat and ride out the flood; after the flood, the gods build a new world without the miscalculations that marred the first one. (In the Bible there is no divine miscalculation.)

To the biblical authors, the creation-flood story served as a narrative template for expressing their distinctive vision of God and the world. In crafting their own version, they were startlingly original, affirming that God freely created the world and gave the human race an honored place within it, that humans represent (that is, "image") God in the world, and that God honors humans' faithfulness and punishes their sins.

The chapters are not, therefore, historical in the sense that the events recounted therein actually occurred. They offer, rather, an inspired story of origins, a narrative exploration of profound questions undertaken by speaking of the first appearance of human realities and institutions.

Do you not find it odd that multiple cultures came up with this "story"? I certainly do. Is it not seemingly possible that the reason these cultures all have a flood story is because it actually happened? Also, what are you basing this off of? I would like to know your sources so I could look the over to adequately debate this.

BARK · #40 (**permalink**) 08-23-2006, 12:07 PM

Quote:

If I believe the Bible and accept Jesus and live the way it teaches what have I lost? If i die and there is no heaven then I lost nothing, infact I lived a good life with good morals and principles, but and the other hand if i do not believe and die then find out there is a God and heaven is real then I have lost enerything and eternity.

This is probably known to you through Blaise Pascal, but it began with a Muslim. Abi Talib was the first to be quoted as saying this. I think it is funny that Islam and Christianity share so much and can still not get along. And as far as living a life worth it. Oh my friend.. My life is so worth it. I have bragged before and once is enough. One of my posts has in it the things I suffer for.