Originally posted by Daisuke-kun:to make life for the christians better?
lol..editin,removing,adding is a sin against God..how can mere mortals give better instructions den God?
Originally posted by skythewood:actually, the bible consist of the gospel of a few selected people.
the new testament consist of the writings of these people
Matthew (Matt.)
Mark (Mark)
Luke (Luke)
John (John)
The Acts (Acts)
The Epistle to the Romans (Rom.)
1 Corinthians (1 Cor.)
2 Corinthians (2 Cor.)
Galatians (Gal.)
Ephesians (Eph.)
Philippians (Philip.)
Colossians (Col.)
1 Thessalonians (1 Thes.)
2 Thessalonians (2 Thes.)
1 Timothy (1 Tim.)
2 Timothy (2 Tim.)
Titus (Titus)
Philemon (Philem.)
To the Hebrews (Heb.)
The Epistle of James (James)
1 Peter (1 Pet.)
2 Peter (2 Pet.)
1 John (1 Jn.)
2 John (2 Jn.)
3 John (3 Jn.)
Jude (Jude)it is possible to have diff version.. just include diff gospel to tell the same story.
i believe we were talking about bible rite?how come u mention only NT?the bible has over 40 writers in the whole collection of 66 books.
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:Judas, Mary, MM, Peter, etc. They don't add any value to the Christian message that isn't already in the Cannonical gospels.
And the truth that is in the Bible has not changed, as it is found in Christ's teachings. One would be missing the woods for the trees by focussing on historical accuracies and other things.
the bible has not changed fundamentally but church teachings has changed far too much..thats y people will always have misconceptions about God.
too end off this title, the bible is entirely truthful, but the church teachings is not.
Originally posted by domonkassyu:i believe we were talking about bible rite?how come u mention only NT?the bible has over 40 writers in the whole collection of 66 books.
too long to list all... just want to give the gist...you are welcome to list more.
Originally posted by skythewood:too long to list all... just want to give the gist...you are welcome to list more.
well, actually ppl who read the bible would know..but just that churches usually focus more on the NT. =)
Originally posted by domonkassyu:well, actually ppl who read the bible would know..but just that churches usually focus more on the NT. =)
ok
Originally posted by snapfish:hope that u noe that everything of the bible is IMPORTANT!!!!!!
Originally posted by Omnia:If by 'versions' you mean 'Douay-Rheims version', 'King James Version' etc, these are bible translations. We have to remember that the bible authors wrote in Hebrew and Greek, not English. We need English translations if we are to be able to read and comprehend the bible. The internet has lots of extra info on the origins of these translations if you're interested.
Some translations try to be more precise by being literal and preserving subtle cues in the text but these often end up being harder to read because of differences in grammar etc between Hebrew/Greek and English. But less literal translations that make it easier for the English reader risk losing precision and the introduction of the doctrinal views of the translator. Bottomline is that there is no perfect translation. Different translations exist for both Catholic as well as Protestant bibles.
So what's the difference between a Catholic bible and a Protestant one ? The Protestant bible has seven fewer books (and missing portions from two other books) than the Catholic bible. So what happened ?
The bible is actually a collection of books which includes biographies, poems, letters etc. Around the 4th century AD, the Church formalised the collection of writings that were to be included in the bible (and therefore declared to be the inspired word of God) and those that were not. This gave birth to the Catholic bible that we know of today which consists of 73 books. Christendom considered this to be the bible for over a thousand years. It was only in the 16th century that a monk - Martin Luther, came along and threw out 7 books (and parts of two other books) from the bible when he broke away from the Catholic Church during the so called Reformation. This 'reduced' bible is now what Protestants use. Why did Martin Luther throw out those books ? The answer would differ depending on whom you ask but I can't help but think that a strong motivation was for doctrinal reasons - he did not agree with some of the stuff in those books.
"Martin Luther, came along and threw out 7 books (and parts of two other books) from the bible when he broke away from the Catholic Church during the so called Reformation. This 'reduced' bible is now what Protestants use."
"the Church formalised the collection of writings that were to be included in the bible (and therefore declared to be the inspired word of God) and those that were not. This gave birth to the Catholic bible that we know of today which consists of 73 books."
So the flawed, sinning, condemned humans are the ones deciding what we should know about God? I hope im not insulting, i really dont mean to be, but I do find it very troublesome to believe in a religion where what we know is determined by OTHER PEOPLE, who decide what should be selected.
Originally posted by snapfish:i dun really agree to this topic dun u noe that it is insulting to all us chritians? did u read the book of revelations? isn't thats wat happening now?
no its not. it has ALWAYS been happening.
When the black death wiped out 1/4 of europe, with hundreds of millions of deaths, and spread uncontrollably, the people there thought it was the end of the world.
When World War 1 happened, people thought it was armegeddon.
Same thing for World War 2.
Same thing for all the great wars and diseases that have ever happened.
Only thing is now we have BBC and CNN to tell us sooo much, that we think the world is in some huge trouble.
Originally posted by HyperionDCZ:"Martin Luther, came along and threw out 7 books (and parts of two other books) from the bible when he broke away from the Catholic Church during the so called Reformation. This 'reduced' bible is now what Protestants use."
"the Church formalised the collection of writings that were to be included in the bible (and therefore declared to be the inspired word of God) and those that were not. This gave birth to the Catholic bible that we know of today which consists of 73 books."
So the flawed, sinning, condemned humans are the ones deciding what we should know about God? I hope im not insulting, i really dont mean to be, but I do find it very troublesome to believe in a religion where what we know is determined by OTHER PEOPLE, who decide what should be selected.
perharps it is more impt to focus who is the author instead of writers and compilers?
Originally posted by skythewood:actually, the bible consist of the gospel of a few selected people.
the new testament consist of the writings of these people
Matthew (Matt.)
Mark (Mark)
Luke (Luke)
John (John)
The Acts (Acts)
The Epistle to the Romans (Rom.)
1 Corinthians (1 Cor.)
2 Corinthians (2 Cor.)
Galatians (Gal.)
Ephesians (Eph.)
Philippians (Philip.)
Colossians (Col.)
1 Thessalonians (1 Thes.)
2 Thessalonians (2 Thes.)
1 Timothy (1 Tim.)
2 Timothy (2 Tim.)
Titus (Titus)
Philemon (Philem.)
To the Hebrews (Heb.)
The Epistle of James (James)
1 Peter (1 Pet.)
2 Peter (2 Pet.)
1 John (1 Jn.)
2 John (2 Jn.)
3 John (3 Jn.)
Jude (Jude)it is possible to have diff version.. just include diff gospel to tell the same story.
i mean the version of bibles la.. like KJV NKJV..
Originally posted by HyperionDCZ:
no its not. it has ALWAYS been happening.
When the black death wiped out 1/4 of europe, with hundreds of millions of deaths, and spread uncontrollably, the people there thought it was the end of the world.
When World War 1 happened, people thought it was armegeddon.
Same thing for World War 2.
Same thing for all the great wars and diseases that have ever happened.
Only thing is now we have BBC and CNN to tell us sooo much, that we think the world is in some huge trouble.
the world we know has always being plagued by catastrophes big n small.many a time,ppl thinks that is the end of the world.but when comparing back to the bible, we see that what has happen in the past is nth compared to now, the intensities,the frequencies and the death toll.
armageddon is not jus a day,but a period of time.nor is it just meant for destruction but of resurrection and hope.
lastly,bbc is known to have made many false reports..
Originally posted by domonkassyu:the world we know has always being plagued by catastrophes big n small.many a time,ppl thinks that is the end of the world.but when comparing back to the bible, we see that what has happen in the past is nth compared to now, the intensities,the frequencies and the death toll.
armageddon is not jus a day,but a period of time.nor is it just meant for destruction but of resurrection and hope.
lastly,bbc is known to have made many false reports..
"we see that what has happen in the past is nth compared to now, the intensities,the frequencies and the death toll."
I'd like to point out some past events and see if it is really 'nth compared to now'
1. World War 1 & 2, the two largest ever wars within a time span of 31 years total death toll - 85million
2. Black Death (14th century) total death toll - 450million
Based on these two examples alone, i really have no idea what you are talking about. Unless you can find me two modern events which make my examples "nth compared" to them.
"bbc is known to have made many false reports.."
that's not addressing the gist of the argument. What i'm saying is that global media has given us so much information that we think the world is in some huge trouble, when theres actually nothing wrong. And dont talk about false reports, unless you want to claim that Hurricane Katrina, the Indian Ocean Tsunami, and September 11 were all 'false reports' which didnt really happen.
Originally posted by youyayu:i mean the version of bibles la.. like KJV NKJV..
is the KJV, NKJV not the including and excluding of selected gospel?
Originally posted by HyperionDCZ:"we see that what has happen in the past is nth compared to now, the intensities,the frequencies and the death toll."
I'd like to point out some past events and see if it is really 'nth compared to now'
1. World War 1 & 2, the two largest ever wars within a time span of 31 years total death toll - 85million
2. Black Death (14th century) total death toll - 450million
Based on these two examples alone, i really have no idea what you are talking about. Unless you can find me two modern events which make my examples "nth compared" to them.
"bbc is known to have made many false reports.."that's not addressing the gist of the argument. What i'm saying is that global media has given us so much information that we think the world is in some huge trouble, when theres actually nothing wrong. And dont talk about false reports, unless you want to claim that Hurricane Katrina, the Indian Ocean Tsunami, and September 11 were all 'false reports' which didnt really happen.
i have a book on the comparison we r tokin about...i go find it and post some of the stuff here..
for some, the time after 1914,ww1 is considered the starting of the armageddon age or sth like tat..some the death counts starts frm there n also the quakes n such, dieases...
well, the earth is definitely in deep shit.n not jus the imagination of some fanatical religious nuts..
Originally posted by domonkassyu:perharps it is more impt to focus who is the author instead of writers and compilers?
doesnt it strike you that everything you know about the religion comes not from the author, but from the writers and compilers ?
Originally posted by HyperionDCZ:
So the flawed, sinning, condemned humans are the ones deciding what we should know about God? I hope im not insulting, i really dont mean to be, but I do find it very troublesome to believe in a religion where what we know is determined by OTHER PEOPLE, who decide what should be selected.
You are right to be concerned about receiving the word of God from flawed human beings. God knows this as well and he is no fool. That is why he sent the Holy Spirit to the apostles and their successors in the Church, to ensure that what they teach is the infallible truth, however sinful they might be as human beings. How do we know this ? The bible tells us the following:
Jesus told the apostles that "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). He told Peter that "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Mathew 16:19). Jesus also exhorted the apostles to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." (Mathew 28:19).
These are all very strong statements made by Jesus which would make God a fool if he allows the apostles and the Church to teach error.
Originally posted by HyperionDCZ:
doesnt it strike you that everything you know about the religion comes not from the author, but from the writers and compilers ?
i used to wonder why no more God talkin directly to us like in the old days of bible...every once awhile, people will hear the voice of God saying this or that.now, i hardly even hear the damn scdf siren goin off...
the ceasation of God talking to ppl directly was also explained in the bible.a book of over 40 writers spanning so many centuries yet does not contradict does has points that ppl can believe in..also the counsel given in there beats self help books in the market that expires every few years..
and oso based on other instances, tats y i believe the bible to be true but not the churches..
Originally posted by Omnia:You are right to be concerned about receiving the word of God from flawed human beings. God knows this as well and he is no fool. That is why he sent the Holy Spirit to the apostles and their successors in the Church, to ensure that what they teach is the infallible truth, however sinful they might be as human beings. How do we know this ? The bible tells us the following:
Jesus told the apostles that "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). He told Peter that "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Mathew 16:19). Jesus also exhorted the apostles to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." (Mathew 28:19).
These are all very strong statements made by Jesus which would make God a fool if he allows the apostles and the Church to teach error.
i agree totally that God is no fool...but yet he still allows churches to teach wrong harmful stuffs..reason being God also has spoken about false prophets tat goes about doin miracles in jesus and God's name.n these people will only end up being wipe out.
Originally posted by domonkassyu:i agree totally that God is no fool...but yet he still allows churches to teach wrong harmful stuffs..reason being God also has spoken about false prophets tat goes about doin miracles in jesus and God's name.n these people will only end up being wipe out.
That's because God's assurances of infallible teaching of faith and morals was only given to the one church that he established (not churches), the one church that would today be about 2,000 years old. The assurances would not apply to all the other 'churches' that have broken away from this one church over doctrinal issues because God does not contradict himself on doctrinal truths.
I believe the bible to be true but God would be most unwise to give mankind the bible without an authority to interpret and teach it. Otherwise, confusion and anarchy over true teachings would result and we already see this in the contradictory teachings of the many protestant denominations out there which have mushroomed over the last 500 years. You need an authority, which is found in the one church that he established, the church that is the "pillar and foundation of truth" as described by St Paul (1 Tim 3:15).
Originally posted by Omnia:That's because God's assurances of infallible teaching of faith and morals was only given to the one church that he established (not churches), the one church that would today be about 2,000 years old. The assurances would not apply to all the other 'churches' that have broken away from this one church over doctrinal issues because God does not contradict himself on doctrinal truths.
I believe the bible to be true but God would be most unwise to give mankind the bible without an authority to interpret and teach it. Otherwise, confusion and anarchy over true teachings would result and we already see this in the contradictory teachings of the many protestant denominations out there which have mushroomed over the last 500 years. You need an authority, which is found in the one church that he established, the church that is the "pillar and foundation of truth" as described by St Paul (1 Tim 3:15).
he establish a temple..a temple known as jesus christ..and im curious to know about the one church u mean...do u mean the roman catholic church?
Originally posted by domonkassyu:he establish a temple..a temple known as jesus christ..and im curious to know about the one church u mean...do u mean the roman catholic church?
Yes I do.
Originally posted by Omnia:Yes I do.
i guess its safe to assume u are from the RCC too...do abit of research on RC.u will find that many teachings of RC is very different from jesus' disciples,from jesus own words,from people of God living b4 jesus.once u have done that den mayb u can help answer some of my qns that many fathers n pastors are not able to answer me. =)
Originally posted by HyperionDCZ:after all the kings and popes in ancient times who have edited it, added information, removed information, for political gains ?
You've already started out with the presupposition that the Bible is nothing but a human text and that there has been little to no divine inspiration. Nothing we say will be able to make much of an impression.