Explain this whole "jesus died for your sins" thing to me..

You're missing my point, but then I guess tha's my fault for not explaining it correctly.

My point is this, how do you know that your intrepertation of the bible is correct when there are so many diffrent ones to choose from?

Everything in the universe can be intreperted in many diffrent ways, I don't dispute that. Someone can look into the sky and think "stars are fireflys", and i'm quite hapy for them to believe that, until someone invents a telescope and gathers evidence to the contry..

What evidence do you have that your intrepertation of the bible is correct? How can you be so sure in your mind that you're understanding what god wants you to understand?

 

If it's not disproven then how is it a casualty?

And also, although some who say they 'talk to God' may be mentally imbalanced, that hardly means that all mysticism is false.

 

God has not been disproven... but the story of creation has...

 

There are not really many different ones to choose from. The thing can be condensed into a few basic beliefs, as previous posters have been at pains to point out.
There is a parrallel here with all other branches of knowledge though. For example, how can you know your understanding of science is based on the right interpretation? Because there are many conflicting theories which can't easily be reconciled or unified.
Those who follow cranky and off-centre versions of so called Christianity like Mormons, JW's etc, are like those pseudo scientists who invent crackpot theories and proclaim them as science, or quack doctors who claim a scientific basis for their dodgy products.

 

Only to those with a literalist understanding of the Bible.

 

explain

 

Such as how do we know a day for God is not over millions, or even more of years...that is the one thatis good...i know there are others, but i can't think of any...

oh, then there's the one where God creates the first cell, or the conditions for the first cell, then took His hands off [i can see thet happening]....

 

literalists still believe in 7 day creation that happened about 6,000 years ago.

 

Thanks to Burbot and Sera Michele - between them they've spelled it out.

But I'll put it in my own words for you Amanda - a literalist is one who believes in the literal truth of the Bible. In other words, a literalist believes that God made the world in 7 earth days, made man from clay and woman from his rib etc.

On the other hand is what we can call a symbolic understanding of the Bible.
Here, the story of the creation would be viewed as only a symbol, cast in an archaic form, due to its antiquity. It could, for example, be said to show an idea of phases of the manifestation of life on earth in the 7 days story.

 

Every God will bare their cross. They be self made sick unto everlasting punishment.

The self can't die dead enough, but the body can die. And if the soul shall keep the self in a dieing body state that's being burned as the sun ever more, then whosoever that is in whole is in the toments of hell into life eternal.

 

firstlyyyyy if we look at this from a logical point of view, as long as every single piece of information is considered, anyone's interpretation of the bible which covers the information correctly, is correct and just as correct as anyone elses (however most people don't cover the info and so you can discredit their interpretations). What you're often not told is that the most commonly used version of the bible (King James Version) has been translated badly. Further, the 'well' translated bibles are usually still ambiguous (however some do include alternate meanings of the words). (The old testament was originally in ancient hebrew, the new testament originally latin, and if you keep a close eye on the new testament you notice a major change in writing style and expression- that's where the original texts were 'fixed'. historical fact.)

So there's that, and the fact that the original interpretation of the old testament, the 'true' interpretation, is completely and utterly ignored by christians when they interpret the old testament. It's very easy to obtain as well, it's an essential part of jewish literature, the oral torah. (Christian literalists are often so off the mark that it just makes me sad to know they exist.)

So mix it all with historical facts (the formation of the christian church is an important one, the great fires of rome are another) and I don't think you could really go wrong with the bible. Unfortunately many people just accept whatever they're told and don't bother to investigate otherwise. I truly believe that many christians (not most, but many) out there have a good grasp of the message the bible was getting across, but I believe 80% of them are college professors.

Also, there are no contradictions in the bible IF you look carefully at where it's been altered in the new testament. I know a lot of people might get pissed off, but if you want I can dig out my old books and show you some pretty obvious ones. (For instance, the dates have all been changed- palm sunday is put as being in autumn, a season in which there were no palm leaves. Unless of course jesus was fanned with dead, brown, broken up palm leaves. Things like that.)

And lastly can I please have an example where the bible has been contradicted by science? I can only think of noahs ark (theres evidence to prove that there was a great flood..) the creation thing (no proof either way), jesus walking on water (no proof either way), moses parting the red sea (chariots/horse bones/people bones have been found in the sea bed where the pharoh's men supposedly died).

Anyway. I hope this helps. PM me if you want for resources/questions etc

 

Well lets have a look at your examples and we'll see what we can do...

Yes, I agree, not a global flood at any rate, but a big one for sure... It's been recorded by many diffrent cultures, but each have their own intrepertation of what/why (there are also many scientific theories). All I can say regarding this is that as the bible was written after it happened, it's easy enough to add an entry on it, and put your own intrepertation (and maybe a little fable too, i,e, noah)

How can you say there is no proof for evolution, we've got masses of it, the biggest of which the dinosaurs (you know, the big mosters that ruled the earth 64 million years ago),

no comment

Again, I believe this actully happened... only, it wasn't moses that parted the sea, he just happened to be in the right place at the right time... I don't want to go into lots of details here, as they are a bit sketchy, but there is evidence that a volcano exploded a few hundered miles off, causing a tsunami (i'm serious, this was on a show before the boxing day disaster)... Now before the water from a tsunami comes inland, it draws water out first, allowing the body of water to part, and for moses to cross.

Incadently, the first five books of the bible (the ones that moses was suppost to have written) were written diffrent by 4 diffrent sources, then merged togther at a later date, none of these sources was moses, and must have been written after his dead as they describe his death... so when you're writing about someone that's dead, you can add all sorts of diffrent information, big that person up, and turn them into a legend (it's called propogander).

 

Umm..what are you trying to prove exactly...

The creation theory is about the creation of the world. Nothing to do with what happened after. It's big bang vs intended creation by g-d. It's absolutely nothing to do with the evolutionary theory at all, some religious people believe evolution never occurs, but that's a totally different topic which isn't necessarily backed up by the bible which some science-crazed persons merge in order to get a fuller attack on religious views...Do you actually have an example where the bible is contradicted by science, that was my question..

Perhaps we should look up firstly what propaganda is, and then look at how to spell it properly.. I don't think that the 5 books of moses were all written to 'big' moses up, considering only one talks of moses and it includes all of his flaws as well as his successes. I'm not sure what you really want me to say, you examine my footnote very carefully, then talk about the books of moses..any guidance on that?

 

My point is simple... for ages people have held up the bible saying "look, this is the truth"... At one point the church of england announced that the world was 6000 years old based on research done using the bible...

At around the same time we started to discover and examin dinosaur fossils and remains, putting the evidence togther, and now that we know the world is billions of years old, and that the story of creation as told in the bible in bullshit.

How people still have the nerve to hold up the bible and continue to say "look, this is the truth" after everything we now know just takes the piss...

THAT is my point. (well, one of my many points, it has nothing to do with this thread, and i'm still looking for an answer as to why jesus had to die.. but you asked, there is my answer).

(oh, and please, I know i'm not the world best speller, but to use it an insult against me... now that's just low and bad form... - and yes I know what propaganda is, to me, it's the perfect word to use when describing the bible).

 

amanda, dear, you know i love you to pieces and so i just have to be a pain in your butt.

are you referring to scientific truth, or poetic truth? cause in a sense, both are truth.

(yeah, this is another one of those "undo your mind" things.)

 

I agree and understand what you're saying Kitty... but that changes nothing in my mind... what was once being shown to the world as scientific truth is now just poetic truth.

They based theiir lively hood on stating that the world was 6000 years old... and got totally blown out of the water... and yet they survive? why? because they've moved the goalposts to stay in the game... it's obviously worked because they are still here, but it's low down and rotten...

Anyway, that's just my opinion... right or wrong, makes no diffrence.

oh, I also don't have anything against "real" christians, the people who follow in jesus example of love and peace, etc.. i think that's great.. love they neighbour, love the sinner - hate the sin, that type of thing is great.... it's the other bunch of christians I dislike.

 

anyway, can be PLEASE get back on topic.. why did jesus "have" to die?

 

because innocent blood had to be shed in order to wash our sinful blood away. Jews used to sacrifice Sheeps, for they were innocent.

Since sheep blood couldn't wash away sinful blood, only cover it . You needed pure, innocent human blood.

Hope this explained a few things.

 

oooohhhh, so I should go and find some virgins to scrafice in order for my sins to be washed away? I'll get right on that...

I'm sorry, but I still don't get it.. why blood of the innocent? why not the blood of the guilty? and what does god do with all this blood? it makes no sence to me at all mate..

 

I go to college, and i have barely have time to get on here (My prime season is in the summer).... but my father campbell34 does and u want cold hard facts he will give them to you. And it will come down to whether you accept the Bible or reject the truth.