Jesus was totaly irrational..!

My question is this: if it is so easy to "go back to the originals" to check on errors, why don't the people who make the new translations ever do it? I mean, if you're going to put out a translation of a Bible, don't you have a responsibility to get it right? Isn't that the point of new translations/versions?

Is it possible that these original texts are not perfect, that even they, when put side beside, still contradict each other in places (in the same manner as the horse-stall example)?

Also, I wasn't aware that the Dead Sea Scrolls contained the entire bible within the cache...am I wrong? Do "originals" exist for all parts of the Bible? Actually, I know they don't...so how can you be sure it's all accurate?

 

campbell34 answered it perfectly..... have you only just noticed his post? i did tell after your first post here that it had been explained.... it really does help if you read the entire thread you know

 

however... TrippinBTM has just made a valid point...

so... can anyone tell me why we have 2 dates for the ascension?

According to Luke 24:51, Jesus' ascension took place in Bethany, on the same day as his resurrection.

According to Acts 1:9-12, Jesus' ascension took place at Mount Olivet, forty days after his resurrection.

 

Mount Olivet is in Bethany (source). Furthermore where does it say in Acts 1:9-12 that his ascension took place 40 days later?



9And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

10And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

11Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. 12Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.

 

1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach
2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.
3 After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.
4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.
5 For John baptized with[a] water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

6 So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"

7 He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.
8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.


my appologies.... read from Acts 1:1-9 i think that is clear enough

 

Ok, clear enough. One thing though, there isn't a second date for the ascension. Luke 24:51 doesn't say that he was risen on the same day as his ressurection.

Luk 24:50And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.

Luk 24:51And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

Luk 24:52And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:

Luk 24:53And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

 

I'm not looking for a fight here, but 80%+ dosn't seem good enough to me. When Nations go to war and kill people based on what that book says it ought to be 100% accurate.

For the record, I grew up Christian, and my father is a Methodist minister.

I don't think that we (humans) will ever come close to solving our problems till we start thinking for ourselves, and stop refering to ancient, way out of date texts.

Thats just an opinion.

I stoped believing the Bible last november, when I saw the "christians" vote a war monger (George W) into office, and yes it was for the most part the "christians". How can they be so high and mighty about the "santity of life" then go over to Iraq and take 100,000+ lives?

 

hey grim, it said 80% innacurate...meaning only 20% accurate.

 

hehehe, OOPS!

My bad!
:&

 

Are people here thinking christianity is what some US christians do or what some catholics do? Jesus does not say go for a kill for God or use children to satisfy your sexual needs. So when you speak about christianity, speak about what New testament is teaching.

Those things some christians do are not done only by christians. They are done by humans, all sorts of humans, old and young, male and female, and from different religions. You should be angry to those humans, all of them, to humanity, and not make only christians to be something that many people do. If you think humanity cant be blamed because you are a human who do not do those things, the same is true with christians: we are not what some people do who say they are christians.

Christianity condemns those things they do, allso the crusades, and I dont understand why christians have not yet made a public separations to the way how christianity was spread throughout the earth and asked a forgivenes. But christianity is not what some christians do, or what some christians in USA are doing. There are christians elsewhere too, you know.

 

Remember that none of us on this forum have yet seen where that person got his/her facts. Just saying, "80% of the bible is inaccurate" does not hold water unless you can tell where he/she got that info, and can provide a link to the site.

We're still waiting...

 

I really hope your not waiting for me?

A. I read the origional quote wrong. For which I'm sorry.

B. The larger point I was trying (ineffectively) to make, was that I believe we need to think for ourselves and at most use religous texts for broad guidlines.

I ain't trying to hold water dude, just share my opinion. (as I origionaly stated)

I imagine that its pretty tough to prove the bible correct also?

 

When all you look at is anti biblical info, then yes.

 

Actually, I havn't been looking at info from either side.

Did you even read the rest of my post? Or my first post in this thread?

Hey, I came on here and expressed an OPINION. I've said it was an opinion three times now.

Why do you care what I think anyway?

Lets try to make sense folks.

 

I can't give a full answer why some people will put a Bible together with obvious errors, and some of the Bibles were rewritten, because the orginal copies of the Bible did not agree with their doctrine. You would think it would be the other way around.

There is what Christians call the majority text which is thousands of copies of the New Testament, which has come from many nations, and many time periods. What they have in common, is they all agree. These copies are the backbone of the New Testament Bible we have to day. A number of
these Bibles date back to the second century.

As far as the Old Testaments and the 4,000 or the 40,000 horses. The older copies all state the lower number. The problems arise when reading from more recent copied versions, and those mistakes can be cleared up, when you go back to the older versions. Such as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

I am bowing out of this. Arguments about religon cannot be won.

As proof of the above statement look at N. Ireland, Iraq (currantly) and the history of Jarusalem.

If your still not convinced than YOU WIN

 

Religion is manmade, and the Bible states that no murder will inherit the Kingdom of God. So when you see people of a religion that murder others, understand they are not Christians, even if they say they are. Christians do not murder other people.

 

Sometimes you have to make a choice, Christians did not vote for Bush because we wanted to go to war in Iraq. Christians voted for Bush so he would put more conserative justices in the court, with hopes of stopping the unending murder of unborn children in our own country. 100,000 lives lost in Iraq is bad enought. But Americans to date have killed off 50 million American children by abortion. And I don't see anyone in the Democratic Party sheading a tear for them. Is it only citizens of Iraq that are important to Democrats? If you are concerned about mass murder, you only need to look to the Democratic party, which supports it.

 

Campbell...a Hindu here who agrees with you 100% on the abortion issue.

We take it a step further...since animals are individual souls that are temporarily inhabiting less-sentient bodies than human beings, it is very, very sinful to slaughter them for mass consumption and to partake of the products of such slaughter. One of the basic principles of the practice of Sanatan-dharma, or Hinduism, is mercy...this means not just toward human beings, but, as much as possible towards all living beings. The idea is that if one routinely partakes of the products of wholesale animal slaughter just because he likes the taste of meat, then his sense of mercy, which is an innate godly quality, will become so blunted that he will gradually come to see no wrong in taking part in atrocities such as abortion, then on to genocide, etc.

 

that would depend on wether you believed that Jesus was the son of God... or just a historical figure