Is the bible still relevant today?

Rainmaker · 8 May 2011 at 20:33

lixxus said:
Debating with religious people that believe they are open minded and free thinking is like debating with a schizo.

Strange considering only one, perhaps two (depending on your criteria) people in this whole thread so far are religious, at least as far as I'm aware. You still seem to be losing ground to the atheists/ignostics/agnostics who actually know what they're talking about.

lixxus said:
LOL, you think people 1500 years ago language skills were developed to the extent of understand metaphors, similes etc

If you think they didn't, you clearly aren't very widely read in ancient texts. Many early texts are absolutely littered with complex usage of all of the above; some may say even overly-so.

bhavv said:
Because you believe in a 2000 year old book and are not 'ready to entertain new ideas'.

I'd give you a medal if I could.

Do you have anything of substance to actually post yet? You've stood behind Dawkins, now you're chumming up with lixxus because he made the most flippant of comments; I'm just wondering when this discussion will actually have some discussion in it that doesn't involve someone else's opinion about unrelated topics.

Glaucus · 8 May 2011 at 20:34

bhavv said:
Even if true, the English version has ben in print for how long now? And how many Christians follow and believe in the English version?

If it is so incorrectly translated from the original hebrew, then why isnt there a correct translation of the Bible yet?

Two reasons
Culture

And the harder one to get round

No direct translation, which means every sentence has to be explained. That is why religious people who care and actually look into it, actually redder to the original text and discuss what meaning it has. There is a lot of stuff with no direct translation as such you have to put something down.
In some translations they actually try to solve some of this by having pointers to either the original word useD, or a short explanation, although rarely goes deep enough.

Vonhelmet · 8 May 2011 at 20:34

lixxus said:
We are going to go round and round is circles. Give it another 60 years and hopefully and invention or discovery happens in mine or your life time that will put this argument to bed.

What discovery do you think could possibly remove the possibility that God exists?

lixxus said:
You are just scared of the unknown and are using religious nonsense to explain the unexplained.

You don't know a thing about me or my faith, so don't presume to tell me why I believe what I believe.

lixxus said:
That may have washed 1500 years ago but not now.

Why do you keep saying 1500 years ago? Christianity is 2000 years old.

lixxus said:
Just like all other civilizations religions have been debunked what makes Abrahamic religions any different ?

Well, the fact that they are still massively popular, for one thing. I don't see them dying out any time soon.

lixxus said:
How about we just put our hands up and admit we don't know anything, rather than making up stories or believe the words of 3 prominent figures that had the gift of the gab.

It's science's business to say that we don't know anything. It's my business to decide what I believe.

bhavv · 8 May 2011 at 20:35

So if the bible is so poorly translated, then why do people keep on expecting me to read when it is both purely translated, and mostly false?

Rainmaker · 8 May 2011 at 20:36

lixxus said:
We are going to go round and round is circles. Give it another 60 years and hopefully and invention or discovery happens in mine or your life time that will put this argument to bed.

You are just scared of the unknown and are using religious nonsense to explain the unexplained.

That may have washed 1500 years ago but not now.

Just like all other civilizations religions have been debunked what makes Abrahamic religions any different ?

How about we just put our hands up and admit we don't know anything, rather than making up stories or believe the words of 3 prominent figures that had the gift of the gab.

What other religions have been debunked, and how? If you actually read up on them, learn about them and even practice them, you'll find that all but the most fundamental schools of some religions advocate learning, enquiry and testing of even the religion itself. Do we really need to quote Buddha, Silver Birch and others again?

Castiel · 8 May 2011 at 20:38

bhavv said:
Even if true, the English version has ben in print for how long now? And how many Christians follow and believe in the English version?

If it is so incorrectly translated from the original hebrew, then why isnt there a correct translation of the Bible yet?

I suggest you do a little research and find that out for yourself, rather than I waste my time explaining something I have explained before, more than once.

Like Vonhelmet says, "four corners of the Earth" and similar metaphors are common in everyday language.

When you say "The four corners of the Earth" you mean Every part of the Earth, not that it is cube shaped...a child could understand that.

bhavv · 8 May 2011 at 20:38

Rainmaker said:
What other religions have been debunked, and how?

Ancient Greek, Egyption, and Viking religions?

The only thing that keeps a religion alive is having more people join the faith than people who leave it.

It has nothing to do with the religion being correct, most religious people are indoctrinated from a very early age.

Vonhelmet · 8 May 2011 at 20:38

bhavv said:
So if the bible is so poorly translated, then why do people keep on expecting me to read when it is both purely translated, and mostly false?

Whether or not it's poorly translated is up for debate. The KJV is very poor, yes. More modern translations have been worked on by some of the best theologians, linguists, classicists, etc, so some are considerably more accurate e.g. the NIV, the ESV, the NRSV in particular... And to say that it refers to "the four corners of the earth" is not a poor translation. Ask any English speaker what "to the four corners of the earth" means and they will know. This is translation we're dealing with, not merely converting things word by word. That doesn't work.

The issue of it being mostly false is purely your assertion and I'm not going to entertain that any further here.

bhavv · 8 May 2011 at 20:40

Castiel said:
Like Vonhelmet says, "four corners of the Earth" and similar metaphors are common in everyday language.

When you say "The four corners of the Earth" you mean Every point on the Earth, not that it is cube shaped...a child could understand that.

Are you serious? Four means every in a metaphorical term?

I strongly doubt that any child would understand that, stop talking such nonsense.

How exactly do you know that such words meant something else metaphorically 2000-3000+ years ago when the Bible was actually written?

Such quotes from the bible hardly sound metaphorical or in any kind of poetical form to me. Yes there is poetry in the bible, but the four corners of the Earth stuff is not an example of that.

RetiredGreyFox · 8 May 2011 at 20:41

vonhelmet said:
Jesus says it at Matthew 22:39, and he's quoting from Leviticus 19:18.

Semantics I know but 'Loving thy neighbour as you love yourself' is not 'treat people how you would treat yourself'.

Vonhelmet · 8 May 2011 at 20:41

bhavv said:
Are you serious? Four means every in a metaphorical term?

Do you know what "the four corners of the earth" means?

If not, you're a cretin.

Biohazard · 8 May 2011 at 20:42

Hmmm, I think they perhaps did think of the 'corners' as actual corners.

We've just continued to use the phrase.

They did afterall think if they went far enough on boat they would just fall off the edge of the 'table'.

Vonhelmet · 8 May 2011 at 20:42

Biohazard said:
Hmmm, I think they perhaps did think of corners as actual corners.

We've just continued to use the phrase.

They did afterall think if they went far enough on boat they would just fall off the edge of the 'table'.

That's something of a myth. The flat earth is not as prevalent an idea as people like to think.

Glaucus · 8 May 2011 at 20:43

vonhelmet said:
Do you know what "the four corners of the earth" means?

If not, you're a cretin.

Of course he does but he will deny it, becuase he can't admit he's wrong. He wills tick by any point he makes until he is blue in the face as seen in every post he has made, he is as bad as any fundamentalist christian.

Biohazard · 8 May 2011 at 20:43

vonhelmet said:
That's a myth. Very few people have ever seriously believed that.

It's a myth? It's a myth with a lot of reference then surely?

I thought it was a widely held idea before atlantic crossings etc?

:confused:

Vonhelmet · 8 May 2011 at 20:45

Biohazard said:
It's a myth? It's a myth with a lot of reference then surely?

I thought it was a widely held idea before atlantic crossings etc?

I've edited my post - the idea has been around, and some civilisations have believed it, but it's not nearly as popular as people like to think. It had certainly fallen out of vogue long before Columbus, or whoever you have in mind.

Wikipedia says that people first figured out the circumference of the earth in about 300BC, for example.

In any case, and I'm going to appear like I'm backtracking here, but hey ho... It's not in the least bit relevant what scientific misconceptions the ancient Hebrews had, as that is not the crux of the Biblical text.

Rainmaker · 8 May 2011 at 20:47

bhavv said:
Ancient Greek, Egyption, and Viking religions?

The only thing that keeps a religion alive is having more people join the faith than people who leave it.

It has nothing to do with the religion being correct, most religious people are indoctrinated from a very early age.

They haven't been debunked at all, they simply fell out of favour and/or mostly died out with their respective civilisations. There's a huge, huge difference.

Of course the thing that keeps religions 'alive' is having a body of followers not less than the number of followers not part of it. What kind of captain obvious logic is that?

Many people are brought up religious, but a great many more also 'find' religions/spirituality through their own life experiences and their own seeking. Stop labelling people with brushes just because you only have one kind of tar.

Castiel · 8 May 2011 at 20:47

dmpoole said:
Semantics I know but 'Loving thy neighbour as you love yourself' is not 'treat people how you would treat yourself'.

I'd Love my neighbour, but she won't let me and the wife might not be too pleased...

bhavv · 8 May 2011 at 20:48

vonhelmet said:
Do you know what "the four corners of the earth" means?

If not, you're a cretin.

Why would I? I've never once in my life believed that the Earth is flat or has four corners.

It was definitely never used as a metaphorical term for anything to do with the Earth throughout any geography lesson that I had.

AcidHell2 said:
Of course he does but he will deny it

Bull. I never knew any metophorical meaning behind the term, and I have yet to be convinced that this was actually the meaning used when the Bible was written.

Rainmaker · 8 May 2011 at 20:50

bhavv said:
Why would I? I've never once in my life believed that the Earth is flat or has four corners.

It was definitely never used as a metaphorical term for anything to do with the Earth throughout any geography lesson that I had.

Are you really that dense, or just being purposefully obtuse? I know where my money lies. The wording in question in the bible isn't a geography lesson, it's a turn of phrase talking about a completely different point.

Just like when trolls talk rubbish on threads... I rise above them, but it doesn't mean I float and defy mavity. See? Same principle.