amalinaball you said all that to say what? You must be bunch together because you have the same God and he is not divided, as the root is the root. Just the fact that you can’t see that you are the same or is offended by it, just speak for itself.

calalily I knew you are catholic from other of your postings, I will not take your fruit away as it is still ripening and God could careless about your label-catholic. That is why your flower and your fruit may be different, but the leaves and root is still the same and they can't and don't fight among themselves. :D

No, urisStar, you think that Catholics and Protestants are the same. I think that we are different in our approaches and that makes us different. Basically I think you're oversimplifying the issue - God is too complicated for anyone who worships Him to all be lumped together in the way you describe - every leaf that sprouts from the root is different in its own unique way. That's what I mean. Sorry if I offend you, but I can't "see that we're the same" because I don't agree with your point. I'm not going to say anything else because there's no point and this is off-topic anyway.

3. Is the Bible any more valid than any other religious text?
Again, it depends on what faith you are of. If you are a Christian then naturally it would be an important book for you, because it chronicles the life of Jesus. But if you were a Muslim then the Qu'ran would be the most important text. The validity of any text depends on who you are and what you believe so naturally, this effects your personal view. In terms of truth and honesty it all comes down to whether or not we think the author(s) are trustworthy and whether this even matters.

Ok ummm.... first of all, I think everybody needs to remember that the Bible is a book... which means it was written by humans. Humans are fallible, so that means there are bound to be mistakes in the Bible. Humans picked how they wished to translate things, where they thought things needed to be rewritten, and which parts of the Bible would make the final cut. That doesn't make the Bible corrupt, it just makes it the handiwork of a bunch of bumbling humans.

And besides: the Bible isn't really meant to be taken literally. When people start to interpret everything in the Bible verbatim, that's when we run into trouble, and that's when the corruption starts. Women didn't *really* materialize from the rib of Adam, the great flood in the Bible probably didn't wipe out the *whole* world, and you don't *actually* have to give up every single one of your possessions to be a good Christian. The people who wrote the passages probably slipped in all kinds of their own opinions and messages that stemmed from their own private agenda.

But does that make the Bible corrupt? Nah. It's something that's supposed to help you understand your faith, to understand your relationship with God. It's supposed to be something that you can interpret, not something that you need to carefully follow word-for-word. The stories and parables and psalms and books of the Bible are filled with lessons and insights. They're imperfect, sure, but so are we. If the Bible were a perfect book, how would humans ever be able to understand it?

why do you need a book when you have faith?

better explanation, if one has faith in Gods, why does one need words written? The answers is: your faith isn't strong enough. OR the "words" are corrupted because I do believe the intention of people writing that down somehow is to use to control people. but, little did these people who try to use the bible to control other people know that one day education will make everyone able to read and understand that what is written in the bible is questionable.


an off topic question: if god is the creator of everything, why is it that the bible is only written in languages from one part of the world and if Jesus were sent by god to save us, i would think everyone is included, i think, then why has Jesus never travel or appear in China or Indonesia or America or papua new guinea? Instead the bible is translated? if it is the words of god why was it not written by other people who uses other languages, may be some original part are written in sanskrits.. et cetera.

That's like asking why you'd need a dictionary when you have a huge vocabulary. Just because you've heard the words before doesn't mean you necessarily understand them!

But I suppose you're right, you don't necessarily *need* the Bible, per se, but that doesn't make it any less valuable of a religious resource. Even though it was written by fallible humans with agendas of their own, that doesn't mean that it should be entirely disregarded. You just have to make sure that you don't cross the fine line between using the Bible appropriately to help you understand your faith and using it as a "necessity" the way that people who quote and follow scriptures verbatim might.



Jesus may have been the Son of God, but he was still a human. He was a Nazarean, and a Jew. He could only travel so far, and he could only speak to those who understood his language--namely, other Jews. The whole purpose for Jesus's apostles and disciples was that they would eventually go on to spread his message further than he could alone. Remember in the Bible when the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of burning flames, and granted the disciples the ability to speak in tongues (ie other languages)? That's (symbolically, at least) where their efforts to spread Jesus's message around the world began.

Christians eventually moved on to convert the Roman Empire. And after that? Missionaries spread all over the world. St. Francis died on a mission to China, if I'm not mistaken. So the reason the original Bible was never translated into all of those other languages is simply because no one had ever been able to make it all the way out to those far away places.

The Bible if you believe in it was corrupted from day 1. I personally believe the Bible is nothing more than a well written book

Just one thing to say to that:

Book of Morman!

1. Has the Bible been corrupted? Is it truly the inerrant word of God as some claim?

I don't know if "corrupted" would be the word that I would use. We've already established that the Bible has had many incarnations that can be fairly accurately traced back through different time periods and cultures. In my opinion, that makes it more valuable - not less. A serious study of who changed what when and why reveals a lot about the human condition, about society, and about the evolution of oral/literary tradition. I'm not sure if it's the word of God. I guess that all depends on your perspective. If you believe in one or multiple gods, I think you could make a pretty convincing argument for all art as being divinely inspired. Only some people have the ability to create art, and some art truly is awesome to behold. For a single collection of books to have had such a profound impact on so many people is an amazing thing. I think that to call it "corrupt" is to ignore the value that the additions and alterations have brought to it over the centuries.

2. Is there any objective evidence that can vouch for the Bible's authenticity as the word of God?


Of course not. If there are gods (or if there is one god), they seem not to leave very much in the way of physical evidence that can be collected, cataloged, and studied from a purely rational, objective point-of-view. It's kind of all in the head and heart of a believer, which means that we can't do much in the way of proving or disproving anything at all. Then again, it is possible that existing technologies and theories are as yet insufficient to allow us to gather any objective evidence that may exist. There are plenty of phenomena that we can now understand but couldn't do so before the right technology was there. So I guess I'm saying that we can't do so now, but who knows what the future may hold?

3. Is the Bible any more valid than any other religious text?

I'd say no. Most other religious texts are valuable for the same reasons I listed in #1. Without any reliable, objective method of testing factual validity, we must settle for acknowledging artistic validity.

4. Just how absurd is the idea of someone having a "Conversation with God" anyway? I'm sure that many will look at Neale Walsch as being some kind of crackpot or heretic, but no one seems to challenge the idea of Moses doing the same thing 4000 years ago. For that matter, how many Christians questioned George Bush's claim that God told him to invade Iraq?

The idea of someone having a current conversation with God is no more or less absurd than the prophets, priests, and oracles of the past doing the same. People have been claiming to converse with gods and other mythical beings for pretty much as long as there have been people. I'm sure it is usually the product of either a mental illness of some sort or a self-serving desire to create legitimacy for a personal or political agenda. Joan-of-Arc's visions just happened to support her military campaign. Moses' conversations just happened to assist him in freeing his people. Countless oracles have made careers of it. Lately, folks claim to interact with aliens. These things happen. Sometimes, people are crazy. Sometimes, people are self-serving. Even so, it seems plausible that if one or more gods exist, it/he/she/they could sometimes carry on conversations with humans and that humans could record those conversations.



I guess my point here is that I don't think the Bible is "corrupt" or that any new addition from this guy or any other has the potential to "corrupt" it. I think it is a living document and that any changes can only enhance it by leaving a record of our current time and culture's stamp on an ancient text.

well i believe that judiasm originated in egypt during the slavery of the isrealites
so its very likely that big parts of the judaistic mythology is based on myths and legends in the surrounding areas of egypt

and yes the bible is corrupt, mostly due to the romans who censored parts and tried to destroy other gospels(for instance the judas gospel), can we realy trust the romans who are infamous for their use of religion as political tools, they choose what they thaught was good and got rid of everything that they didn't like(counsel of nicea)

and the bible has allot of good parts, but what most people forget is that is full of allegories, metafores, figure of speach, for instace genesis to me that is just an allegorie or a metaphore, or even the holy spirit thats just a metaphore for courage, inspiration and connection to god, its not some sort of entity

When you think about in terms of corruption the bible is probably less valid than the Qur'an (Islamic holy book) which i newer by several hundred years so it stands to reason that It should have changed less,,, especially with all the bible translations and interpretations.

Stating that the Quran is more valid because its newer isn't logical. The Bible is perhaps the single most scrutinized book in the entire history of the world. The absolute brightest scholars have been studying it, looking for hidden symbolism within the original Hebrew and Arabic words, etc. Scholars are always trying to improve on any translation of it. I would say its fair to state that the Bible is by far the best translated of any ancient document, because far more time and energy has been spent in the pursuit of the best translation possible. Once people had an English translation of Homer's Iliad for example, there was little need to try to improve upon it...however, the Bible has been consistently studied for oh, since it came out.

I believe the bible isn't coruptted. Many people have tried to prove the bible wrong, and can't. The bible doesn't have all the good things people did back then in there, they have what they did wrong too. For example, cain and abel, peter disowning God three times, and (I can renember his name but anywayz) he seduced a married women, got her pregnant, killed her husband, and married her. There was over 500 witenesses of Jesus's resurrection.Also, the bible is the most sold and oldest book in history.

Shelbnumber1, I think you are thinking of King David and Bathsheba...David, who despite being a sinner, was the ancestor of Christ, was God's chosen King of Israel. (David also means Beloved of God in Hebrew) The Bible is also the most shoplifted book in history, go figure!

Davious- Yes that's it David and Bathsheba. I totally knew it know that you said it, I can't believe I forgot their names.

[COLOR=Plum]I can’t agree with you Shelbnumber1, I think the bible shows the behavior of human beings. I’m a Christian but I’m not perfect. We as human beings all make mistakes and everyone on this world at sometime in life will. No one is except from that. However, let me get to the topic at hand… Do I believe that the bible is corrupt? No, I don’t think so. Sure, I know that the bible was edited in some way and I know that some books were taken out the bible but I happen to believe that the only books that were taken out the bible were books about the kings of Israel and Judah. I completely believe in the bible and I do believe that if the bible says that Eve was created from Adams rib than I believe that Eve was formed from Adams rib. There are so many recourses that prove that the bible is a truthful and is reliable record of biblical truths. I have listed some facts below. Here is the website link http://www.allabouttruth.org/[/COLOR]

Bible Truth - Why is this Book any Different than the others?
Is there such a thing as "Bible Truth?" Why should we trust this "holy book" any more than any other spiritual, religious, or philosophical treatise? How can we be sure that the Bible we read today is the same collection of 66 books that were originally written in ancient times?

Bible Truth - The Reliability of the Ancient Manuscripts
Bible truth? Let's take a look! The Bible is unquestionably the world's all-time bestseller with an estimated 2 billion copies in print. The Bible was completed in its entirety nearly 2,000 years ago and stands today as the best-preserved literary work of all antiquity, with over 24,000 ancient New Testament manuscripts discovered so far (compare this with the second best-preserved literary work of all antiquity, Homer's Iliad, with only 643 preserved manuscripts discovered thus far). The printing press wasn't invented until the 1450's, but we have hand-written copies of the Old Testament dating back to the 200's BC. Remarkably, these ancient manuscripts are nearly identical to the Bible we read today.

As far as the New Testament, the Bodmer Papyrus II contains most of the Gospel of John and dates from around 150-200 AD. The Chester Beatty Papyri contains major portions of the New Testament and dates back to about 200 AD. The Codex Vaticanus, the oldest complete New Testament manuscript we've discovered so far, dates from 325-350 AD. The apostle John, who lived with Jesus and learned from Jesus, penned five New Testament books and died in 100 AD. We have fragments of John's Gospel that date from 110-130 AD, within 30 years of his death. When compared to other ancient works such as Plato, Homer or Tacitus, that short time period between the original and the most recent copy is dramatic!

Clement of Rome was martyred in 100 AD. In his writings, he quoted from Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, 1 Corinthians, 1 Peter, Hebrews, and Titus. Clement's quotes totally correspond with the Bible we read today. In fact, even if we lost all of the 5,300 early Greek manuscripts, all of the 10,000 Latin vulgates, and all of the 9,300 other ancient manuscripts, we would be able to reconstruct all but 11 verses of the New Testament from the writings of the early Church leaders who quoted from them extensively. We have over 36,000 preserved quotes from the New Testament. In a nutshell, the Bible stands today as the best-preserved literary work of all antiquity, and its overall reliability is without question!

Bible Truth - The Passion of the Ancient Writers
When it comes to Bible truth, many critics argue that the early Church deliberately corrupted the Bible's text for its own agenda. As for this argument, ask yourself one question: would a group of men who were willing to suffer terrible persecution and die horrible deaths in defense of the Scriptures be guilty of corrupting those very same Scriptures? That's lunacy! If they corrupted the Scriptures, or knowingly allowed them to be corrupted, that would mean they knowingly suffered and died for a lie! No one suffers and dies for a lie! For example, the September 11th suicide hijackers may have sincerely believed in what they died for, but they weren't in a position to know whether or not what they believed was true; they put their faith in traditions passed down to them over many generations. They didn't knowingly die for a lie; they died for a lie in ignorance.

In contrast, the New Testament's martyrs either saw what they claimed to see or they didn't; plain and simple. Either they interacted with the resurrected Christ or they didn't. They certainly knew whether or not their testimony was true! Nevertheless, these men clung to their testimonies, even to their brutal deaths at the hands of their persecutors, and despite being given every chance to recant, knowing full well whether their testimony was true of false. Why would so many men knowingly die for a lie? They had nothing to gain for lying and obviously everything to lose.

[COLOR=Plum]As far as the Catholics and Protestants debate, I don’t agree that all denominations of faith are the same. In addition, what proof or experience do you have to justify your claims? As a Pentecostal /Baptist, there are so many differences from us and Catholics—too many to name but at the top of my list is that Catholics pray to the saints and the Virgin Mary. Pentecost and Baptist don’t do that. We pray to Jesus Christ. [/COLOR] :taekwondo

First the fact it has been more scrutinized would lead to more interferance wouldn't it?

And second just because there was little need to try and improve it, that doesn't mean people haven't. What about "man shall not not lie with man etc." That IS in some bibles but not in others... the bible is still being rewritten now.

How is anyone telling lies when no one is perverting the truth? Those new bible that are being rewritten now in which you speak about are translations. They are in simple language in fact I own one The NLT. There is no perverting or changing of the truth in the new bibles that are being printed. They are just easier to comprehend.

Yes but you must admit that translation and even simplifactions mean replacing on word with another and that other perhaps that could be taken a different way

No not really… aren’t there many words with the same meanings? Furthermore, those simplified bibles don’t add any more words than the Holy Bible does.

Yes there are words with the same meaning but sometimes words have two meanings and people can misinterpret

I'm sure the bibles are not translated in a way to be confusing and most people whom buy these new easy to understand bibles have a Holy Bible. How confusing can a simplified bible really be?

Do you know that when translating the Bible from Latin to English, there were three possible translations of the 'Thou shalt not lie with another man like unto a women' line?

Thou shalt not lie with another man like unto a women.
Thou shalt not lie with another man in a women's layings. (In her bed)
Thou shalt not lie with a male worshipper from a pagan fertily goddess' temple. (In those times, Fertility Goddesses such as Venus and Aphrodite had priests and priestesses would would have sex as part of their worship).

Sometimes it's not so easy to translate because very few languages translate directly. Like how the literal translation of 'I am writing' in the Basque langauge is 'In the act of writing, doing. You have me.'

Whenever something is translated from one language to another, there will always be mistakes. When something is translated many many times, be prepared for a LOT of mistakes.

I now about translation my sister is a bilingual so I know how it’s almost like backwards talk but the point is that the bibles are translated to be and carry on the same absolute meaning. That’s my point. The new bibles are not altered in a way that an unbeliever or a new Christian would become so confused that they would just give up and stop reading. Moreover, as long as it’s all saying the same thing and giving off the same meaning than why is there a problem? There is no changing of the meaning and to be quite frank that’s the REAL point anyway. Not the actual word for word.

Without words, there can be no meaning. It is the shape of the words which pass on the meaning. If the words are translated wrong, then the meaning is translated wrong. Haven't you ever played Chinese Whispers and seen this in action?

Plus, how do you know that the book today is the exact same one that was first written down who knows how many years ago? I doubt you were there to compare the two. That's ignoring the fact that it's well known that during the translation to English bits were edited out or given new meanings.

And there's a difference between ignorance and unbelieving. I may be agnostic, but I didn't get an A at GSCE for Religious Studies and Christianity in particular for nothing.

Thank you SilentPsycho you but the point across more eloquently than I did.