Blame the fact that I wrote that after an all-nighter writing an essay on arguments for and against the idea that we are in an information society. I always get a flair for eloquence when I've been awake for26 hours.

Lucky you after 26hours i just become nice and that is no fun at all...

I'd also like to add that apart from the 10 commandments the bible isn't really word of God at all to being with is it?

Depends upon the views of the reader.

You can get Literalist Christians who believe that every word is that of God's, and so every fact must be correct i.e. The world was created in seven days, no more, no less.

On the other hand, you get Non-literalists Christians who can see the Bible as a set of metaphors inspired by God to teach human beings how to live.

Personally, I tend to think of the Bible in theoretical context to this quote from David Edding's Domes of Fire:

Diplomat: But sometimes the term 'all-wise' can be a little vague. To be honest, we've had some horrendously stupid Emperors in the past.
Priest: I understand what you mean. We have our own saying here. We like to think that the Archbishop is guided by God, but sometimes you get one that is hard of hearing.

That was the point I was also trying to make and I would retrace my steps and post how history has uncovered this fact (the serious mistake/deception in the pronouncement that the bible is the word of God), but when people claim to serve the same God with a common thread being the bible and can’t see that there are no difference between the groups but their labels, it would do them some good to do their own research. There is no comparison between Jesus and the bible as He/Jesus is the Word of God if you truly believe the bible. The Word became flesh not paper. :D

I'd like to point out that some Protestants keep their Catholic roots very much alive. Anglicans (such as myself) are in that minority. We have communion every service, for example. Still no confessional booths, although you can ask the priest (who marries and has kids - mine's married with a son) for a private confession. We 'confess' (not enumerating individual sins) as a group, priest included, and he then absolves us. Of course, we're also the bunch that elect openly gay Bishops. -shrug-

To answer the original questions:

1. Has the Bible been corrupted? Is it truly the inerrant word of God as some claim?
No and no. I believe (remnants of my days as a Salvation Army Officer's child) that the Bible was handed down to MEN by God. This means that it is fallible, as men are fallible. Men will add to or take away from as they see fit, because they're human. So it is not inerrant. Rather, it is almost a guidebook or a love letter to God's people.

2. Is there any objective evidence that can vouch for the Bible's authenticity as the word of God?
Not that will satisfy everyone who wants it. I personally don't read my Bible that often, and I suppose that makes me a bad Christian. But I don't find it all that believeable, so I don't read it.

3. Is the Bible any more valid than any other religious text?
No. The Bible is only valid to Christans, as the Torah is only valid to Jews and the Quaron is only valid to Muslims. Validity in this case is entirely subjective. As a result, the Bible is not any more valid than other religious texts.

As a Confirmation requirement (just a side note, I received Confirmation in the Anglican church in November before my daughter was born in December), I was asked to read from the Quaron and Torah, to look into other faiths. I found both to be fascinating, and have done some research into other religious sects for my own personal ... entertainment? I don't know what word to use. Enlightenment, perhaps.

And urisStar, I believe you should do some research. Catholics and Protestants are very different.

chelleypie, How could that be? The same God and the same bible and you are different? Stop looking at the surface, as it is very deceptive. Until one or the other break free and come to the understanding that God is the same forever then just maybe some sun/Son will shine and the real difference will shine through. :D

We're different in our beliefs. For example, while Anglican and Catholics are very similar in belief and style of worship, Anglicans allow and encourage their priests to marry and have children. Anglicans don't even use a Bible in service. All our Scripture is read to us in service. Not to mention that we don't use the 'same' Bible. Catholics DO have a specialized Bible.

You're not making any sense. We ARE different in our practice of our faith. Another good example is the Salvation Army (yes, it's a church, go look it up.) having a ban on its members using alcohol or smoking. Very few other churches have such bans. This ban is a result of founder William Booth's work in the slums of 1865 England. Some sources for peeking in on the Salvation Army as a church:
Salvation Army US National Headquarters Website: http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn.nsf
Salvation Army International Headquaters (London, England): http://www1.salvationarmy.org/ihq/www_sa.nsf
And of course, Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army

How can you say that the Salvation Army (based primarily on Methodist belief systems) is the same as the Catholic church?
Also included on the Wiki is the doctrine of the Salvation Army, which is what I base a lot of my belief on, since that's how I grew up.

May I just point out that your actual analysis of Hebrew Scriptures is very flawed.

The central text of the Jewish people is The Torah, which was always a written text. There is the Mishnah which is the oral tradition, which you can get in borders now as a 800+ page book? What's that about? However, I know from experience that this book does not contain the whole of the oral law.

It then depends which writings you are talking about on top of that, but there were many writings that were made that are in the prophets and the writings set of books that were written long before you suggest they were written. Though I do agree that there are similarities between Jewish mythology and those from other middle eastern ancient religions, but please do check your facts before commenting on when religious texts were written. The text you actually refer to are the Talmud and the Hallakah, which are not the central books of the Jewish faith. They are essentially commentaries on the text and come from the oral teachings.

Faith is not a practice! Salvation Army is just another label. My statement(s) stands and if you feel the need to believe you are different so be it. I am a believer and one that actually studied the bible; so much so, I have worn out ten so far. Worn out meaning print coming off the pages, pages falling out and notes on every place there is no printed words. I studied not to be a good Christian because I am not a Christian (and can’t in good conscious identify with the religious segregation of/by men), but because I had an inner need for truth. I seek, I asked and I knock and founded out that it was okay and even required.

So as you can see difference does not make you special in the sight of God. The Catholics and all the other named religions as well as all mankind all have the same struggles and while I refuse to participate in the petty differences I acknowledge all of humanity as one.

As far as doctrine and dogmas, God has made Himself clear to all and one only need doctrine and dogmas as a replacement/to abort the Word when they have made the decision not to “do”and not to "be" Jesus/the Word. Notice I did not say to “do” the bible as it, the bible, is only another tool (one of many) that reasons/plead/appeal, with/to men to “be”and to "do", not to practice. :D

Oh, and most important, the appeal/plea/reasoning is not to be catholic, protestant, jewish, muslim or any of the other labels; it is to acknowledge God as Father of all and all humans as brothers and to "be" and "do" Jesus/THE WORD in the flesh. What a concept! :banghead: :doh

It is interesting that most people who argue against Christianity are only "parroting" what they have heard. If pressed to explain what they mean, or to give examples, they do not know what to say. For example, someone may say, "The Bible is full of mistakes." However, they are at a loss when asked to provide an example. http://www.christiananswers.net/menu-at1.html#bible

Now onto a similar question-Can the Bible be infallible if it is written by fallible humans? And if not, how can we accept it as literal truth?

There is no logical reason why this could not be true. After all, even fallible humans can get things right some of the time, especially if they are supervised by Someone who is infallible.

Christians do not claim that the humans who penned the books of the Bible were always accurate in everything they said or did. We simply believe that the Bible is right when it claims that God guided these men in their task of writing Scripture, in such a way that the result is an infallible book. The apostle Peter undoubtedly said some foolish things during his lifetime, but God did not allow him to clutter up the Bible with any of those blunders.

2 Timothy 3:16 contains the classic claim that the Bible was produced by God, not just men:

All Scripture is inspired by God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
One standard explanation of the concept of "inspiration" is given by Ryrie:

God's superintendence of the human authors so that, using their own individual personalities, they composed and recorded without error His revelation to man in the words of the original autographs [Charles Ryrie, A Survey of Bible Doctrine (Chicago: Moody Press, 1972), p. 38].
We do not know exactly how God accomplished His purpose of providing a totally accurate Bible. But 2 Peter 1:21 gives some insight:

No prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

~Taken from a article by -Author: Dr. John Bechtle

As I stated earlier this morning there have been hundreds of books written on the subject of the evidences of the divine inspiration of the Bible, and these evidences are many and varied. Most people today, unfortunately, have not read any of these books. In fact, few have even read the Bible itself! Thus, many people tend to go along with the popular delusion that the Bible is full of mistakes and is no longer relevant to our modern world.

If one will seriously investigate these Biblical evidences, he will find that their claims of divine inspiration (stated over 3,000 times, in various ways) were amply justified.

The remarkable evidence of fulfilled prophecy is just one case in point. Hundreds of Bible prophecies have been fulfilled, specifically and meticulously, often long after the prophetic writer had passed away.

For example, Daniel the prophet predicted in about 538 BC (Daniel 9:24-27) that Christ would come as Israel's promised Savior and Prince 483 years after the Persian emperor would give the Jews authority to rebuild Jerusalem, which was then in ruins. This was clearly and definitely fulfilled, hundreds of years later.

There are extensive prophecies dealing with individual nations and cities and with the course of history in general, all of which have been literally fulfilled. More than 300 prophecies were fulfilled by Christ Himself at His first coming. Other prophecies deal with the spread of Christianity, as well as various false religions, and many other subjects.

There is no other book, ancient or modern, like this. The vague, and usually erroneous, prophecies of people like Jeanne Dixon, Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and others like them are not in the same category at all, and neither are other religious books such as the Koran, the Confucian Analects, and similar religious writings. Only the Bible manifests this remarkable prophetic evidence, and it does so on such a tremendous scale as to render completely absurd any explanation other than divine revelation.

But more than likely this will be my last post on this subject I feel as though I have explained my view on the bible and really what more can I say? It all comes down to beliefs and faith right. And if you don’t want to believe the truth than it really doesn’t matter what I say. So as it says in the scriptures:

Refuse to get involved in inane discussions; they always end up in fights. God's servant must not be argumentative, but a gentle listener and a teacher who keeps cool, working firmly but patiently with those who refuse to obey. You never know how or when God might sober them up with a change of heart and a turning to the truth, enabling them to escape the Devil's trap, where they are caught and held captive, forced to run his errands.
II Timothy 2:23-26 The Message (MSG)

erm, no seer stones involved!



1) having a recorded bad history in a book does not means the book is not corrupted.



simplified < this is what's wrong with translations, how dare anyone simplify "god" (if it is god's words) words?

besides

1) did god at anytime, anywhere says "keep a book of my rules and regulations and stories, et cetera" so that everyone may follow its teaching? my answer is no.

and
2) the word god was never used in any of the ancient Judaeo-Christian scripture manuscripts that were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Latin. The earliest written form of the Germanic word "god" comes from the 6th century Christian Codex Argenteus. So come the question: how is it that the "translated bible" has the word god all over them?

and
3) if bible isn't corrupted, please tell me, is slavery right or wrong? this is a very simple question, no need any doctorate person's paper to proof it. Slavery. Right or Wrong?




Actually I wrote a lot of stuffs in reply to each paragraph in post number 60 but decide to scrape it because I realize we were not talking about weather the bible has been corrupted and because everything you wrote in post number 60 does not proof the bible isn't corrupted everything I wrote also does not have anything to do with this debate. so....

In my opinion: corrupted and not believing is 2 different things.

and I believe the debate at hand is Has the Bible been corrupted?

It has in my opinion, regardless, weather someone wants to believe in it or how many prophecies has been fulfill (which needs to be varify) is not the point.

Sorry but I fail to see this as a good non-corruption arguement, these are cautionary tales basically don't do this, this or this. The three little pigs tell people not to be lazy because bad things will happen.....

And as for not being able to prove it's wrong the origional books were written about 2000 years ago... of course they can't be proved wrong but, neither can they be proved right.

That being said, I don't believe the bible is completely corrupt but I do believe there have been minor changes... I pointed these out as its a flawed arguement, as the devil's advocate not because of personal feelings.

And what good is that claim if it was written by a man who only claims it was produced by God? You have to already believe this is true in order to accept it as proof.

And a lesser point... "the Bible", as a book, did not exist at the time that Timothy was written. Timothy talks about "scripture" but there was no definitive compilation of "scripture" at the time that one could point to at the time. Perhaps "scripture" refers only to Timothy.



God-breathed... What does that mean? Inspired by God? Inspiration does not always take literal forms.

The passage says it is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training. But couldn't the same be said of many fables and myths, for instance, Aesop's Fables? I agree with that part of the passage, but this really is a very modest claim.

Hey Doc, you chase away everyone with that revelation. :fallen: I've been waiting to see if anyone would respond to what you said, but maybe they did not get it.

I would say, it seems like you escape the devil's trap while at the same time trapping him! :haha: :notadd: :laugh:

Doc_Doofus- God-breathed means that God moved them to write it. In that time (before Jesus died and rose again) God talked to people, literally. I hope that helped you understand that

Maybe God-breathed doesn't mean that God told them deliberately and literally what to write. That's only an interpretation, and even though there are many that adhere to your view, you are still interpreting this one rather odd metaphorical phrase "God-breathed," to mean something very literal, "God spoke to them in plain words."

It also seems strange to me that God would speak to people in plain words thousands of years ago, but he would do so so rarely today. In fact, it seems that the people most likely to say they "hear" God speak to them nowadays are ambitious men of little character, like our fearless leader. Perhaps God doesn't "speak" so plainly. Perhaps we need to use our minds and hearts to understand God.

God doesn't speak to us today because he sent us Jesus Christ. Jesus connected us to God when he died for us. Instead, he talks to us through prayer, scipture, or believe it or not, friends and family.

Like Fayreview, I don't think that these defenses are a valid argument in favor of non-corruption in the Bible. I highly doubt that the Bible is the oldest book in the history of the world (what about ancient Mesopotamian literature, that of the first organized civilization in the world?), and just because it has sold the most copies does not prove that it isn't corrupt. To me, selling a lot of copies screams corrupt- it shows that the Bible is a tool of propaganda, as do politics.

Are there really 500 witnesses, or are a good majority of them people who claimed to witness said resurrection in order to join the popular hype? How do we know that those witnesses were writing the truth, anyway? Just because they write it down doesn't make it true.

And what about the less-than-desirable moral suggestions the Bible makes? Stoning adulteresses, stoning people in general, killing your brother, etc? Can you honestly look at a book that promotes such heinous claims and think of it as guileless and holy? I certainly can't.

One of the most interesting things about the Bible is that if often portrays it's heroes in an honest light. David was a great King, but he was also an adulterer who killed one of his generals so that he could take his wife. Soloman was one of the wisest men in the world, but he was led to worship idols by his wife. Even Peter denied knowing Jesus 3 times...through all of the translations from various languages, the heroes of the Bible have always been imperfect men.

Almost every piece of historical literature portrays heroes in only the very best light, King Arthur, the Epic of Gilgamesh, The Illiad and The Oddessy, etc. The idea that anyone would write anything bad was totally out of the question.

Is the Bible corrupt? I don't think so. Have parts been removed to support the views of the Church? Yes.

Most of the atrocities that are portrayed in the Bible are in line with the periods of history in which the events have taken place. Archeological evidence has proven the brutality of the history of the levant. When towns were taken, everyone was brutally executed. What do you think happend when a seige occurred? People were starved and died of thirst...and if they tried to leave, they would be killed.

We cannot apply our modern standards of behavior to historic times and claim that the Bible is corrupt because they honestly portrayed the way of life. The fact that those facts still exist in written form to this day should indicate just how little much of the Bible is factual. Stoning of adultresses did exist in Jewis culture, but women in the middle east who are raped or have intercourse before marriage are killed by their fathers and husbands today. Which is more brutal, historical killings or modern day killings for the same actions?

EVERYTHING must be looked at and analyzed with an understanding of the historical significance of the facts.

The Bible is only a book. It cannot be corrupt. People who edit the Bible, and pick and choose, and portray, scripture out of context to attempt to use those words to support their view...they are corrupt.

base on what you say, if the bible is a book and i agree too, if it is a book then, no, it is not corrupted, but it is claim to be the word of god, then OMG NO WAY THAT is the word of god !

That's not really true. Arthur, Gilgamesh, Achilles and Odysseus all had character flaws. Gilgamesh was driven to near obsession with the idea immortality after the death of his friend, Enkidu. Achilles had a bad temper and...well, there was that heel. Odysseus was a hero (of sorts) in Greek myths, but his Roman version, Ulysses, was considered a cruel leader on account of his underhanded tactics (like the Trojan Horse and tricking the cyclops by telling him his name is 'Nobody') and the way in which he risked the lives of his crew just to satisfy his curiosity hear the song of the Sirens. I would have explained the flaws of King Arthur but I don't have time and plus there are too many stories with varied accounts of him.

The question of the bible being corrupt and or corrupted has been debated before there was a bible and the controversy will continue as long as there is a man that actually uses his mind to think outside of the box.

The problem with the book comes into play only when the question become, is it the Word of God? Did God demoted Himself to paper and ink and stop trusting Himself to speak and instead compromised/sacrificed Himself and felt it was in His best interest for man to speak for Him? You kind a have to shake your head when God’s Word taken over by men somehow changed from the dusting off of the feet when someone refused to believe to outright murder/taking of life. You somehow have to go :doh, when letters from a man sent to another man or a group of people turned into the Word of God. You kind a have to wonder why books had to be burned and people murdered for a book to be accepted by the masses and you have got to ask the question, what is God getting out of all this? Did God put out a hit on His people?

When you get tired of asking questions you start to look for answers and since the consensus is that God don’t talk to people anymore, He can’t get a word in edgewise if He wanted too, so you have to search out other books. In your search you come across something like this: The Gospels cannot really be dated, nor are the real authors known. It is supposed that the Gospels did not exist before 58 simply because neither Paul nor any other epistle writer mentions or quotes them (how could they? There writings would later become the Gospels), and this is a reasonable argument as far as things go. On the other hand, Mark is presumed earlier, and the others later, because Mark is simpler, and at least Matthew and Luke appear to borrow material from him (material that is likely his own invention, cf. my review of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark). Another :doh moment and a .

You start to think outside the box and you ask questions like, who the blank-a-de-blank is Mark? Where the blank-a-de-blank did he come from? So you become the history detective and go in hot pursuit of Mark and read all you can find, thanks to the internet.

The question then become, when Paul talks about studying the Gospel, was he talking about the OT or were there something else called the Gospels as Mark, Mathew, Luke and John were not in print/written.:hmm:

Then you see something like this: The second point that this presses upon us is that since the drive to find canonical written texts was created by the need to refute heretics, anti-heretical and other rhetoric influenced both the selection of texts as well as the editing or writing of the texts themselves. And so far, as of about 130, we have no clear evidence of any complete, much less named, written Gospel, although it seems some of the Epistles were widely circulated. Although we have seen a few exact quotations from the Gospel of Matthew, for instance, this in no way establishes that these sentences came from what we now know as that Gospel, since anything could have been added, removed, or altered to suit the needs of the various churches engaged in this ideological propaganda war. Even according to Eusebius, Bishop Dionysius of Corinth wrote some time in the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180 A.D.) that "the devil's apostles have filled" his own epistles "with tares, taking away some things and adding others," and he concludes revealingly, "small wonder, then, if some have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord Himself" (History of the Church 4.23).

And then you come across something like this: At least some of Paul's epistles can be reasonably taken as dating no more than 16 to 32 years after the oral tradition had begun to flourish after the death of Jesus, although adulteration of those letters by later editors remains possible, and it is also possible that even in Paul's day forgeries were being made and circulated (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:2). The Gospels were not likely to have been written down so soon, and we have clear evidence, in numerous variations, that they were altered at various points in their transmission, and scholarly work in the last two centuries has gone far to get us to the earliest versions possible. Keep in mind we are not talking about the bible as that came much later with its own set of issues.

Then we have this: In other words, no one in antiquity ever saw a completely accurate collection of what would eventually become the 27 New Testament books, until perhaps the time of Origen or Clement of Alexandria (see XII and XIV), and even then most likely only those few scholars would have enjoyed the privilege. But this is still doubtful--it does not appear that either man went out of his way to find and trace the history of all existing manuscripts, in all churches, and in all translations, yet that is what would have been required to decisively collate a close approximation to the original texts (and with regard to facing an even worse problem today, cf. M 267ff.; and for an example, see Bible).

I will stop here only to say that my issue/questionings are only to the claims/references to the bible being the word of God and nothing else, as it (the bible) shows its true light when not hidden behind that claim which is the true corruption. :dumbfunny :D

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

No, it's a fictional book written by people that needed something to cling to when their world and existance didn't make sense. People need something to believe in and look up to. When something like that doesn't exist, they make something up.

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

Nope, thus part of my point that it's probably the oldest fictional book ever written.

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

The Da Vinci Code, one of the best selling books, is translated into many different languages. The Bible is no different.

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?

Pretty unlikely. Am I saying he lied? no, he could very well believe he spoke to god. That doesn't make it true though. As for ol' Georgie? He falls under the catagorie of bending religion to his will. Funny thing about believing in something you can't see and have no proof of, people have to take your word for it when you say "god" spoke to you.

Ehm, so being not Christian (I don't know too much about the religion, although I did read the Bible once, almost all the way through) and rather young, I apologize if I say stupid stuff because I do not clearly know the facts.

Something I discussed with my mother a while back is the problems of using the Bible as the be-all-end-all reference to the world today. It is a historically significant, inspiring, lyrical text, but it is also old. Which means that whoever wrote it (I am unclear on who is supposed to have written it?) was writing without the benefit about knowing about issues today, problems faced by society today, &c. Some issues are timeless, like showing mercy to others, and so on. However, if there is a God who spoke the Bible, I'm sure a mere mortal had to write it. And with all the revisions, corrections, modernization for easier reading, and so on, mistakes must have crept in. So even if God had prior knowledge of issues facing the world today, it may not be the be-all-end-all text because of those mistakes.

Now, if we assume mere mortals wrote it, it's even more likely there are not only problems about teachings that may be harder to apply today (I think abortion was not so much of an issue back then, so there may not be specific instructions on when or when not to do so?) and there will be biased info, mistakes, and such. (Did that make sense or am I rambling on?) I'm not sure if corrupted is the word, but it is most definitely not the pure word of God or perfect Christian text anymore. Like, doesn't every Christian believe (or nearly everyone) that women going and doing other things than just reproducing is good? I think the Bible writers couldn't predict that. They didn't think of future social upheaval that may have been good for society.

For evidence, I think I shall have to pass on attempting to answer that. I generally treat things to do with spirituality with skepticism unless there is some backing by the sciences (and by a neutral disinterested scientist objectively looking at the facts, hopefully). The only evidence I can think of is interrogating Jesus, or doing repeated studies to see if God can cause things, or something, but those all would be kind of hard to do. D:

As for validity, I think that all religious texts (in my opinion) are different retellings for cultures on the same set of human ideals: to be kind, moral, generous, merciful, wise, and so on. So I don't really want to take one religious text as being more truthful as another. I personally believe they are all the work of people, and people are not perfect. And since one text does not resonate with me more than another, and since I have not found that the Christian God is especially present in my mind, or something, I tend to think of them as all the truths of other people. Not my truths, necessarily, or all truths, just different truths.

As to talking to God, I don't know. If I was talking to God, I would expect Him to answer in some way. Does He really answer, or do people just believe there is an answer to their question, or ramblings, or so on? And then they make themselves believe their subconscious thoughts swimming up are what He's saying?

I really love the idea of religion, and I love that all essentially promote good values. I think successful religions appeal to the good nature of people, and make them want to be worthy of it, or something. So I'm generally fine with people very enthusiastic of their religion.

What I don't like is when religion is not just a comfort for someone, but potential ammunition. E.g. Bush and his war, because he believed that God wanted him to do it, or something? Religion. Politics. Not everyone is religious, so I think in respect to those people God should never be used as a reason for a war, or be brought in any way into religion. & I think that for hot-button political issues like abortion, the same should be done. Because I believe the Bible is outdated, and it doesn't have all the answers for every situation, although it may try hard. And because I hate religious people condemning others like that, when the Bible says not to cast the first stone unless you're entirely blameless, I think?

I did read the Little Prince, and I thought it was one of the most lovely books ever. I read it when I was quite young. It was an interesting read, and I didn't actually think on deeper issues too much, but some things just made me pause. Like, why the drawing? And why was the fox not saying usual fairy-tale text? I think I really need to read it again.

QUERY: what's the Toa? it sounds beautiful to read.

Wordserf said "QUERY: what's the Toa? it sounds beautiful to read."

I have come to appreciate old writings and I just came across it while researching something else. The Tao is dated 600 years before Christ and has also been translated to many times to count, but you will find all the translations refreshing. No harshness, no competition or striding/strife with humanity. This link will give you a great collection of old text to include the Tao or Taoism. http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/index.htm

You can also Google Tao and the listings are endless. :D