You are a contrarian. That is the sole purpose you created an account on PF. Seems as if we know who's brain has not been fed.
You call them witnesses, I do not. I call them the victims of historic lies. Like you do, you are a victim of it. People buy The Bible not because of any reason there is, but for pure fashion only. The Bible still do exists not because of any reason there is, to support the belief in the claim of God and all God related matters, but because Man until now continues lying to himself, so He keeps The Bible. polscie
aren't you experiencing the truth in the process already? you are so stick with the historic lies, hence you are still failing to start believing and start seeing the truth. polscie
So, you don't know what the truth is? Or are you keeping it to yourself for selfish reasons? Come on, spit it out. Share.
I would suggest most who have a Bible did not necessarily buy it. For quite a percentage of them have been given away to those who are seeking the truth and to encourage them to learn and love their Creator and to free them from man's bondage.
i think i am beginning to LOVE you. dont worry, the caveman are the unevolved and all of them eventually go extinct. go to the Hopi, see martin, tell him, you are willing to learn how to live with 'mother' He will know what it means and you will be 'in the beginning' bring seed leave all else except them who are also ready to start over!
No, scholars have determined that SOME of the gospels may not have been writen by the authoriship attested to them. No scholar, however, seriously doubts the accuracy of the Biblical account, which begins with the Pauline Espistles as verification, and has strong corroberating evidence for its accuracy in both archeology and in extra Biblical Sources. Glad see you jump back in to again advocate the quack pottery of the Jesus Myth in order to feed the contempt of a young man running around believing that everyone else's life is based on a lie. That's honorable. I suggest you familarize yourself to the scholarly treatises on the Jesus Myth, which has been repeatedly demolished. http://books.google.com/books?id=2X...AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Jesus Myth rebuttal&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=7L...lt&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=2&ved=0CDcQ6wEwAQ http://books.google.com/books?id=pM...6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=evidence for jesus&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=qJ...e&q=extra biblical evidence for jesus&f=false Christian apologetics has been established and scrutinized for thousands of years. But heh, atheist faith says there is no God without proof, so everything else must be a lie .... without a shread of evidence to support such a nasty and irrational conclusion. Atheists, if you believe that our religion is a lie, then understand that you are flying in the face of proveable fact. Understand that you are living your life in a known concpiracy theory. Perhaps you should live your own life, create your own deeds, and stop attampting to knock other people down in order to make yourself feel better.
You are wrong. It is not "study to be approved"... the actual wording in the English translation is "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." So let me ask you this: Are you suggesting that the Bible is in fact the "Word of Truth"? If not, then your paraphrase is out of context.
The Bible disagrees with you. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11 You see, there is no proof. Faith is it's own proof, and nothing more. Christian apologetics is a a discipline that starts with a conclusion and goes about trying to prove it. Bad form for serious investigation. Many scholars will verify some of the factual issues in the Bible, but will not corroborate the supernatural aspects, because they can't, and neither can anyone else. Just for the record, I am a former ordained minister and am now an agnostic.
Here's a little article about one of your "experts". LOL! http://theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/024jph.html
Just for argument sake, if you bumped your head and knocked yourself out and imagined Elvis was in front of you, maybe talking to you, would you say you had just met Elvis?
A paraphrase, deary. I am not suggesting the Bible is the "Word of Truth". I am trying to communicate on the level of those that do. Which "English translation" would you be choosing? The KJV? Why?
Gee the word paraphrase seems to be the same way in which I described waht you said. KJV is a correct guess on your part. I enjoy the KJV, because I understand the language that is used in that version. That version renders a version which is expressed in a manner that does not need further translation. Only those that choose the NIV and other similar variations are only inviting misunderstanding as the result of faulty translation of the so-called scholars of this modern world.
Not quite. He saw a bright light that temporarily blinded him. He also heard the voice of Jesus. This is eyewitness (earwitness) testimony. Have you read the BOOK?
Evidence of things not seen. But evidence none the less since it can be experienced in so many ways. There are many ordained ministers that like you should be formerly. Your renouncement of Jesus may not keep you out of the Heaven you no longer believe in but the earthly consequences of your actions will be paid for in full until your last breath. Hell on earth.
If you were blinded and heard a voice you had never heard before, would you be able to give able testimony in a court of law? Of course not. You believe. That's great. I wish you well. Yes, I've read it all. Repeatedly. Still do.
Why do you continue to read this book of fiction, then? You reject that which inspired it, you reject He who you once followed, you reject all this for what? To believe in man? So what you're saying is that a blind man cannot testify as a witness in court? Brush up on the law. And remember the words he heard came to pass and he became a true follower and the most prolific writer in the NT. See, there's even hope for you. For God uses the weak, the hurting, the simple to confound the wise fool.
You are not educated about the true origins of the KJV. If you were, you would not be quite so enamored of it. I'm not going to lay it all out for you, because I know you don't want to hear it. You drank the koolaid from some fundamentalist preacher and that will be enough for you. Enjoy it. Just a question, though. Would you think a translation that had manuscripts available to pull from that were much older and closer in time to the original autographs would be more or less accurate than one that was cobbled together from much younger documents? Rhetorical, of course.