Should We Require Bible Quotes to Have More Sources?

This thread is about those that choose to copy and paste and recite the bible and make claims of its use to translate the word of god.

Now this isn't about debating religion. Due to its many different aspects. But to actually discuss the "act" of translating and using the words from the bible as a legitimate source. As it has 100's of different translations, sources, and its validity has been in question for countless years.

While it divided our people and our world, we never truly question or debate those who choose to use it as if it were 100% proven to be true. And those that question its validity are debated. If you were to actually use the words of the bible in a court of law it would be considered hearsay.

I think that those that choose to use this form of proof for their religion, should be required to link more sources. Other versions, and can and should be called on it, due to the many inconsistencies that have been proven about these particular source/sources.

These rules are enforced on any other subject. I have seen countless threads on religion, and usually have to scroll down about 10 pages of chapters and version of the bible, with no links, or sources. I think that if we wanted to read the bible it should be up to the reader, and not a necessity in order to have a discussion or join a thread, since others may have not read it due to their own personal reasons, but have an opinion.

Now even though I know that those that do this are going to say that people who didn't or do not read the bible shouldn't be in the discussion. I disagree. There are many, many of us that join discussions and are not experts on the subject, but as long as we have an opinion about the subject and participate properly due to the T&C its o.k.

Here is the T&C thats I feel this is reference to.

15). Posting: You will not Post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

Now I dont think that this can be used as a reference to a possible hoax, as I feel that some people do not see it that way. But I think that If the rules are required for some, then they should be for all.

Peace, NRE.

BTW, I did not put this in the giant thread, as this is more of a suggestion as a question, and I was curious to see if I was the only one that feels this way.

Posting work written by others:

Going forward, if you post something that is not 100% your own writing or work you must use the EX TAG, post NO MORE THAN 15% of the original (or three paragraphs, whichever is least), and GIVE A LINK TO THE SOURCE MATERIAL. If the work you are posting is not on the internet, from a book for example, you MUST give a credit for that Book ( the title), its Author and Publisher.

Very clear. All text that does not belong to the member must be put within EX tags and properly sourced. This includes religious text.

Well it is written in the bible (im not qouting) that god's wrath will be carried out on those who mess with words of the bible. I trust him so i think it is all fact. If you think it is fictional that is your problem.

I love this idea. My opinion is that you should be able to say what you mean without quoting the Bible. So, you quote the Bible, what do you mean by the quote? There are too many interpretations, so use your own words. Of course, that's assuming you know what the quotes mean.

Same goes for any other Religious text. Tell us what YOU think. Not some dead guy from ages ago.

With Love,

Your Brother

These words are my own and in no way represent the words quoted from any other person, alien, or sentient being, alive or dead. Any similarities between my words and any other being, alive or dead, human or Alien, sentient or non-sentient, past, present or future, is merely coincidental. If these words appear in exact order anywhere else within the known Universe, I call dibs.

reply to post by Camtheconspiracyman


Does that apply to organised religion excluding and editing content from the original sources?
Does that apply to any words lost or altered in translation?

I think those involved in compiling what we now know as the bible are at a far greater risk of attracting the lords wrath in relation to this subject than anyone on an internet forum.

Your right some words are lost or translated differently. But with the words around it you can figure it out. Like this sentence " Jimmy _____ with the dog on the sidewalk" There could be numerous words going there. But if you knew english you would know that "walked" would be the best word that fits .

reply to post by Camtheconspiracyman


God already did that. His Holy book is riddle in contradictions. Sorry to be the bearer of truthfulness.

reply to post by NoRegretsEver


What!? THE bible actually differs based upon where one might have lived or been borne into at the time!?

well, color me flustrated.

You might have posted this in the board business section, but it sounds more like a religious conspiracy, of sorts, to me.

Originally posted by Camtheconspiracyman
Your right some words are lost or translated differently. But with the words around it you can figure it out. Like this sentence There " Jimmy _____ with the dog on the sidewalk" could be numerous words going there. But if you knew english you would know that "walked" would be the best word that fits .

" Jimmy _____ with the dog on the sidewalk"

"Jimmy "walked" with the dog on the sidewalk"

But if you knew english you would know that "walked" would be the best word that fits .

Here is another way to put it, and its in English.

"Jimmy "stood" with the dog on the sidewalk"

Now who's version would be correct, both English, both with complete different meanings.

Now using or assuming the logically blank word would be "walked" is an assumption and not a fact. That is why I started this thread. This is a personal interpretation and not a fact, the only person who can tell you what they were doing is "Johnny". Whatever we wrote is an opinion and nothing else.

Peace, NRE.

are you requesting that anyone who refers or quotes the bible refer to a specific translation, kjv, nkjv, nrsv, niv... ad nauseum? or are you requesting that reference be made to the actual hebrew text for the old testament and koine greek for the new testament?

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


I' sure if I asked you "What Contradictions?" you'd say Sodom and Gomorrah. Well picture it like this. You're a parent who has a child you love. Then that child murders someone ( Sodom and Gomorrah committing sin). And your shocked.Then your child commits more murder (sin).And your child seems no matter what he will keep killing people whatever it takes. Severe punishment is in order although you love your child. You wouldn't want to harm your child but sometimes punishment needs to be dealt to prevent harm to others. In this case God didn't want Sodom and Gomorrah to spread sin everywhere. God went farther then that saying if there were 10 righteous people in the city he would not destroy it. Of course there were not even ten righteous people in the city. That is why you think there are contradictions in the bible. Because God's love is so deep you think it is impossible for such love.

reply to post by Camtheconspiracyman


God didn't tell that to Cain! He blessed him!
Believe it or not that's your choice.
Cain and Able
Plus if God loved the Bible he would of never killed anyone or made death possible. You contradict yourself with your blind faith.

reply to post by NoRegretsEver


So, I'm not exactly clear on what you're saying here.

Are you suggesting that Bible quotes should be banned altogether because of their "proven inconsistencies", or are you suggesting that Bible quotes should be accompanied by other, secular sources because of their "proven inconsistencies"?

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


God gave us free will and trusted it with us. It's our fault and Satan's. If Satan hadn't tempted Eve death would not exist. If God had had it his way death would not exist. Cain had known that killing Abel was wrong because Eve and Adam took a bite out of the fruit from the tree of knowledge,giving knowledge from right or wrong, hence the children know right from wrong from there parents. And if your blessed to be able to boast of "killing a young man" than you're twisted and cursed no mater how blessed you think you are. Ignorance blinds you.

Originally posted by Alpha Arietis
reply to post by NoRegretsEver

 

So, I'm not exactly clear on what you're saying here.

Are you suggesting that Bible quotes should be banned altogether because of their "proven inconsistencies", or are you suggesting that Bible quotes should be accompanied by other, secular sources because of their "proven inconsistencies"?

or are you suggesting that Bible quotes should be accompanied by other, secular sources because of their "proven inconsistencies"?

Peace, NRE.

reply to post by Camtheconspiracyman


Well it wasn't Satan because Satan or Lucifer is basically an Angel. God could of forgiven them in the beginning. Why didn't he do it sooner before Able was killed? Because God in the Bible wanted it to happen. If God is this being with the capabilities of everything and infinite surely he would of stopped the killing.

I'm ok with this as long as any discussion based on something that is still considered a "theory" is given equal scrutiny.

reply to post by NoRegretsEver

This is a personal interpretation and not a fact, the only person who can tell you what they were doing is "Jimmy". Whatever we wrote is an opinion and nothing else.

Actually, that might not be true.

Did "Jimmy" write about himself and his dog, or was there an eyewitness (a third party) that wrote about the event?

Maybe "Jimmy" told the author about his experience with said "dog".

Did "Jimmy" walk, play or stand with the dog?

Is that the point?

You and I assume that we know what a "dog" is. What if we had never seen or heard about a "dog" until we read this document?

If that were the case, we could get too wrapped up in what was done with the dog, instead of appreciating the concept of a "dog" and learning more about the "dog".

reply to post by NoRegretsEver


You realize, of course, that "proven inconsistencies" of the Bible is a highly debatable topic.

What appear to be inconsistencies or contradictions to some are usually easily explainable by Bible scholars and generally turn out to be a case of the accuser not "looking closely enough" at what is being stated in the text.

If you want to put the Bible on trial for being a false document, then there are plenty of threads for that.

But to make a sweeping, generalized statement that the Bible is "proven inconsistent", and then expect everyone on this site to agree or fall in line is crazy. It's no different than a Christian quoting the Bible to an atheist to defend his belief, a debate tactic you clearly have a distaste for.

There's a large group of folks that believe that the Bible is infallible. Some of these beliefs are based on blind faith, sure, but some are also based on rigorous study of the text.

That a belief system (Christianity) should be singled out to carry an even heavier burden of proof than another belief system (atheism) is pretty discriminatory.

I'd say, just live with it. No one is hurting you.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


Satan was a fallen angel who wanted the power of God to himself. He got like-minded angels(demons) and set war against God so God cast him down. He also gave all angels free will. Lucifer used to pursuade Eve to bite the Apple. If that event had not happened Cain would not have killed Abel. Why didn't he stop it? He cannot control human beings. Only tell them what to do. But if you don't do what the Lord says he'll allow the Devil to pursuade to you. He can read your current mind and state. But can't control it. He knew Adam and Eve would sin but could not Stop them. He made us in his image. That includes free will . He wanted us to be free instead of mindless slaves. Free to make mistakes. Also you never go back on questions to counter mine. So how is a man blessed when he is wealthy but says with glee he killed a man?