Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 6 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,405
Lord of Nickels
**
OP Offline
Lord of Nickels
**
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,405
Wow, I wasn?t expecting such a great response from you all. I really enjoyed reading all your ?feelings? and thoughts about religion. You can never tell from looking at someone how they view life and death, or the purpose of living. Like one of you said, thank goodness we can live like we want to. If you believe in God or not that is true. BUT?what if there really is a God, who is observing our lives, and decides if we can get his reward of everlasting life. And bonuses like no sickness, sorrow or pain forever. I think that the Bible has been proven by science, math, and common sense to be very truthful and reliable.
Should be very interesting to see what happens in the near future with governments, religion and commercial trade. If you take the time to really look and see what the Bible has told was going to happen, has happened except for some a few things left, you might be surprised.
Thanks again for letting me share just a few things I have learned.


There is nothing like being a Clown!
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,811
The Angry Mythbuster
**
Offline
The Angry Mythbuster
**
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,811
Quote:
Wow, I wasn?t expecting such a great response from you all. I really enjoyed reading all your ?feelings? and thoughts about religion. You can never tell from looking at someone how they view life and death, or the purpose of living. Like one of you said, thank goodness we can live like we want to. If you believe in God or not that is true. BUT?what if there really is a God, who is observing our lives, and decides if we can get his reward of everlasting life. And bonuses like no sickness, sorrow or pain forever. I think that the Bible has been proven by science, math, and common sense to be very truthful and reliable.
Should be very interesting to see what happens in the near future with governments, religion and commercial trade. If you take the time to really look and see what the Bible has told was going to happen, has happened except for some a few things left, you might be surprised.
Thanks again for letting me share just a few things I have learned.

I hate to inform you of this Clown, but you have just committed yourself to a life of eternal nothingness. God can no longer accept you into heaven. See, the bible you read and the bible you quoted above is not from the originally transcribed version. It has over 5000 translation errors from the original Textus Receptus. As a passage states in the ACCURATELY translated version of the bible says,
"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
According to Revelations 22. GODS LAST WORDS TO MAN IN THE ENTIRE BIBLE. You fucking butcher what I say and you are DAMNED.
Clown you quoted mistranslated scripture and you are DAMNED TO ETERNAL NOTHINGNESS! Not even repenting your sins can save you!
but...
Rainman can cure you. I have the solution for only 8 payments of $19.99. Paypal me clown asap. Your souls at stake.
Clown the bible you read has over 5000 translation errors from the originally transcribed version. You realize if you believe in just one of those versus you are committing one of the most cardinal sin known to man. You too are now bound to eternal nothingness. I'm sorry to inform. The word of god speaks as following.

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,493
Member
**
Offline
Member
**
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,493
Sounds like the Qur'an

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,405
Lord of Nickels
**
OP Offline
Lord of Nickels
**
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,405
I don?t know what Bible translation you think I am using?
But I mostly use the New World translation of the Holy Scriptures.
Since you have raise this topic here is a in depth answer with research that I found for your reference in the future.
The scripture you Quoted in Rev 22:18 ?I am bearing witness to everyone that hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; 19 and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things which are written about in this scroll.?
There is also a scripture in
Galatians 1:7-9 ?7 But it is not another; only there are certain ones who are causing YOU trouble and wanting to pervert the good news about the Christ. 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to YOU as good news something beyond what we declared to YOU as good news, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said above, I also now say again, Whoever it is that is declaring to YOU as good news something beyond what YOU accepted, let him be accursed?
How would this effect the ?book of Mormon? since they say it?s a addition to the bible???
Now if you Rainman or others speek Greek or Hebrew good for you you can read the original writings but for us we have to use a Translation into our common toung.
I do know that the King James translation has over 2500 translation errors but the ?new world translation of the holy scriptures ? is supost to be the most accurate translation into the English language of our times.
Now there is other translations of the Bible.. if you look into the ?foreword ? preface ? of your bible many times it takes the the Divine name Jehovah out of the bible replacing it with ?Lord? even though the original bible had the name of God Jehovah (yhwh)6973 times in the Hebrew scriptures and 237 times in the Christian Greek scriptures.
What bible translation are you using Rainman?
The "New World Translation"-Scholarly and Honest
"FULL of falsifications!" Back in the 16th century, that is what opposers said about Martin Luther's translation of the Bible. They believed they could prove that Luther's Bible contained "1,400 heretical errors and lies." Today, Luther's Bible is viewed as a landmark translation. The book Translating the Bible even calls it "a work of genius"!
In this 20th century, the New World Translation has also been charged with falsification. Why? Because it departs from the traditional rendering of many verses and stresses the use of God's name, Jehovah. Hence, it is unconventional. But does this make it false? No. It was produced with much care and attention to detail, and what may appear unfamiliar represents a sincere effort to represent carefully the nuances of the original languages. Theologian C. Houtman explains the reason for the unorthodoxy of the New World Translation: "Various traditional translations of important terms from the original text have been discarded, apparently in order to arrive at the best possible understanding." Let us consider some examples of this.
Different-But Not Wrong
For one thing, closely related words in the original Bible languages are translated, where possible, by different English words, thus alerting the Bible student to possible different shades of meaning. Thus, syn?te?lei?a is rendered "conclusion" and te?los "end," although both words are translated "end" in many other versions. (Matthew 24:3, 13) The word ko?smos is rendered "world," ai?on? "system of things," and oi?kou?me?ne "inhabited earth." Again, many Bible translations use merely "world" to represent either two or all three of these Greek words, although, in fact, there are differences between them.-Matthew 13:38, 39; 24:14.
Similarly, the New World Translation carefully notes the difference between gno?sis ("knowledge") and e?pi?gno?sis (translated "accurate knowledge")-a difference ignored by many others. (Philippians 1:9; 3:8) It also distinguishes between ta?phos ("grave," an individual burial place), mne?ma ("tomb"), mne?mei?on ("memorial tomb"), and hai?des ("hades," referring in the Bible to the common grave of dead mankind). (Matthew 27:60, 61; John 5:28; Acts 2:29, 31) Several Bible translations distinguish between ta?phos and mne?mei?on at Matthew 23:29 but not consistently elsewhere.-See Matthew 27:60, 61, New International Version.
Verb tenses are carefully and precisely rendered. For example, in the Revised Standard Version, 1 John 2:1 reads: "If any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." Shortly after, the same translation renders 1 John 3:6: "No one who abides in [Jesus] sins." If no follower of Jesus sins, how does 1 John 2:1 apply?
The New World Translation resolves this seeming contradiction. At 1 John 2:1, it says: "I am writing you these things that you may not commit a sin. And yet, if anyone does commit a sin, we have a helper with the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous one." John used the aorist tense in this verse, indicating the committing of an isolated sin, the kind of thing all of us do from time to time because we are imperfect. However, 1 John 3:6 reads: "Everyone remaining in union with him does not practice sin; no one that practices sin has either seen him or come to know him." John here used the present tense, indicating an ongoing, habitual course of sin that would invalidate anyone's claim to be a Christian.
Other Scholars Agree
Certain unfamiliar terms supposedly invented by Jehovah's Witnesses are supported by other Bible translations or reference works. At Luke 23:43, the New World Translation records Jesus' words to the criminal executed with him: "Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise." In the original Greek, there were no punctuation marks such as commas; but usually some kind of punctuation is inserted by translators to help with the reading. Most, however, make Luke 23:43 read as though Jesus and the criminal were bound for Paradise that very day. The New English Bible reads: "I tell you this: today you shall be with me in Paradise." Not all convey this thought, however. Professor Wilhelm Michaelis renders the verse: "Truly, already today I give you the assurance: (one day) you will be together with me in paradise." This rendering is much more logical than that of The New English Bible. The dying criminal could not have gone with Jesus to Paradise that same day. Jesus was not resurrected until the third day after his death. In the meantime he was in Hades, mankind's common grave.-Acts 2:27, 31; 10:39, 40.
According to Matthew 26:26 in the New World Translation, Jesus, when instituting the celebration of the Lord's Evening Meal, says of the bread that he passes to his disciples: "This means my body." Most other translations render this verse: "This is my body," and this is used to support the doctrine that during the celebration of the Lord's Evening Meal, the bread literally becomes Christ's flesh. The word translated in the New World Translation as "means" (es?tin?, a form of ei?mi?) comes from the Greek word meaning "to be," but it can also signify "to mean." Thus, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament says that this verb "is often i.q. [equivalent to] to denote, signify, import." Indeed, "means" is a logical translation here. When Jesus instituted the Last Supper, his flesh was still on his bones, so how could the bread have been his literal flesh?
At John 1:1 the New World Translation reads: "The Word was a god." In many translations this expression simply reads: "The Word was God" and is used to support the Trinity doctrine. Not surprisingly, Trinitarians dislike the rendering in the New World Translation. But John 1:1 was not falsified in order to prove that Jesus is not Almighty God. Jehovah's Witnesses, among many others, had challenged the capitalizing of "god" long before the appearance of the New World Translation, which endeavors accurately to render the original language. Five German Bible translators likewise use the term "a god" in that verse. At least 13 others have used expressions such as "of divine kind" or "godlike kind." These renderings agree with other parts of the Bible to show that, yes, Jesus in heaven is a god in the sense of being divine. But Jehovah and Jesus are not the same being, the same God.-John 14:28; 20:17.
God's Personal Name
At Luke 4:18, according to the New World Translation, Jesus applied to himself a prophecy in Isaiah, saying: "Jehovah's spirit is upon me." (Isaiah 61:1) Many object to the use of the name Jehovah here. It is, however, just one of the more than 200 places where that name appears in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, the so-called New Testament. True, no early surviving Greek manuscript of the "New Testament" contains the personal name of God. But the name was included in the New World Translation for sound reasons, not merely on a whim. And others have followed a similar course. In the German language alone, at least 11 versions use "Jehovah" (or the transliteration of the Hebrew, "Yahweh") in the text of the "New Testament," while four translators add the name in parentheses after "Lord." More than 70 German translations use it in footnotes or commentaries.
In Israel, God's name was pronounced without inhibition for more than a thousand years. It is the name that appears most frequently in the Hebrew Scriptures ("Old Testament"), and there is no convincing proof that it was unknown to the general public or that its pronunciation had been forgotten in the first century of our Common Era, when Jewish Christians were inspired to write the books of the "New Testament."-Ruth 2:4.
Wolfgang Feneberg comments in the Jesuit magazine Entschluss/Offen (April 1985): "He [Jesus] did not withhold his father's name YHWH from us, but he entrusted us with it. It is otherwise inexplicable why the first petition of the Lord's Prayer should read: 'May your name be sanctified!'" Feneberg further notes that "in pre-Christian manuscripts for Greek-speaking Jews, God's name was not paraphrased with k?rios [Lord], but was written in the tetragram form [YHWH] in Hebrew or archaic Hebrew characters. . . . We find recollections of the name in the writings of the Church Fathers; but they are not interested in it. By translating this name k?rios (Lord), the Church Fathers were more interested in attributing the grandeur of the k?rios to Jesus Christ." The New World Translation restores the name to the text of the Bible wherever there is sound, scholarly reason to do so.-See Appendix 1D in the Reference Bible.
Some criticize the form "Jehovah" by which the New World Translation renders God's name. In Hebrew manuscripts, the name appears just as four consonants, YHWH, and many insist that the proper pronunciation is "Yahweh," not "Jehovah." Hence, they feel that using "Jehovah" is a mistake. But, in truth, scholars are by no means in agreement that the form "Yahweh" represents the original pronunciation. The fact is that while God preserved the spelling of his name "YHWH" over 6,000 times in the Bible, he did not preserve the pronunciation of it that Moses heard on Mount Sinai. (Exodus 20:2) Therefore, the pronunciation is not of the utmost importance at this time.
In Europe the form "Jehovah" has been widely recognized for centuries and is used in many Bibles, including Jewish translations. It appears countless times on buildings, on coins and other objects, and in printed works, as well as in many church hymns. So rather than trying to represent the original Hebrew pronunciation, the New World Translation in all its different languages uses the form of God's name that is popularly accepted. This is exactly what other Bible versions do with all the other names in the Bible.
Why the Harsh Criticism?
Luther's Bible was criticized because it was produced by a man who exposed the shortcomings of the traditional religion of his day. His translation opened the way for ordinary people to see the truth of much of what he said. Similarly, the New World Translation is criticized because it is published by Jehovah's Witnesses, who outspokenly declare that many of Christendom's doctrines are not found in the Bible. The New World Translation-indeed, any Bible-makes this evident.
In fact, the New World Translation is a scholarly work. In 1989, Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel said: "In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew. . . . Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."
Millions of Bible readers worldwide use the New World Translation because it is a modern-language translation that renders Bible terms with accuracy. The entire Bible is now available in 9 languages and the Christian Greek Scriptures alone in an additional 2; it is being prepared in a further 20 tongues. Accurate translation requires years of painstaking work, but we look forward to having the New World Translation eventually appear in all these different languages so that it will help many more to get a better understanding of "the word of life." (Philippians 2:16) Because it has already helped millions to do so, it is truly worthy of recommendation.
There is some info about the Bible I use.
If you say I will burn in hell <img src="/~stretch/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />; or not make it to heaven ( I don?t plan on going to heaven) I have hope of living forever on Earth.
And I did not translate the bible or add to it I just use it . if you would like to use a special translation of the scriptures that can be arranged .


There is nothing like being a Clown!
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,642
Adept
*****
Offline
Adept
*****
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,642

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 351
Master(bating) Flamer
***
Offline
Master(bating) Flamer
***
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 351

hitchens does a terrible job answering the first question.
firstly you need to realize the question was structured to be unanswerable definitively, a cunning trick, but a trick at that. it is unanswerable because science has not been able to yet probe into the reasonings of the 'goldilocks parameters' for life to exist. it is like asking a a hippo what it's like to fly.
secondly, ideas exist that hitchens could have thrown out there, but he assumes the position of humility and does not claim to be a physicist, in which this question is a matter of. some of these ideas are multiple (or infinite) universes exhibiting different combinations of these goldilocks values. coupled with this idea is the theory of the big crunch/bang. a universe is, essentially, finite in time (according to the coupling of crunch/bang). this would give an infinite possible combination of the parameters, with the one we currently live in being one of many that have existed (or exist, if considering multiple). finally, and i think most importantly, we do not posses the computational power to process all possible values of these parameters and what their outcome could be. there could be numerous different sets of these values that would allow life to thrive. thus, not making this one unique by any means. a trivial example being, if you have 6 different numbers, find a combination such that their sum equals 100. if no restrictions are placed, there is an infinite combination of these numbers that will produce a sum of 100.


Gimpish, GW2
Gimp411, BF3 and Tribes
Joy Division of Darkfall
Sevox of DAoC & Rift
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,351
LoD Groupie w/ privileges
*
Offline
LoD Groupie w/ privileges
*
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,351
*NT*


I'm constipated.... I couldn't give a shit.
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,642
Adept
*****
Offline
Adept
*****
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,642
Science nor religion has been able to answer or prove these parameters. That is why the debate still thrives.

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 351
Master(bating) Flamer
***
Offline
Master(bating) Flamer
***
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 351
Quote:
Science nor religion has been able to answer or prove these parameters. That is why the debate still thrives.

correct.
my point was that theologians have no problem making assumptions and/or projections, whereas scientists attempt to use definitive evidence to the best of their ability.


Gimpish, GW2
Gimp411, BF3 and Tribes
Joy Division of Darkfall
Sevox of DAoC & Rift
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,642
Adept
*****
Offline
Adept
*****
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,642
Nor do the atheists.
Example of science disproving the existence of God?
At least you added "to the best of their ability". Science and God are not exclusive.
I would say that History is on the side of creationism.
Agnostics I understand, they make more sense; not knowing therefor neutral.

Page 6 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 20 guests, and 5 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.4.33 Page Time: 0.012s Queries: 35 (0.005s) Memory: 11.6683 MB (Peak: 12.8038 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2025-04-26 21:14:44 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS