About Bible

donis · Post by **donis** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:56 pm

for my opinion all religions can be only a way for god..but i know there is not any religion say about another religions bad , all religion have to respect to anothers !! but unfortunately these days i see so many peoples in the world think about like fanatic , and try to speak ill of other religions ..this is so dangerous point for future of world!!

Danyet · Post by **Danyet** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 10:12 pm

I have already told you where the proof is that the hebrew Bible has not been changed in at least 2500 - 3000 years by as much as a letter...twice! Yet you still all argue this point.

There is no question by serious minds that the Hebew Bible is unchanged.

The question is about the New Testament. But the only question is "why were some books chosen and others not?".

I have read some of the books not chosen for the NT and it is clear that there were fakes just from their poorly written style.

There are no changes in the New Testament. There are only good accurate translations and poor translations which can easily be verified by anyone by checking the original Greek New Testament. This can be done by anyone who bothers to go to their book store and look at a Greek Lexicon. All the words are numbered and explained line by line.

Your bickering and arguing this point only show me how little you know about the subject at hand!

And you know what they say about opinions!

jeffcox · Post by **jeffcox** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:41 am

Danyet, you are correct in saying that I know little about the subject. I have never mooted this point!

I can only give my opinions and the very little knowledge I have of the bible. If this is not enough to discuss the subject, then I'm afraid that nobody would feel the incentive to research or even change their opinion.

I did use the word 'change' once and I would have prefered the word 'modified' in that I believe exact translations are not possible in all aspects of any language.

As for Greek, try translating the ancient Greek word and the English word that are generally accepted as 'know'. I have a friend who did his Masters based on the understanding of this word in Greek and this word in English. It's enough to make your eyes water! He wasn't refering to the Bible at all, his research was on Greek mythology, but the idea is transferable.

As far as my reading has produced, I have only seen that one holy book confirs and validates the originality of the last one. You may correct me on this if you have more information; I'd be very pleased to hear and study that.

As to 'anyone who bothers to...'; I can only say that my time is pretty full, and as the holy books are not my line of real interest, I have to give what little time I have to my immediate needs. It's not that I can't be bothered; it's that I have other necessities.

I am always open to your opinions, your knowledge and your corrections. I will endeavour to consider and study them all, given my limited time.

Giving opinions is worthless if you are not equally open to receiving and learning! I give my opinions so I'm open and willing to learn from yours.

Rach · Post by **Rach** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:41 am

danyet wrote:I have read some of the books not chosen for the NT and it is clear that there were fakes

The question that pops up in my mind by reading your lines: who chose and rated them to be the real word of God? Human beings? Some years ago I read a very interesting book about the Dead Sea scrolls, I always asked myself since then, why weren't they chosen for the bibel?

jeffcox · Post by **jeffcox** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:45 am

Lalee:
If women agree that God is unfair then they cannot believe he is all good. If they believe that he is all good then they must believe that they have to obey men. Therefore, a woman cannot be a believer in God and beleive that they are equal to men!

I am an athiest. No, I don't pray to God even in moments of difficulty. I do believe in the people around me and in my own ability to solve my problems and get through such situations. Don't worry, I've never met a believer in God who belives in atheism!

I do not despise God, I cannot despise what does not exist! I think 'hold the idea of Him in contempt' would be a better choice of words.
Contempt: lack of respect or reverence for something; to dislike; a feeling of resentment or bitterness

But then, I am bombarded with how much people love Him that I feel I am equally entitled to say how much
I dislike the idea of Him.

Anyway, I love your ideas and the fact that we can debate them. I hope that my comments do not offend you, or my choice of expression. If I did, it was not my intention.

It's great to debate these issues, I'm learning a lot from everybody's comments.

MissLT · Post by **MissLT** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:01 am

Lalee wrote:
LennyeTran wrote: When is the end to you?
Well there's no end to me. Although when we die on this earth, it's "the end" like a human being.

That means you don't believe in the Judgment Day? :?

Rach · Post by **Rach** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:10 am

jeffcox wrote:Anyway, I love your ideas and the fact that we can debate them. I hope that my comments do not offend you, or my choice of expression.

Yeah, sometimes it's not so easy to find the right words in issues that really mean a big deal to others, and insulting someone is very far from what you meant. I'm really struggling sometimes to find the right words, and so I'm learning a lot from you guys in this forum. - Sorry, off topic -

MissLT · Post by **MissLT** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:13 am

danyet wrote:I have already told you where the proof is that the hebrew Bible has not been changed in at least 2500 - 3000 years by as much as a letter...twice! Yet you still all argue this point.

Where's your proof? *Phhbbbtttssssss*

danyet wrote:There is no question by serious minds that the Hebew Bible is unchanged.

We're talking about the translations, dude. And I'm challenging your view on the real Bible in Hebrew, too. Since Lalee said it's hard to understand God because our IQ is limited unlike his, how do you know those men understood his wills? Their knowledge was limited; therefore, how sure are you to say they'd understood everything? How sure are you to say God explained to them those verses word by word?

danyet wrote:The question is about the New Testament. But the only question is "why were some books chosen and others not?".

I guess you already have an answer. What's it?

danyet wrote:There are no changes in the New Testament. There are only good accurate translations and poor translations which can easily be verified by anyone by checking the original Greek New Testament. This can be done by anyone who bothers to go to their book store and look at a Greek Lexicon. All the words are numbered and explained line by line.

The real meaning in every language would lose its orignal meaning when it's translated to another language. You can't deny this fact. It happens to the Bible also. Human's mind is limited, remember?

danyet wrote:Your bickering and arguing this point only show me how little you know about the subject at hand!

And you know what they say about opinions!

Don't you dare turing on your bickering faucet! I must warn you I have sharp teeth and know how to bite. Now my claws are also sharpen.

MissLT · Post by **MissLT** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:20 am

jeffcox wrote:
I did use the word 'change' once and I would have prefered the word 'modified' in that I believe exact translations are not possible in all aspects of any language.

Exactly! Who knows if the Hebrew Bible is a word of God or not, but the thing is all the other translations are not. It's a work of human.

MissLT · Post by **MissLT** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:27 am

jeffcox wrote:
I do not despise God, I cannot despise what does not exist!

My aunt once told me that one cannot make a certain statement of something he is uncertain. Life is a mystery; there are so many things that we cannot be able to prove yet because of our limited knowledge. We can't even cure cancer, for crying out loud. Or humans once thought the world was flat until some dude proved it wrong. Who knows in the future that we could prove the existence of God.... by science.

MissLT · Post by **MissLT** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:29 am

Rach wrote:
danyet wrote:I have read some of the books not chosen for the NT and it is clear that there were fakes
The question that pops up in my mind by reading your lines: who chose and rated them to be the real word of God? Human beings? Some years ago I read a very interesting book about the Dead Sea scrolls, I always asked myself since then, why weren't they chosen for the bibel?

What's it about?

jeffcox · Post by **jeffcox** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:17 am

LennyeTran:

it's all a question of belief.
Provide evidence for or against... it all comes down to belief.

I believe that God does not exist. Therefore, I make my comments based on what I believe, as do those who believe.

As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, I hope Danyet could shed some light on that. He has great knowledge and I enjoy learning from him.

By the way, I love your style... so... masterful and prrrr... meowwww

I bet your claws really are sharp.

Danyet, a question for you: who said, or where is it said, that the Bible is the Word of God? I mean, is it the Bible itself that says this? Was this said in the Old Testament and the Hebrew Bible, too? If there is no concrete proof that God exists, then there is no concrete proof that it is the Word of God, is there?

MissLT · Post by **MissLT** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:48 am

jeffcox wrote:LennyeTran:

it's all a question of belief.
Provide evidence for or against... it all comes down to belief.

I believe that God does not exist. Therefore, I make my comments based on what I believe, as do those who believe.

Now, now, now, now, are you contradicting yourself? Some people believe in God without proof because they "know" he's up there; therefore, they don't want proof. Some people don't believe in God because they think he's not existed, like you said he isn't, since they need proof of God's existence to believe, and so do you. You haven't seen or felt him in your heart. Therefore, you don't believe in something when you can't see its existence. How does it all come down to belief when you don't know if God's existed or not? :? :?

jeffcox · Post by **jeffcox** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:18 am

We all have beliefs. I call myself an athiest because I don't believe in God. I do believe in people. I believe people are good and bad, and it has nothing to do with any God or Devil!

Good point, I did contradict myself a little. I chose the wrong word. Well, it was 2:30 in the morning and I should have been sleeping and my brain was already trying to .

When I said I believe that God does not exist, I meant that I trust my feelings and opinion on this matter, as in the second definition below. Perhaps I should have said: I assert that God does not exist.

▶an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
▶a firmly held opinion or conviction.

:?

Rach · Post by **Rach** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:13 pm

LennyeTran wrote:What's it about?

In this book the autor assumed the scrolls being written by Essenic priests, there was a community of Essenes not far away from the cavaties where the scrolls were found. As far as I remember about 800 scrolls and text fragments were found, a few of them are the oldest hebreic bible manuscripts ever found, they are all dated between 300 bc and 100 ad. Some of the textes are very "heretic" (as the church would call them;-), because the content comes from the Gnostizism, a religious movement that was working against the authorities of its time. For example, they believed everybody can achieve resurrection, very heretic for itself;-). Or they teached that everybody is able to contact Him, no priests needed;-), what a dreadful thought for every church. A proverb of the scrolls that I remember: "The house of God is not made of stone". I really love that one;-).

MissLT · Post by **MissLT** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:22 pm

jeffcox wrote:We all have beliefs. I call myself an athiest because I don't believe in God. I do believe in people. I believe people are good and bad, and it has nothing to do with any God or Devil!

Good point, I did contradict myself a little. I chose the wrong word. Well, it was 2:30 in the morning and I should have been sleeping and my brain was already trying to .

When I said I believe that God does not exist, I meant that I trust my feelings and opinion on this matter, as in the second definition below. Perhaps I should have said: I assert that God does not exist.

▶an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
▶a firmly held opinion or conviction.

:?

So are you saying you wouldn't believe in God even if science or whatever could prove God's existence?

Rach · Post by **Rach** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:25 pm

LennyeTran wrote:Who knows in the future that we could prove the existence of God.... by science.

Yeah, a very interesting thought. I do not believe in God either in the way probably most religious people do, I mean in that "personalized" manner. Then I'm perhaps atheistic, too? I have no idea. But I think we all believe in something, if it's only life for itself, the nature, the humans or whatever, then perhaps atheism doesn't exist at all?

Rach · Post by **Rach** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:29 pm

jeffcox wrote:If there is no concrete proof that God exists,

Well, where is the concrete proof that God does not exist?

MissLT · Post by **MissLT** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:36 pm

Rach wrote: For example, they believed everybody can achieve resurrection, very heretic for itself;-). Or they teached that everybody is able to contact Him, no priests needed;-), what a dreadful thought for every church. A proverb of the scrolls that I remember: "The house of God is not made of stone". I really love that one;-).

Yeah, they don't believe in reincarnation because it's a very dangerous idea. If one could come back one life after another, what would be the point of the Judgement Day? What would be the point of believing in Jesus as a savior? Etc.

I remember when I was a little kid and started to learn how to read. I would read anything I found in my house. At that time, my family and my cousin's family were living together. My aunt and uncle had a whole bookcase of books about Christianity, ranging from children level to adult level. I loved reading those children books because they had cute pictures, especially the Old Testament book with its cute pictures.

I remember the first part of the Old Testament had pictures of humans getting punished for worshipping cows, objects, building skycrapers up to the sky, etc. As I grew older, I realized it was people of different religions who got punished in that Old Testament. How ironic! Getting punished because of worshipping different religions.

Danyet · Post by **Danyet** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:36 pm

LennyeTran wrote:
danyet wrote:I have already told you where the proof is that the hebrew Bible has not been changed in at least 2500 - 3000 years by as much as a letter...twice! Yet you still all argue this point.
Where's your proof? *Phhbbbtttssssss*

Google The Dead Sea Scrols;;;;;;;I won't say it again.

You are right about translations. That is why there are different brands of Christianity. But They all agree on the basics.
This the reason that you will not find me preaching. Even I am not sure of certain things.

MissLT · Post by **MissLT** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:41 pm

Rach wrote: But I think we all believe in something, if it's only life for itself, the nature, the humans or whatever, then perhaps atheism doesn't exist at all?

This is exactly why I don't think there's no such thing as atheism. By definition, atheism is

Atheism:

–noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

If you believe there is no God, then by definition it's atheism. However, you "believe," so how could it be a "non-belief" at all? You do believe in something. It's just that it's not God. Buddhists don't believe in God, but people do call it a "religion." Therefore, atheism, by all means, is a religion to me, a religion of not believing in God.

Danyet · Post by **Danyet** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:41 pm

jeffcox wrote:
I did use the word 'change' once and I would have prefered the word 'modified' in that I believe exact translations are not possible in all aspects of any language.

Part of the reason for my post on "change' is for the benefit of those in the Muslims Middle East forum who believe that the Bible was changed by the Jews. This is clearly NOT THE CASE.

This is an extremely important for Muslims because if the Bible was not change then it proves Mohammed was a fake!

Rach · Post by **Rach** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:17 am

LennyeTran wrote:Yeah, they don't believe in reincarnation because it's a very dangerous idea. If one could come back one life after another, what would be the point of the Judgement Day? What would be the point of believing in Jesus as a savior? Etc.

Exactly

. The catholic church in the first centuries actually believed in reincarnation, a fact that really surprised me. They changed it in some strange council, don't remember when this happened exactly. The Essenes believed in reincarnation, too, and because some historians assume a link between Jesus and the Essenes, I really believe that what is written in the bible or part of the teaching of today's christian churches, is not quite the same that Jesus actually teached.

How ironic! Getting punished because of worshipping different religions.

Yeah, it's very sad. So much people got killed (or still get killed) in the name of God/Allah or however they call him. In the name of god... how ironic.

MissLT · Post by **MissLT** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:23 am

Rach wrote: Exactly . The catholic church in the first centuries actually believed in reincarnation, a fact that really surprised me. They changed it in some strange council, don't remember when this happened exactly.

I remember asking my teacher why. He said it was because of money. And he laughed. So I'm not quite sure if he was joking about it or it was real true. :?

jeffcox · Post by **jeffcox** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:34 am

I think that there is no God. That is my statement.
Call it belief, call it opinion... call it what you will. I'm not going to fight over the exact wording as I'm a self-confessed lethargic non-believer.

As far as I am concerned, there is no God. I think that qualifies me as a trainee athieist! :?

LennyeTran: If God existed, I really wouldn't like him anyway. I've seen too much pain and suffering to believe that it's all for our 'spiritual good'. And even then, I've lived a pretty comfortable life.

When people can't explain what happens in life through the Bible, they say 'the ways of God are beyond those who are below Him' or some such idea.

Rach · Post by **Rach** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:42 am

LennyeTran wrote:I remember asking my teacher why. He said it was because of money. And he laughed. So I'm not quite sure if he was joking about it or it was real true. :?

Wasn't it everything about money in the church? I think you have pointed out the reasons very good, if there was such a thing like reincarnation, why should anybody need Jesus as a saviour? I looked what Wikipedia sais to all that and I found that council, it was the second council of Constantinople:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_and_reincarnation

Origen, an early Christian theologian who lived during the third century, wrote that "The soul has neither beginning nor end. [They] come into this world strengthened by the victories or weakened by the defeats of their previous existence" (De Principiis). This belief was not unique to Origen; early Christians believed that the soul exists prior to the conception and birth of a person, a belief that many then-popular variants of Greek philosophy accepted....

In AD 553, more than three hundred years after Origen's death, the Emperor Justinian issued an edict against Origen, whose writings had by then become very divisive, and convened the Second Council of Constantinople. This Council issued "The Anathemas Against Origen". The first sentence reads, "If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema."....

The decision of the Second Council of Constantinople regarding the pre-existence of souls has never been disputed since by traditional Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant theologians and mainstream denominations.

Danyet · Post by **Danyet** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:49 am

What the Catholic councils agreed to or disagreed on is of little importance to Christianity because they are not an authority on Christianity. They are simply a political organization as corupt as anything else.

CHristianity is between one person and his Creator. That's all!

Lalee · Post by **Lalee** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:08 pm

jeffcox wrote: Anyway, I love your ideas and the fact that we can debate them. I hope that my comments do not offend you, or my choice of expression. If I did, it was not my intention.
It's great to debate these issues, I'm learning a lot from everybody's comments.

Jeff, your comments never offended me so don't worry. Actually it's interesting to know how some people think about God.

Lalee · Post by **Lalee** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:11 pm

LennyeTran wrote: That means you don't believe in the Judgment Day? :?

Of course I do. That's written in the Bible. The Judgment Day is not the end. You know that our souls are eternal, right? So if our body dies, our souls have to go somewhere and live in that place forever. So what's the end? I'd say there's no end.

Danyet · Post by **Danyet** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 8:06 pm

Lalee wrote:
LennyeTran wrote: That means you don't believe in the Judgment Day? :?
Of course I do. That's written in the Bible. The Judgment Day is not the end. You know that our souls are eternal, right? So if our body dies, our souls have to go somewhere and live in that place forever. So what's the end? I'd say there's no end.

Nowhere in the Bible is it written that the soul is immortal. It is written that "The soul that sinneth dies"!!!

Your idea that the soul lives forever is from Greek pagans and adopted by the Roman Catholics in the 3rd century.

Lalee · Post by **Lalee** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:19 pm

danyet wrote: Nowhere in the Bible is it written that the soul is immortal. It is written that "The soul that sinneth dies"!!!
Your idea that the soul lives forever is from Greek pagans and adopted by the Roman Catholics in the 3rd century.

Well I was referring to the spirit. To me soul and spirit mean pretty much the same thing but according the Bible, it seems they're different since it mentions both, soul and spirit. For example:
Genesis 2,7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Also they say "The holy Spirit" and not "the holy soul."
The spirit originates from the breath of God when He created Adam and that's why it's eternal.
If the spirit were not be eternal, they wouldn't be anything for us after we die here.

Danyet · Post by **Danyet** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 8:45 am

That is my point. There is nothing for us when we die. The Bible clearly tells us this. We have to wait for the Resurection.

Ecclesiastes 9:5-6, 10, NIV. "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten. Their love, their hate and their jealousy have long since vanished;

Read this:
http://en.bibleinfo.com/topics/topic.html?id=55

Danyet · Post by **Danyet** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 6:02 am

Lalee wrote: For example:
Genesis 2,7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

You must go to the original Hebrew to ubderstand this correctly.
The Hebrew word for 'soul' is simply 'living being' and is also used for animals. Animals are souls!
Man is a soul!

The Hebrew word for "spirit" is "nephesh" and it has the meaning "breath".

Any idea that the soul is immortal is preconceived.

Lalee · Post by **Lalee** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 6:07 am

danyet wrote:You must go to the original Hebrew to ubderstand this correctly.
The Hebrew word for 'soul' is simply 'living being' and is also used for animals. Animals are souls!
Man is a soul!

The Hebrew word for "spirit" is "nephesh" and it has the meaning "breath".

Any idea that the soul is immortal is preconceived.

So there's a difference between soul and spirit, right?

jeffcox · Post by **jeffcox** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:35 pm

The body and the soul are one. The soul is our affections, memory and reason.

These would be forgotten in reincarnation, I would think.

The Spirit is the 'higher plane' and the one that is linked to the Spirit of God. It is the Spirit that must acknowledge God, I think.

If there were to be any life after death, it would have to be on the Spiritual plane.

I have one more question refering to "The Word of God"

If God punished humanity for creating the Tower of Babel and divided the people into languages so that they could not communicate...

How can we believe the Word of God is THE Word of God? Surely, the Word He gave to those was only intended for those people, since he knew they would not be able to communicate it well to any others who spoke a different language.

Therefore, only those who understood the words God used would be able to follow God's teachings. What happens to the rest of the people?

Just an idea to consider!

Danyet · Post by **Danyet** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 6:58 pm

jeffcox wrote:
Therefore, only those who understood the words God used would be able to follow God's teachings. What happens to the rest of the people?

Just an idea to consider!

The short answer is that Yahweh will judge everyone on what was in their hearts.
It does not matter what they knew or understood. If they were truly trying to be decent life forms they will be accepted by Yahweh. He will judge. If you believe that Yahweh is “good” then you should have no problem accepting His judgment.

Relating to The Tower Of Babel:

That is exactly what happened! God chose to communicate His plan with one man. Abraham and his descendants, Israel and those who "spiritually" belong to the the group "descendants of Abraham".

This was relatively shortly after the Great Flood and after the time of the Tower of Babel.

Through Abraham and his descendants, Yahweh would keep in touch with the world until the time of the Gentiles, now, when everyone has access to Him.

After the Flood a man named Nimrod became powerful and built a great city in Mesopotamia. He declared himself a god and had an incestuous relationship with his mother. The people that still remembered Yahweh killed Nimrod and cut him up into pieces.

The life of Nimrod is the founding story behind most pagan religions in the Middle East and Europe.

The most famous name from antiquity after the flood, from the pagan perspective, was the Biblical character Nimrod who was responsible for the events that led to the division of mankind into the hands of the “sons of God.”

Nimrod is credited in Genesis as being “a mighty warrior on the earth” and “a mighty hunter before the Lord.” He is known as the first “empire builder” and through force of conquest he established his empire over the whole of Mesopotamia.

According to the Bible he first ruled from the cities of Babel, Erech, Accad and Calneh in southern Mesopotamia, and then he moved north and built the cities of Ninevah, Reheboth-Ir, Caleh and Resen.

According to Josephus it was under the authority of Nimrod that mankind attempted to build the blasphemous Tower of Babel.

The role of Nimrod in attempting to building a massive skyscraper to heaven makes sense only with the understanding that Nimrod was a worshiper and follower of the chief of the "sons of God" that we know as Satan. The Tower of Babel was an attempt to gain for Satan what Satan desired according to Isaiah 14:13-14,
“You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’”

Much of humanity was forcefully united under Nimrod, and with him as the authority mankind began to build the rebellious monument known as the Tower of Babel. To remedy the situation God decreed the establishment of different languages and the division of mankind to the seventy angelic powers to manage the affairs of the earth.

Instead of being united against the Creator, humanity would now be divided against the Creator, which would allow for God to continue with His redemptive plan for all humanity, through His own nation Israel.
http://www.redmoonrising.com/worldpowers/awpII.htm

jeffcox · Post by **jeffcox** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:25 am

Thanks Danyet. Some information I already knew, some is new.

Your answer raises two more questions:

If Yahweh, or whatever name is given to the One, understands that you are good, then do you really need to understand His Word? If not, then the fact that you have to recognize and accept him is a fickle wish of His. His desire to be the One. I mean, that's so egoistic and ... human! That's really, really HUMAN.

If God was all Great and Forgiving, and beyond any human vices, then it wouldn't matter if we worship other gods, because they are all Him; the One God. Being good for no reason is much better than being good because you get a reward or you're afraid of 'hell' or other such punishments.

He was to continue his redemptive plan through Israel... so Israel was to spread the Word - that means we could never really understand God... or that Israel was a new beginning and the rest of us do the best we can without Him?

MissLT · Post by **MissLT** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:21 am

Lalee wrote:
LennyeTran wrote: That means you don't believe in the Judgment Day? :?
Of course I do. That's written in the Bible. The Judgment Day is not the end. You know that our souls are eternal, right? So if our body dies, our souls have to go somewhere and live in that place forever. So what's the end? I'd say there's no end.

Well, it's the end to me since the day you're judged is the day you'd be free from sins. If you would become another person or whatever you would be with no sin, then how could it not be the end?

sweethuman · Post by **sweethuman** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:48 am

byron wrote: Then there is the Koran which incorporates some of both and post dates Mohammed.

The koran has nothing at all to do with the Bible. The Koran contradicts the Bible and was written by a mass murderer and his scribes, Mohammed. It was written some 600 years after the life of Jesus.[/quote]

You are not allowed to say bad of any religion or any religious book. Just talk about your religion

Krisi · Post by **Krisi** » Mon May 25, 2015 12:46 pm

I think we can only speak based on our religious belief. I am not in a position to speak (anything of whatever sort) about other religion because it is known to all that from the time we opened our eyes to the religion we believe in, we are always taught to behave in accordance to our religious teachings, (this teachings and learning will go on until there is life on earth).

Krisi · Post by **Krisi** » Mon May 25, 2015 1:16 pm

A friend I have known had in mind that every individual she meets who is a believer/follower of another religion has the intention of converting her to another religion. This is because her mind has been set to convince other people to join her religion.

If you're a God believer, I understand that we believe in One God.

Have a nice day!

Krisi · Post by **Krisi** » Wed May 27, 2015 1:57 pm

respect.
be heedful of what you say when it comes to religion.

Krisi · Post by **Krisi** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 9:56 pm

byron wrote:...
In English society it is said that there are two things you never discuss in a Pub (Bar) one is religion the other is politics.

I think this is true.
1. One can only clearly talk about his/her own religion because that's the only religion (s)he knows well. But, at some point in the future might lead to a never ending conflict with those people who are a believer of another.
2. In politics, each one seems to prove that they are better than the others. Who is fool and who is not!
Only to prove in the end that we are all living in the jungle and must therefore follow one king...

this is why further discussion of any related topic (as above) will just lead to a never ending debate and conflict.

things just go out of shape and proportion so it has to stop somewhere...

Meguenai · Post by **Meguenai** » Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:03 pm

Bible is not proper for humanty because it's full of nonsense, it's right that it mention the birth of Chesus without a father which is true and moreover other miracles but it also mention that the prophet Lot(peace be upon him) had practiced adultery with 2 of his daughters after they made him drunk...
1.Do you really believe that a prophet of God will be drunk (knowing that vintage Is according to his commandments is taboo)
2.Do you really believe that a prophet of God will make adultery with his daughters(A dirty Obscene scabby criminal will not practice adultery with a daughter of him..what do you think about Lot the decent,the pietist,the thrutful honest,how is that gonna happens)...
It's typeface, the current edition is not the same as Chesus revelation.. throughout the ages Bible was destorted.
That's not mean that Bible is all not true.

EnglishClub ESL Forums

About Bible

religions

Re: About Bible .

Re: Religion - About Bible

Re: Religion

Re: Religion

Re: About Bible .

Re: About Bible