• right now

  Adding your comment:
• Exo
  April 12, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  God's own word. Where do you find that? Surely the Bible is not God's own word-it is mans own word. And if you haven't noticed, the Bible has been interpreted many many different ways-how are you to conquer this?
• slder4crst
  April 12, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  the bible is writen by 40 different authors, big names including: moses, david, paul, john, and many others. was writen in 3 different languages: greek, hebrew and arimaic. 3 different continents: europe, aisia and africa. writen over a time period 1600 years. and it dosent controdict itself once. true that the book was hand written by man, however each word was directly inspired by God. (and by inspired i mean it was God's idia and he communicated it through dreams, visions, prophets ect). and as for the bible being interpreted, the bible can only directly interpreted. the interpretation is not relitive to the individual, rather the true interpretation of a passage can be applyed different ways, for example (1 timothy 4:12)says "do not let anyone look down on you because are young but set an example for the believers in speech, life, love, faith and in purity." ok i think the interpretation of this is pretty clear, but if you want me to spell it out to you, it means go ahead live moraly and properly and set an example to those older and younger than you. now thats the interpretation, it doesent change based on who you are. But the way you apply it to your life though is different for each individual. for example a 6th grader might set an example to a bunch of 7th graders in the way he respects his teachers. (setting an example in speech life and love)........and this is how i conquer that.
• • nathanprophet
    June 15, 2009
    Edit | Reply

    Bible riddled with contradictions

    You must read the Bible with total belief and without any objective analysis. Just a cursory analysis shows many substantial contradictions. Read some of Dr. Bart Ehrman's books. You mind will be opened. He speaks the truth. Find out for yourself - don't drink the Kool-Aid all your life unless you just want to be an ostrich and bury your head in the Christian sand. No a bad idea - see "Ignorance is Bliss" on this website. Just reject reality and facts and be happy. Cheers and peace be with you.
• Joao Camilo
  April 24, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  The bible does contraditct itself several different momments, although this is irrelevant. However, saying it was written in europe,africa and asia is rather untruth, the same culture wrote it and lived in the same area. You do not get celtic writings there or chiense writing there. And the bible have thousand interpretations, like...Kafka books. Considering moderm literature critics consider the interpretation as multiple as the readers, there is absolutely nothing really different on the bible and...Dante.
• slder4crst
  April 30, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  ok first of all my interest is truth and i dont want to be believing in something that controdicts it's self in any way, aspecially since the bible itself claims to the infalible word of God. now i dont know what translation you have read but i can asure you that the origional documents do not controdict themselves. and if there are controdictions, please show me so i many not be decieved any longer. SECONDLY there were multiple locations and cultures in which it was written such as egypt and the areas surounding the mediteranian sea, all of the roman empire, within grees, mesopotamia which is between the euphrates and tigris river in asia. and those are just a few of the locations, if you would like to know even more just look in any study bible. but please dont tell me things to be fact untill you yourself have looked at them. i cirtainly dont claim to have all the answeres but i will cirtainly try to find them and not draw asumptions.
• • Joao Camilo
    August 18, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Does not matter where it was written at all - It was done by the same set of culture. It is like saying a book was written in several places while a writer was in airplane crossing europe. In a given point, they are organized and put together. That is all. For the contradictions, who had nothing to do with original documents, you have two different orders of creation in the genesis, Jesus have two different lineages, The gospels can not even agree about his resurection and death, each one claiming a order of action, meetings and different details.
  • • slder4crst
      October 1, 2006
      Edit | Reply

      here's what i know.

      "For the contradictions, who had nothing to do with original documents".....did you know we have actually 5686 copies of the new testoment documents,dating back to almost 30 to 70 years after the death of christ. and if actually compared to eachother they are all 95% to 99% accruate based on gromatical errors (such as using other words to describe something in a different language.) now with that understood, if the documents are so accurate since that time, (not including the dead sea scroles) there would be witnesses who could testify the accuracy of the writings at the time they were written. the fact that christs crusifiction took place is irefudible since the bible is not the only source that testifies christs death. there are also roman documents found that support this. as for the controdictions. If you read the Bible, at face value, without a preconceived bias for finding errors – you will find it to be a coherent, consistent, and relatively easy-to-understand book. Yes, there are difficult passages. Yes, there are verses that appear to contradict each other. but you must remember that the Bible was written by approximately 40 different authors over a period of around 1500 years. Each writer wrote from a different perspective, to a different audience, for a different purpose. We should expect some differences! However, a difference is not a contradiction or an error. It is only an error if there is absolutely no conceivable manner in which the verses or passages can be reconciled. Even if i or you do not have the answer right now, that does not mean the answer does not exist. Many have found a supposed error in the Bible in relation to history or geography only to find out that the Bible is correct once further archaeological evidence is discovered. so if you are desiring to know the truth continue to look for it.
    • • Joao Camilo
        November 11, 2006
        Edit | Reply
        You are confusing. The fact that several versions of a document exist and share similarity is NORMAL, not unusual. Tradition and copies are responsable for doing it. Even more considering there was members of the religious groups of Hebrews specially trained to make the copies! There would be witness? Sure, but you have noted they are NOT writen at the time of happenings. If I write a fiction, you can vow that if I copy it, it is a correct copy. But that would not make my fiction any real. And you obviously did not notice: This does not explain how they contradict themselves even with your arguments and how the hebrews actually claimed the Gospels did not happened as such actually. The Bible (and other gospels) ARE THE ONLY source about Christ. There is NO roman documents to prove it (unless you refer to roman documents writen 100,200 years after his death and basead already in the gospels) I find it a coherent book - full of contradictions and easy to understand is funny considering the writers of the bible had a hermeneutic approach of infinite interpretations. The fundementalists are those more appart from the original writers than anyone else... Yeah, I know the Bible have several authors and derived from oral tradition but you seem to not know it - you claimed there would be witness to attest the veracity of the bible just a few lines before! When one place say that your father is someone then in the other it says it is someone else, then it is a contradiction. No matter the audience or perspective you do not change your lineage. Actually, many found several things in the Bible to be right just to discover there is no archeological evidence for it. Quite the contrary of what you claim.
• Michael Dennis Rivers
  June 8, 2006
  Edit | Reply

  allot

  allot is spelt "a lot"
• • nathanprophet
    June 15, 2009
    Edit | Reply

    "allot"

    It could be short for "allotment," or "tolla" backward. Did you mean "spelled" rather than "spelt"?

Please register or login to comment! It's fast and totally free!

• right now

  Adding your comment:
• agachak
  July 3, 2009
  Edit | Reply

  btw only omniscient is required to be transcendended

Please register or login to comment! It's fast and totally free!