-55 votes

3 Good Examples of Bible Errancy

- Daniel 12:2 raises the prospect of a third class of people, who will not be resurrected to a glorious afterlife, nor to an inglorious punishment, but will simply stay dead. This is not in keeping with the traditional Christian teaching on such matters, which is based on passages like John 5:28-29

UPDATE: Kudos to tfichter who has succeeded in finding a potentially valid resolution for Daniel 12:2 by using a different original language literal translation than the one I used. "tfichter"'s comment can be found here:
- http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2857934

However, because Gods chosen translators/linguists were apparently unable to correctly translate this verse for modern day Bibles, a red flag needs to be raised, that perhaps Gods original choice of words for this verse was less than perfect. Remember, God claims to have invented the languages and to know the future (this supposedly all-knowing God would therefore have foreseen this ambiguity). And how many of even todays Christians in third world countries could reasonably be expected to search out the correct meaning of this verse? Most of them do not even have access to the Internet. And we still do not know with certainty that tflichter's explanation is the correct one. It's almost as if the Bible was soliciting to receive a black eye here (this seems woefully sloppy).

- The Bible (apparently regardless of which translation we look at) clearly contradicts itself regarding Jesus' last words on the cross:
Luke 23:46 ""Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last."
John 19:30 ""It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."

Note: There Can Only Be One Final Phrase Uttered. Neither of the above two verses were stated in context to possibly be the second or third to the last phrase uttered by Jesus, but rather the final phrase uttered.

- God's name Yahweh, was given to Abraham (in Genesis), and yet later (in Exodus) was stated to have been kept from Abraham and others:
Genesis 15:7 "And he said to him [Abram], I am Yahweh who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess."
Exodus 6:3 "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob [each individually], as God Almighty, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them."
[The reader can verify the use of the name Yahweh in these verses from the original Hebrew using the online Interlinear translation at http://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm ]

Bonus: Christian Bible Scholar Reluctantly Says Jesus Did Not Die On Cross

- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7849852/Jesus-did-n...


The Positive Message Behind This Post:

Many organized religions, including those stemming from Christianity/The Bible, have misrepresented the most important thing in the universe, which of course is love. Without understanding the true principles of love in the proper context, humanity is helplessly hindered from achieving world peace.

This is why I wrote the article "Sowing The Seeds For A Peace Revolution". It offers the opportunity for the general public to properly understand the truth of this matter. People really ought to read this article in its entirety:

- http://www.dailypaul.com/241312/sowing-the-seeds-for-a-peace...

It is well and good if people wish to offer their two cents regarding the 3+ prospective Bible contradictions discussed throughout this thread. However, MORE THAN A THOUSAND TIMES OF GREATER IMPORTANCE is correctly understanding and applying the true essence of love.

So who then will be the first Christian to acknowledge that to this end I have INDEED spoken the truth?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

...

He said he's never met a christian who knows the bible better than him.. I have to wonder if he's ever met any Christians, because he doesn't know much about the bible at all. Sounds like he's never read it himself but got all of his info from atheist websites. He says the christian explanation of 'thou shalt not kill' is that it is only speaking of Jews, i.e. 'thou shalt not kill Jews' but killing anyone else is ok.. That's just silly. I've never heard that from any christian (theologian or layman) ever. The normal explanation of the command is that the word for 'kill' means 'murder' in the original language in it's context.

SteveMT's picture

FYI:

Did you know that the words "Bible" and "Christian" are capitalized? Look to yourself before attacking others.

who cares ?

People know what I mean. language is not static, it is ever changing, and linguistic prescriptivism is unjustified. dictionaries and grammar's convey the rules of language that people already use, they don't prescribe what people 'ought' to say, but when people decide to talk or write differently, if enough people do it, then the dictionaries and grammars are rewritten accordingly. it's not a sin to say you ain't gonna do somethin. you can consider my non-capitalization a micro-dialectical rule depicting informal communication if you wish..

SteveMT's picture

You just made a big point in my argument, b.

"...language is not static, it is ever changing.."

God is smarter than we are, so He ought to know this also. God is unchangeable, and is a constant. I agree with that. Why then would He communicate with man in such a way using "ever changing" words?

...

Maybe God is just smarter than you and has a purpose for it that you don't understand. I see this mindset from atheists time and time again, that if God doesn't do things the way they would do it, then he must not exist. It's not really much of an argument. I don't think it is God's intention to communicate clearly to everyone. The bible mentions that God didn't want his gospel to be spread to certain parts of the world at certain times, so it's no surprise that he might allow something like language to prevent certain things. Sometimes he lets people fall into their own pits which they dig for themselves to demonstrate the destructiveness of sin, and sometimes he lifts them up to demonstrate his grace. Who are we to tell him how he ought to behave? It is not as if we are entitled to anything from God, he gives what he will to whom he will with no obligation. If we are all sinners worthy of God's punishment, then anything less than the full punishment due is actually a form of mercy, and if he wants to give his gospel to some, then that is his prerogative to be gracious and show unmerited favor where he will.

SteveMT's picture

I'll take the highroad with your comment & turn the other cheek.

I point out something to you that you can improve upon and learn from, and you turn around and make a condescending comment back to me. Have your Bible studies taught you this or did you learn this somewhere else? I am not an atheist, and I do believe in God, a merciful compassionate, and loving God. A don't believe in a God that killed babies, pregnant women, men, women, children, or animals at anytime in history. A don't believe in a God that spares 32,000 virgins for the sake of the soldiers of Moses. I believe in a consistent, logical God who is unchangeable and who is manifested in the structure of Nature and the Universe.

You comment about God not wanting the gospel spread to certain parts of the world is rubbish! Ever read Mark 16:15?

And He said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

I am of the opinion that there could a true word of God contained in the Bible, but there are parts of the Bible that are surely not the word of God. The Bible was voted on by voting clergy members who had a vested interest in their vote. Some books were thrown out. Other were voted in; the votes are all cast by men.

hmmm

I don't think it is condescending on my part to imply that God might be smarter than you, or anyone. I would put myself in the same boat (same boat as you, not God). I apologize if I came across as offending you. I don't see how your response is really turning the other cheek. I agree that God is consistent, logical, and unchangeable, but I also believe that God is not limited by our understanding. Just because we think something could have been done in a better way doesn't mean that our way is actually a better way.

Regarding Mark 16:15, there are a few problems with your view. First the authenticity of verses 9-20 are in question by most Bible scholars(including conservative ones). It's normal that churches give disclaimers if they ever preach through Mark and get to this section, some churches won't even cover that section because it is generally rejected as authentic because of manuscript evidence. Check any popular commentary or even the footnotes in almost any study bible. Second, The fact that God tells his creation to do something does not mean that God himself wants to use it to accomplish the apparent goal of the command. He may have other purposes for commanding evangelization besides the evangelization itself, (eg. sanctification of the evangelists). Third, The bible itself explicitly proves my point that God did not want the gospel to go everywhere at every time:

Acts 16:5-7 "So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily. And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them."

Your voting scenario isn't very accurate. The canonization wasn't an arbitrary voting on what to keep and what to throw out, it was more of a recognition of what was already accepted by Christian churches. They merely made official what was already in use by faithful Christians. If you look at the contents of the books which were not declared to be scripture, it should be self evident why they were never accepted. You can also nearly reconstruct the information of the new testament from early patristic quotations prior to the councils of canonization, and can see their reverent use of the scripture which later became canonized. These were church fathers who were students and friends of the apostles picked by Jesus, and students of those students and students of those students, etc.

SteveMT's picture

That is a given, b. God is smarter than anybody.

That goes without saying. I'm too sensitive for my own good so I was being overly defensive. Apologies back to you.

Are you telling me that Mark 16:15 is wrong? Are you telling me that Jesus did not say these words? I am flabbergasted by your disclosure about this passage because it remains in every Bible and in every Red Letter Edition of the Bible and is preached in every Christian church in the world! Those words [now NOT] spoken by Jesus are in RED! Amazing, thanks for telling me that.

Do you again see that you are making my point about God not communicating to us with words. In essence, you are saying to disregard that part of the Bible, to throw it out. The preachers using this passage in their sermons are preaching heresy and false information. The congregations that are listening are being feed pipe dreams of what they want to hear and read, but not the truth. This is anathema to the Almighty. Wow! I say wow that because that is a "good" part of this book. Now, if we can only throw out the "bad" parts we will be getting somewhere!

Through this maze of words that are all losing and changing their meanings and some, by you own admission, should not even be there, you still believe that this how God wanted to communicate with us? I do not. It's a starting point, but not the conclusion.

...

Disclosure? This is common knowledge that there is a textual variant here. You must have very little Bible knowledge. The fact that it is less reliable doesn't mean that the information there is wrong or right, it only means that it's not considered to be reliable as inspired by God. People can write true things without them being inspired. Anybody that's serious about studying the Bible would know of this variant. It's in practically every commentary, practically every study bible, probably most bibles with footnotes would at least have a brief mention of it. there are a lot of churches that don't take the bible seriously, but any church that does would mention the textual variant. It is not as if bibles that contain those verses say that it is inspired, on the contrary they explicitly specify that it is in question, you only have to look at the footnotes in the margin or at the bottom of the page. Also the presence or absence of that passage has no real effect on doctrine or Christianity. there is one other variant as significant as this one, but those are the only two large variants, the rest are much less significant. Whether you want to include them or not as scripture has no bearing on my argument. I gave you 3 reasons and that was only one reason your argument was weak.

You seem to assume that it is considered scripture just because it's under the same cover and on the same paper as the inspired word? Did you know that the verse and chapter system didn't exist in the originals either? But they're on the same paper in the same binding and every church uses them and every pastor preaches with them, so you must think that Christians ought to consider them inspired? That's just silliness. The fact that the Russian bible arranges the psalms with a slightly different numbering system has nothing to do with biblical inerrancy, you're just arguing against the bible from ignorance.. that's not meant to be condescending, it's just a fact that you were ignorant of textual variants, and yet you think you know enough about the bible to reject parts of it. Again, I don't think I'm better or necessarily smarter than you, but I think you know very little about the bible. please watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuiayuxWwuI It might answer some of your questions about God's use of words too. I'm sure you can come up with plenty of new objections to the Bible by learning more about it, but maybe you will give up the weaker ones.

SteveMT's picture

...

To summarize your believes, there are multiple variants of the Bible with some passages having more authority then others. Some passages from these variants are more inspired by God and others are less inspired by God, but even the passages that are not inspired by God are true, even if the origins are not clear. If the words that were put into the mouth of Jesus in Mark16:15 never happened, it does not matter; this fact is common knowledge and only ignorant people are not aware that Jesus did not say these words. It sounds good even if not true. Anyone who does not know this common fact (as well as many others I am assuming) is not serious about studying the Bible.

My observations:

Is this how you believe that the Almighty has chosen to communicate with all of mankind? God's officially-stamped version of communication with man by the Christian Church is through this myriad of textual variants and nuances in word meanings and languages that were spoken (oops, no...those particular words might not have been spoken unless you know the details dummy!). God purposefully buried all of this eternity-determining information for going either to heaven or hell in such a morass? It would take a lifetime to decipher what is the true inspired word of God, what is the almost true inspired word of God, and what is not. No one is going to make it up there if God purposefully did this.

Will you tell me that this paraphrased passage also has doubtful origins? The entire Bible can be summed up by these words whether you say that are inspired or they were written by the Biblical 1,000 monkeys.

Matthew 22:36-40
Love God, and love your neighbor

Knowing the rest of the Bible is secondary to this and merely window dressing, IMO. Why devote so much time to deciphering the nuances in Bible passages when these verses are all that you need to know? Taking a walk in the forest would make many feel closer to God than spending years trying to figure-out who said what to whom thousands of years ago. I choose not to ascribe any violent acts to God. If you do, that is your choice. I hope that we can at least agree on this core passage from the Bible.

..

"To summarize your believes..."

wrong... you've misunderstood and misrepresented me..

Either something is inspired or it isn't. There are a couple of places where text which was not in the original manuscripts was recorded in later manuscripts, and have been included in bibles and documented for what they are. If you didn't know about them, you probably just haven't been looking closely at the pages of your bible. If a variant is not inspired by God, it MIGHT be true, it might not be. You've misunderstood me there. a variant might at least be considered church tradition even if it's not the inspired word of God. But the variants in the bible are insignificant and don't present a different message. The majority of textual variants are things like spelling and word order, which are completely invisible once translated to English. For example, Greek uses a different case system where word order is not important, so some manuscripts switch the word order around because there is no meaning difference with word order changes in that language. it is nevertheless a textual variant, and Christians have known of these types of things all along.

Everyone is ignorant in one way or another, you seem to think I use the term 'ignorance' as a pejorative, but I'm speaking of it in the literal sense, not an affectual one. But it is a pretty basic concept in Bible study. It's not like you have to find a $400 scholarly book to find out about variants. It's in practically every bible. Anyone who is serious about their Bible study would at least look at the footnotes, but most would read numerous bible commentaries and versions if they study the Bible religiously.

"Is this how you believe that the Almighty has chosen to communicate with all of mankind?"

Well the textual transmission of scripture IS how he communicated to our generation, what I think about what might be a better way is irrelevant, God's ways are higher than ours. I would never have thought of defeating spiritual powers through Jesus allowing himself to be crucified. Making a God to suit yourself is basically idolatry, a violation of one of the ten commandments.

Consider the words of Jesus in regards to your question about why God would communicate in a cryptic way:

Matthew 13:10-13 "Then the disciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand."

Someone else had posted these verses earlier, but they are relevant, especially 1st Corinthians:

Proverbs: 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.

1Corinthians 1:18-25 "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

"Why devote so much time to deciphering the nuances in Bible passages when these verses are all that you need to know? "

Christians view the Bible as God's word, they love God, so they want to know as much about him as they possibly can. Christians have a relationship with God, listening to his word is how they get closer to him. Sure it's complicated, but human relationships can be complicated too. But a lot of times Christians are just on the defensive responding to attacks on the Bible by people who hate God's word, which forces Christians to have an understanding of the nuances. A lot of the early church councils which discussed a lot of nuances were formed in response to heresies from other groups such as Gnostics and Pelagians. There is also a Biblical command to Christians:

2 Timothy 2:15 "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth."

Is there ever a time when a violent act might be justified to you? My take is that all of mankind has sinned and is worthy of God's wrath, so anything less than the wrath of God is actually a form of mercy. so when ungodly nations (who torture babies and throw them in the fire for their gods/idols) are killed by God through war, it was actually a period of time that they were not in hell, so it is not the full punishment they deserved from a truly holy God who requires perfection in holiness. The real question should be why doesn't God judge everyone for their sin immediately instead of being patient with them, and the answer would be because he is merciful. 2Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."

Ouch!

Never mind the plank in my eye! It's the speck in yours that offends me!

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

B, Normally people don't even listen to alternate views

I appreaciate your feedback. If you have time, listen to the inteview below and let me know your views. This interview really hit home with me because I was heavily involved with the church for 35 years and when I "let go of God"...man did people change the way they treated me. I've lost friends and family members JUST because I no longer believe in God. It was very troubling and difficult for me at first but once the pain past....I've never been happier.

About the podcast:
The son of two prominent theologians, and a former star of Christian radio, talks about the social, professional, and moral challenges of losing God, and finding himself...

http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1728_thinking_athe...

hmm

Personal barriers go up in many directions when people change in any direction, I think I know what it's like, but I think it has more to do with the people involved than the change itself. a lot of people have been put to death for becoming Christians. In nazi Germany, a lot of pastors were thrown out of their churches, and replaced because they wouldn't change their views in favor of the nazi's. Some imprisoned, some killed.

Here's my braindump after listening,though it's more random comments than a structured response:

He doesn't sound so well informed either, he has some of the same issues as the other guy. He says Christians say to ignore the old testament, which makes me wonder what kind of Christians he was involved with, as I've never heard that from Christians. He says people said he was never a Christian when he left, and then compares himself to Dan Barker as his rebuttal. Dan Barker wasn't much in christian spheres either; a pentecostal youth pastor? come on. I have doubts about the prominence of his parents, as well, its very easy to start a church or write sermons for people who speak at them. The reason people would say he was never a Christian is because of a scripture which teaches that those who were truly Christian would stay Christian. People look at the outward appearance of profession of faith, but God looks at the heart.
Then he complains that people use the bible to support the bible, but even in a court of Law, if someone is on trial, their own testimony is admissible as evidence. His parents seemed committed to young earth creationism, but the principle of charity would have him evaluate Christianity based on the most cogent forms rather than the most easily faulted forms.
He objects to pre-mosaic incest, although there were no incest laws at the time, which is anachronistic.
He says that since the bible says not to kill, he thinks it's inconsistent that God would kill. To me it's an issue of property rights, if all life was designed and created by God, parents are only stewards of the children that God puts under them. So if God owns the life, its not our prerogative to take it, but it is his prerogative to take it. He goes on to say that this alleged inconsistency makes it difficult to know whether God is good; probably appealing to euthyphro's dilemma(which isn't a great argument either). But it seems inconsistent to me that he would be concerned about what is objectively good and evil if he is an atheist with a naturalistic materialistic worldview in which we are all just chance formations of material structures only different from germs in relative perspective, and where good and evil have no real meaning outside of subjectivity. He calls the transmission of scripture 'God's best shot' implying God's failure, preferring it would be sent by e-mail. This seems to be a relevant video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuiayuxWwuI ...Aside from the silly anachronism, this atheist assumes that God would have the same goals as him if he were God, such as e-mail thousands of years ago. It's as if he sees an entitlement for God's creatures, sort of like the liberal welfare people who think the government should pay for their living and their cable TV. He says he thought he was supposed to be the most important creature in the universe to God, and doesn't understand why God would allow confusion. Yet The same bible he encourages people to read demonstrates that God prohibited the gospel from being proclaimed in certain regions at certain times. From a biblical perspective, there is no such thing as entitlement to the Gospel, every sinner deserves the penalty for sin because of the seriousness of their sin and God's holiness, yet God shows unmerited grace and has mercy on whom he will out of his own charity. The atheist seems to think his own human comprehension limits the possibility for God to have purpose for something. On the one hand, he says he stopped feeling guilty about bad thoughts when he became an atheist, and felt like he was letting go of weight, but on the other hand he said that a truthful harder life is more worth living, so there is a bit of tension there.
He admitted that he used to cherry pick scriptures when he was supposedly christian, but I have no reason to think he's changed.
He thinks that God shouldn't punish people for asking questions and asking for proof, and I would agree to an extent. There are ways of asking questions which are not meant to gather information but meant to provide excuses for things, and Romans 1 mentions an active suppression of truth in unrighteousness. The fact that God knows the heart would have bearing on if God was judging someone for 'testing' him in an immoral way, but there are places in the bible where God encourages testing and questioning of sorts.

Thanks B. I appreciate you taking the time to share your

insights with me. I get hammered a lot for my religious views on this site so I TRY not to comment on these threads too often but occasionally I'm in a mood and say my piece. There is another DP member named bear that sometimes responds in a manner similar to how you have which are the type of replies that help me gain perspective, but for the most part it just turns into an a mud sling.

Thanks for you time and thoughts.

Enjoy your evening.

I know what it is!

"Daniel 12:2 raises the prospect of a third class of people, who will not be resurrected to a glorious afterlife, nor to an inglorious punishment, but will simply stay dead."

This is evidence that zombies exist! :0

"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul

I am a student of the Bible, not a scholar.

I am a student of the Bible, not a scholar. However, this I do know. All proper claims to inerrancy of the Bible are attributed to the original writings only. Even with that as a given, many purported errors, when judged properly through context and good translation are lacking in merit. Scripture must be interpreted through proper hermeneutic. Let us examine your examples one a time.

Dan. 12:2 - You give the quotation from the King James Version, and many English translations agree with, or are derived from the KJV. Looking at the original Hebrew, however, we see that the phrase "many of them that sleep" can also be translated "the multitude of those sleeping", which is actually closer to the literal wording in the Hebrew (see Young's Literal Translation). When compared to John 5:28-29, as is proper when making a translation, we see that Young's literal translation, "the multitude of those sleeping", is in congruence with the words of Jesus, "all that are in the graves," and therefore is the proper meaning. The King James Version's use of the word "many" must be seen in context of a great multitude or a great number, not as an exclusionary subset. There are other times that the translators for the KJV used the word "many", and in context it clearly means "all"(see Rom. 5:15).

This exercise, however, is moot if you do not believe that the Bible is the inspired Holy Word of God, and that comes only through faith. Skeptics will always be able to point to this or that, in order to deny the existence of God, or deny any particular attributes to the God they do believe in, or deny the inspiration or inerrancy of God's Word to us. I am happy to see you are reading the Scriptures, as faith comes by hearing (or reading) the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ (Rom. 1:16), and I am willing to give an answer to all men (Col. 4:6), but I am not here to argue the inerrancy of Scripture with those who reject God and His Word (Matt.10:14).

Phxarcher87's picture

You sir just Hit the nail on the head!!

Peace be with you!

THE CLASS OF CITIZENS WHO PROVIDE AT ONCE THEIR OWN FOOD AND THEIR OWN RAIMENT, MAY BE VIEWED AS THE MOST TRULY INDEPENDENT AND HAPPY.
James Madison

What about this

I struggled with his one thing for years before settling it in my heart although I cannot say my thoughts are true.
This one thing is the references to reincarnation like Jesus' reference to John the baptist in Matthew, the man that was born blind in John 9 and some other text that seems to be backed up by things like sowing and reaping.
If this is the case there cannot be the reference to "all" in which "many" would be more to the point. I understand the difficulty with the idea of reincarnation, but because we don't remember doesn't mean it isn't true. I have been counseled by ministers who are suppose to know and have decided the general belief is incorrect since it leaves entirely too many questions that can't be answered. I believe "many" is closer to the truth.
I am also a student but not a scholar. However I find myself disagreeing with scholars on some subjects.

Phxarcher87's picture

Even the deciples questond dude and they walked with him.

We should all question things i had a lot of questions before God brought me into his family.

No madder what the world brings to you through speeches or schooling just remember that gods love for us is 1000000 time greater. He truly will light our path and never forsake us.

There is a pastor out of Idaho named Douglas Wilson and you can challenge him with questions through a website called canonwired.com try it man if you still care.

THE CLASS OF CITIZENS WHO PROVIDE AT ONCE THEIR OWN FOOD AND THEIR OWN RAIMENT, MAY BE VIEWED AS THE MOST TRULY INDEPENDENT AND HAPPY.
James Madison

I hold no religious convictions

and I completely disapprove of this thread

I agree

How about posting religious stuff on a religious blog. It has been my understanding that the DP was about politics, not religion.

This Post Is Ultimately About Attaining World Peace...

not religion. It was intended to strike interest in the article Sowing the Seeds For A Peace Revolution - The New Bible.

So are you saying that you "completely disapprove" of efforts towards attaining world peace?

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us: http://www.rense.com/general96/whatare.html
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

That isn't about world peace.

That article is a goofy, long-winded vegan tract that defies logic and common sense, then decides to insult Christians (oddly enough, it doesn't criticize Islam) for no discernable reason other than that the Bible is okay with eating meat.

Yes, That Goofy, Long-Winded Article Which Received...

...the following comments:

"Fascinating stuff!"

"I have to agree"

"cool read"

"thanks for spreading the word"

"I totally agree"

"BUMP"

"Thank you, RicoCabeza, for your compelling associations between religious texts, significant influences, killing animals, and a culture of violence. For those of us who want a world of peace, this is all of worthy consideration."

However, if it makes you feel any better I am considering toning the article down a bit in an effort to keep it more on the up and up.

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us: http://www.rense.com/general96/whatare.html
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

The Article Is Totally About World Peace

and incidentally, is not a vegan tract (no offense to veganism however). The obvious thrust of the article is to highlight how organized religion (yes, Christianity included) has been an impediment to world peace. There is nothing illogical about this fact.

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us: http://www.rense.com/general96/whatare.html
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

Phxarcher87's picture

Appologize to the vegan.

But slam the Christian.
You sir are impending peace.

THE CLASS OF CITIZENS WHO PROVIDE AT ONCE THEIR OWN FOOD AND THEIR OWN RAIMENT, MAY BE VIEWED AS THE MOST TRULY INDEPENDENT AND HAPPY.
James Madison

Did Jesus Come To Bring Peace?

Actually the Bible says Jesus did not come to bring peace, but rather to turn the tables.

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us: http://www.rense.com/general96/whatare.html
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

Phxarcher87's picture

Really

It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.
- George Washington

THE CLASS OF CITIZENS WHO PROVIDE AT ONCE THEIR OWN FOOD AND THEIR OWN RAIMENT, MAY BE VIEWED AS THE MOST TRULY INDEPENDENT AND HAPPY.
James Madison

These are all so far fetched lol but ill stick to one

- God's name Yahweh, was given to Abraham (in Genesis), and yet later (in Exodus) was stated to have been kept from Abraham and others:

Genesis 15:7 "And he said to him [Abram], I am Yahweh who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess."

Exodus 6:3 "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob [each individually], as God Almighty, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them."

You do realize that in genesis when he was Abram, he was 97 and had not yet born the fathers of nations.

Then in Exodus, Isaac and Jacob is MUCH further down the road.

So if I told you my name today, but didn't tell you it 30 years from now, how is that a contradiction? LOL