Poll: Evolution and the other side

[GodofCider]

Sadly, I have. There just wasn't much science to speak off. Actually, there wasn't any, just a whole lot of bullshit. That Dr Dino crap...


Also, the amount of people in this thread who say that we involved from monkeys or apes make me sad. Just...*sigh* I give up.

Well hey, technically we did evolve from apes...since we never stopped being apes.

Mmm, word play.

That said, the original question made my brain do exactly as your picture illustrates.

Like asking: Have you studied the scientific evidence for magic?

"Brain is full of..."

 

[Evidencebased]

I find the results less than believeable. Any discussion i have had involving evolution (and most other acedemic topics) involve very little knowledge beyond a basic highschool and perhaps rudimentry freshman college understanding of current trends and theories. something you learned in highschool or your 100 level biology class does not constitute a study of evolutionary theory. Both sides of the evolutionary arguement are guilty of this.

Well seeing as there is no evidence for creationism it isn't that difficult to have seen it all.

Your statement proves my point. There is also no empiracle, repeatable, or demonstrable evidence of self actuated organic evolution on the multi-celular level. What we have is a large amount evidence who's most logical expliantion we can formulate lends itself to our current views of Organic evolution. However as it is still a theoretical science, a new discovery at any time, could completly invalidate our current understanding, as has happened with many well accepted theories throughout history.

There is always that possibility that some god or space alien of vastly supierior knowledge could show up tomorrow and laugh at our meager understanding. As we do not know for sure, it is pretty presumptious of anyone on either side of the arguement to laugh and point the finger of scorn at the other. Placing more creedance in a theory than it rightly deserves is akin to dogmatic faith and places credible scientific threory directly in the realm of theology.

Yes, the Theory of Evolution is falsifiable. Welcome to the world of all science ever.

However, when our main options are "evolution via natural selection explains this" or "a wizard did it!" then I'm gonna stick with the model of reality that lets us have fun stuff like cancer treatments and antibiotics and agriculture. If it's secretly all just an omnipotent alien screwing with us, then when he shows up I'll thank him for being so incredibly consistent with his magic that we've been able to develop totally incorrect but nonetheless perfectly useable and predictive scientific theories based on it. That was very kind of him.

 

[sharks9]

Also, the bible is essentially the same as it was when it was first put together.

Except of course, those that have entirely different books, or missing books, or entirely new testaments.

Where is the book of mormon in your King James Bible? The Apocrypha?

Obviously some words are different in different translations but the messages are mostly the same and they have ancient manuscripts that they can study and show that are similar to today's Bibles.

Similiar != same. Mostly the same != same.

Also, twenty extra books != the same. (Compare King James to Eastern Orthodox.)

In fact, there are bible translations created strictly for political reasons. Like... oh... King James?

My bad for not specifying the Bible I was talking about was the Protestant Bible and by the same, I meant the messages were the same. Yes there are different books that have been removed/added from the Old Testament, but the New Testament has been established for centuries and is the same as it was hundreds of years ago. The main reason for difference in words is the fact that not all the original words can be properly translated into English so if you want to read the Bible as it was originally written, simply learn Greek or Hebrew.

Also, the Book of Mormon is not considered part of the bible, it's considered a separate document.

 

[DracoSuave]

Also, the bible is essentially the same as it was when it was first put together.

Except of course, those that have entirely different books, or missing books, or entirely new testaments.

Where is the book of mormon in your King James Bible? The Apocrypha?

Obviously some words are different in different translations but the messages are mostly the same and they have ancient manuscripts that they can study and show that are similar to today's Bibles.

Similiar != same. Mostly the same != same.

Also, twenty extra books != the same. (Compare King James to Eastern Orthodox.)

In fact, there are bible translations created strictly for political reasons. Like... oh... King James?

My bad for not specifying the Bible I was talking about was the Protestant Bible and by the same, I meant the messages were the same. Yes there are different books that have been removed/added from the Old Testament, but the New Testament has been established for centuries and is the same as it was hundreds of years ago. The main reason for difference in words is the fact that not all the original words can be properly translated into English so if you want to read the Bible as it was originally written, simply learn Greek or Hebrew.

Also, the Book of Mormon is not considered part of the bible, it's considered a separate document.

So parts of the bible have been added to, or subtracted from, but that doesn't matter cause that's the Old Testament?

Protestantism took books out of the bible. It's really that simple. It doesn't matter if they were Old Testament OR New Testament... protestantism does not acknowledge the Apocrypha.

That's a change to the scripture. Nit picking about which parts were changed is irrelevant.

 

[DracoSuave]

Also, the bible is essentially the same as it was when it was first put together.

Except of course, those that have entirely different books, or missing books, or entirely new testaments.

Where is the book of mormon in your King James Bible? The Apocrypha?

Obviously some words are different in different translations but the messages are mostly the same and they have ancient manuscripts that they can study and show that are similar to today's Bibles.

Similiar != same. Mostly the same != same.

Also, twenty extra books != the same. (Compare King James to Eastern Orthodox.)

In fact, there are bible translations created strictly for political reasons. Like... oh... King James?

My bad for not specifying the Bible I was talking about was the Protestant Bible and by the same, I meant the messages were the same. Yes there are different books that have been removed/added from the Old Testament, but the New Testament has been established for centuries and is the same as it was hundreds of years ago. The main reason for difference in words is the fact that not all the original words can be properly translated into English so if you want to read the Bible as it was originally written, simply learn Greek or Hebrew.

Also, the Book of Mormon is not considered part of the bible, it's considered a separate document.

So parts of the bible have been added to, or subtracted from, but that doesn't matter cause that's the Old Testament?

Protestantism took books out of the bible. It's really that simple. It doesn't matter if they were Old Testament OR New Testament... protestantism does not acknowledge the Apocrypha.

That's a change to the scripture. Nit picking about which parts were changed is irrelevant.

Also, you still haven't answered to the King James Bible thing. You know... how it was created so that King James could have a bible to match what the new Church of England prefered to see in a bible?

Go look it up. Political pressures forced a translation of the bible.

 

[Thaliur]

boing

I hope you don't mind but I'm going to steal this post and quote it whenever another thread like this comes up.

Sure, go ahead. I just linked and commented a few videos, barely original work. Though if you do quote it, please remove the horrible typos. I had the Preview turned on and for some reason it seems to have caused my computer to swallow some letters.

because there are things historians find that agree with the bible, such as towns or history describing what happen. which is also why people believe that Jews are one of the oldest race of people on earth. Also why do you believe the entire bible is crap, if history connects with it at times :/ it must carry at least some truth.

The problem with this way of thinking is, that it reverses logic. If parts of history coincidentally match biblical descriptions, that does not necessarily mean that the rest of the bible is true, too.
Also, some connections are really far-fetched.

And Jews are not a race! I'm German, and I had history classes, I should know. Jews are people who follow a certain religion, NOT a race. Semites might be a race, maybe Asians, maybe Massai (as far as I remember they are physically different from other people in their area), but following a certain set of beliefs does NOT make people a race.
This is horribly off-topic though, so we should ignore this point. I just wanted to point it out. We had enough trouble with people claiming that telling school kids to drink some water if they are thirsty to the point of being unable to concentrate or effectively do anything at all during Ramadan is racist. It is not. It is just pointing out conflicts between religion and reality.

i believe he means to use it in the way of humans evolving while writing the book. Also saying that history disprove the bible is kinda hard to prove seeing how the bible does have historians saying that the bible was right on this and this. While other historians are saying oh no the bible is wrong this is what happen. now of course one side has to be right and the other wrong, but keep in mind that people have been wrong in science and in finding things about history.

Yes, people have been wrong in science and history. People have also been wrong in religion. Guess which people admitted that they were wrong?
Protestants in Germany pointed out in 1997 that witch trials were unjust and wrong. The pope waited until the year 2000 to basically say "hey, we're sorry for burning all those innocent people and destroying the medical standards of their communities".

But hey, scientists have been wrong, so the Bible must be right...

Also, the bible is essentially the same as it was when it was first put together.

Except of course, those that have entirely different books, or missing books, or entirely new testaments.

Where is the book of mormon in your King James Bible? The Apocrypha?

Obviously some words are different in different translations but the messages are mostly the same and they have ancient manuscripts that they can study and show that are similar to today's Bibles.

Similiar != same. Mostly the same != same.

Also, twenty extra books != the same. (Compare King James to Eastern Orthodox.)

In fact, there are bible translations created strictly for political reasons. Like... oh... King James?

My bad for not specifying the Bible I was talking about was the Protestant Bible and by the same, I meant the messages were the same. Yes there are different books that have been removed/added from the Old Testament, but the New Testament has been established for centuries and is the same as it was hundreds of years ago. The main reason for difference in words is the fact that not all the original words can be properly translated into English so if you want to read the Bible as it was originally written, simply learn Greek or Hebrew.

Also, the Book of Mormon is not considered part of the bible, it's considered a separate document.

True, the book of Mormon is essentially fan fiction.

But the necessity to point out the bible version you were talking about alone shows that the bible was subject to change.
Heavy change, actually, even before it was written down, which is why it can never be considered a reliable source of history. Stories, yes. Stories with a morale, definitely, but historical fact, not.

 

[sharks9]

So parts of the bible have been added to, or subtracted from, but that doesn't matter cause that's the Old Testament?

Protestantism took books out of the bible. It's really that simple. It doesn't matter if they were Old Testament OR New Testament... protestantism does not acknowledge the Apocrypha.

That's a change to the scripture. Nit picking about which parts were changed is irrelevant.

Doesn't matter as much as the New Testament, which is central to Christianity and has been proven to be historically reliable.

Protestantism took out books which were not in the Masoretic Text, which defines the books of the Jewish canon and is thus used as basis for the Old Testament by Protestants and even some Catholics.

But the important thing is all the main books have been unchanged for centuries.

Yes I know about KJV of the Bible but it's hardly used anymore except by elderly people so it's not that relevant. And no one uses it as a basis for translation for new Bibles so it's changes in message won't affect any new Bibles being produced.

 

[DracoSuave]

So parts of the bible have been added to, or subtracted from, but that doesn't matter cause that's the Old Testament?

Protestantism took books out of the bible. It's really that simple. It doesn't matter if they were Old Testament OR New Testament... protestantism does not acknowledge the Apocrypha.

That's a change to the scripture. Nit picking about which parts were changed is irrelevant.

Doesn't matter as much as the New Testament, which is central to Christianity and has been proven to be historically reliable.

Except, of course, that the parts of the bible used to support Young Earth Creationism ARE in the Old Testament, thus making it completely relevant to the central point I was making.

Protestantism took out books which were not in the Masoretic Text, which defines the books of the Jewish canon and is thus used as basis for the Old Testament by Protestants and even some Catholics.

Which doesn't change the fact that the Christian canon was established well before protestantism Existed, and Protestantism decided to change the canon from centuries of Christian tradition.

And the point has NOTHING to do with why they changed it. The point is... it changed. It changes. It evolves. The exact nature of those changes is completely pointless to nitpick over. Protestantism does NOT have the original christian canon.

But the important thing is all the main books have been unchanged for centuries.

No, the main point is that the books were changed at all.

Yes I know about KJV of the Bible but it's hardly used anymore except by elderly people so it's not that relevant. And no one uses it as a basis for translation for new Bibles so it's changes in message won't affect any new Bibles being produced.

Unless you completely ignore the existance of Anglicanism, and the NKJV. The New King James Version is not at ALL influenced by the King James, right? No?

Okay.

Regardless, it doesn't alter the central point. Defending the changes specific versions made to a bible, for whatever reason, involves admitting those changes were there. Either the changes were there, or they were not. And for the central point, that being that the Bible itself evolves over time... is very relevant.

Insisting ONE version is 'unchanged' can be proven to be false anyways. Look up Exodus 22:18.

Now, if your version says 'witch' then your translation is not accurate, and you have one of the versions of the bible that has altered in meaning to represent the beliefs and fears of the ruling class of its time.

 

[Thaliur]

Insisting ONE version is 'unchanged' can be proven to be false anyways. Look up Exodus 22:18.

Now, if your version says 'witch' then your translation is not accurate, and you have one of the versions of the bible that has altered in meaning to represent the beliefs and fears of the ruling class of its time.

Not to mention the changes the texts went through before they were written down at all. Not necessarily on purpose. Certainly some people forgot parts of a story they didn't find all that interesting, or certain actions were attributed to people who they thought could have performed them.

I can't find the exact source right now, but there have been theories that certain characters in the bible (especially those with amazing lifespans like Noah, and other important ones like Jesus) are essentially "bundles" of multiple people.
If that was the case, it would also be an explanation how Jesus could appear in historical Roman scriptures. Early christians might have attributed the miracle stories to him, thus he was mentioned in conversations like an actual person.

This has nothing to do with evolution of course, but is interesting anyway.

 

[kidd25]

boing

I hope you don't mind but I'm going to steal this post and quote it whenever another thread like this comes up.

Sure, go ahead. I just linked and commented a few videos, barely original work. Though if you do quote it, please remove the horrible typos. I had the Preview turned on and for some reason it seems to have caused my computer to swallow some letters.

because there are things historians find that agree with the bible, such as towns or history describing what happen. which is also why people believe that Jews are one of the oldest race of people on earth. Also why do you believe the entire bible is crap, if history connects with it at times :/ it must carry at least some truth.

The problem with this way of thinking is, that it reverses logic. If parts of history coincidentally match biblical descriptions, that does not necessarily mean that the rest of the bible is true, too.
Also, some connections are really far-fetched.

And Jews are not a race! I'm German, and I had history classes, I should know. Jews are people who follow a certain religion, NOT a race. Semites might be a race, maybe Asians, maybe Massai (as far as I remember they are physically different from other people in their area), but following a certain set of beliefs does NOT make people a race.
This is horribly off-topic though, so we should ignore this point. I just wanted to point it out. We had enough trouble with people claiming that telling school kids to drink some water if they are thirsty to the point of being unable to concentrate or effectively do anything at all during Ramadan is racist. It is not. It is just pointing out conflicts between religion and reality.

i believe he means to use it in the way of humans evolving while writing the book. Also saying that history disprove the bible is kinda hard to prove seeing how the bible does have historians saying that the bible was right on this and this. While other historians are saying oh no the bible is wrong this is what happen. now of course one side has to be right and the other wrong, but keep in mind that people have been wrong in science and in finding things about history.

Yes, people have been wrong in science and history. People have also been wrong in religion. Guess which people admitted that they were wrong?
Protestants in Germany pointed out in 1997 that witch trials were unjust and wrong. The pope waited until the year 2000 to basically say "hey, we're sorry for burning all those innocent people and destroying the medical standards of their communities".

But hey, scientists have been wrong, so the Bible must be right...

Also, the bible is essentially the same as it was when it was first put together.

Except of course, those that have entirely different books, or missing books, or entirely new testaments.

Where is the book of mormon in your King James Bible? The Apocrypha?

Obviously some words are different in different translations but the messages are mostly the same and they have ancient manuscripts that they can study and show that are similar to today's Bibles.

Similiar != same. Mostly the same != same.

Also, twenty extra books != the same. (Compare King James to Eastern Orthodox.)

In fact, there are bible translations created strictly for political reasons. Like... oh... King James?

My bad for not specifying the Bible I was talking about was the Protestant Bible and by the same, I meant the messages were the same. Yes there are different books that have been removed/added from the Old Testament, but the New Testament has been established for centuries and is the same as it was hundreds of years ago. The main reason for difference in words is the fact that not all the original words can be properly translated into English so if you want to read the Bible as it was originally written, simply learn Greek or Hebrew.

Also, the Book of Mormon is not considered part of the bible, it's considered a separate document.

True, the book of Mormon is essentially fan fiction.

But the necessity to point out the bible version you were talking about alone shows that the bible was subject to change.
Heavy change, actually, even before it was written down, which is why it can never be considered a reliable source of history. Stories, yes. Stories with a morale, definitely, but historical fact, not.

Jews are a race of people, trust me i have study history, they have been seen as a race since has far back as other history books can tell, Also its not just a religion for their are many jews who are atheist or of other religions. Also for books that aren't in the bible are written by people who are doing it for their own benefit, yes i know the bible was written by man, but tell me one man who wrote the new testament that had an easy life. Also your talking about the old testament and then when the new testament came, you mean when Jesus came, the messiah or so the story claims. Yeah they added those to the bible because they fulfill the old testament also to keep it from being distorted by people who were writing fake gospels and claiming to be from God. the Bible can't be a stories with morale because then the Guy they talk about is a liar and has sent a lot of Jews from their families and made people suffer horrible fates all for nothing.( this is not an appeal to pity, so don't act like it is)
So the bible is either one or the other. The truth or a huge lie. Now don't get me wrong people are wrong on a lot of things, but we have text from the age of Jesus and some older that are very similar to the bible we have today.

 

[kidd25]

thailur that thing about the pope is that he is a man, most christian don't believe the pope as the final word on anything. Also people do take the scripture in a wrong way and twist them, and many people tend to follow these people so don't go thinking the church is all the same.

 

[evilneko]

So the bible is either one or the other. The truth or a huge lie.

Do you realize what you just said? If the bible is, as you say, all or nothing then if even one story proves false it negates the entire book.

I guess you're free now though, since if that's the case the bible is a huge lie and it'd be silly to continue believing a lie.

 

[Thaliur]

Jews are a race of people, trust me i have study history, they have been seen as a race since has far back as other history books can tell, Also its not just a religion for their are many jews who are atheist or of other religions.

According to official definitions, Jews are people whose ancestry can be traced back to Abraham and others in the old testament. Since this is a religious definition, and the only one that's readily available, they are a religious group of people. Not a genetic race. Or do you follow the definition that all Jews need to have the characteristics shown in caricatures?

Also for books that aren't in the bible are written by people who are doing it for their own benefit, yes i know the bible was written by man, but tell me one man who wrote the new testament that had an easy life.

THey probably didn't. What are you trying to say? People always tell the truth unless they have a good life?

Also your talking about the old testament and then when the new testament came, you mean when Jesus came, the messiah or so the story claims. Yeah they added those to the bible because they fulfill the old testament also to keep it from being distorted by people who were writing fake gospels and claiming to be from God. the Bible can't be a stories with morale because then the Guy they talk about is a liar and has sent a lot of Jews from their families and made people suffer horrible fates all for nothing.( this is not an appeal to pity, so don't act like it is)

OK, maybe the exodus happened. That's the only part of this paragraph I found just barely intelligible. I have no idea about the rest.

So the bible is either one or the other. The truth or a huge lie. Now don't get me wrong people are wrong on a lot of things, but we have text from the age of Jesus and some older that are very similar to the bible we have today.

evilneko already answered to that.
Also "The Bible" does not exist. Just like there is no book called "Grimm's fairytales". It is a collection of stories written down by different people. You can see how that is a problem if you compare the books about Jesus which contradict each other several times. Even within Genesis alone, some things happen twice, in different ways.
Maybe parts of the bible's collection are based on true stories, but most of it is "padding" in the form of exaggerations and false attribution.

thailur that thing about the pope is that he is a man, most christian don't believe the pope as the final word on anything. Also people do take the scripture in a wrong way and twist them, and many people tend to follow these people so don't go thinking the church is all the same.

I know that. Many people misinterpret the religious texts. How do you know which interpretation is correct?

 

[kidd25]

So the bible is either one or the other. The truth or a huge lie.

Do you realize what you just said? If the bible is, as you say, all or nothing then if even one story proves false it negates the entire book.

I guess you're free now though, since if that's the case the bible is a huge lie and it'd be silly to continue believing a lie.

yeah i know what i said and the bible is one or the other complete truth or entirely lie, for even in the bible they say that.

I guess i'm free now, since the bible is the truth and it would be smart to keep on reading, studying and learning from it.

 

[evilneko]

So the bible is either one or the other. The truth or a huge lie.

Do you realize what you just said? If the bible is, as you say, all or nothing then if even one story proves false it negates the entire book.

I guess you're free now though, since if that's the case the bible is a huge lie and it'd be silly to continue believing a lie.

yeah i know what i said and the bible is one or the other complete truth or entirely lie, for even in the bible they say that.

I guess i'm free now, since the bible is the truth and it would be smart to keep on reading, studying and learning from it.

Yeah. Uh huh. You keep tellin yourself that, kid.

 

[kidd25]

Jews are a race of people, trust me i have study history, they have been seen as a race since has far back as other history books can tell, Also its not just a religion for their are many jews who are atheist or of other religions.

According to official definitions, Jews are people whose ancestry can be traced back to Abraham and others in the old testament. Since this is a religious definition, and the only one that's readily available, they are a religious group of people. Not a genetic race. Or do you follow the definition that all Jews need to have the characteristics shown in caricatures?

Also for books that aren't in the bible are written by people who are doing it for their own benefit, yes i know the bible was written by man, but tell me one man who wrote the new testament that had an easy life.

THey probably didn't. What are you trying to say? People always tell the truth unless they have a good life?

Also your talking about the old testament and then when the new testament came, you mean when Jesus came, the messiah or so the story claims. Yeah they added those to the bible because they fulfill the old testament also to keep it from being distorted by people who were writing fake gospels and claiming to be from God. the Bible can't be a stories with morale because then the Guy they talk about is a liar and has sent a lot of Jews from their families and made people suffer horrible fates all for nothing.( this is not an appeal to pity, so don't act like it is)

OK, maybe the exodus happened. That's the only part of this paragraph I found just barely intelligible. I have no idea about the rest.

So the bible is either one or the other. The truth or a huge lie. Now don't get me wrong people are wrong on a lot of things, but we have text from the age of Jesus and some older that are very similar to the bible we have today.

evilneko already answered to that.
Also "The Bible" does not exist. Just like there is no book called "Grimm's fairytales". It is a collection of stories written down by different people. You can see how that is a problem if you compare the books about Jesus which contradict each other several times. Even within Genesis alone, some things happen twice, in different ways.
Maybe parts of the bible's collection are based on true stories, but most of it is "padding" in the form of exaggerations and false attribution.

thailur that thing about the pope is that he is a man, most christian don't believe the pope as the final word on anything. Also people do take the scripture in a wrong way and twist them, and many people tend to follow these people so don't go thinking the church is all the same.

I know that. Many people misinterpret the religious texts. How do you know which interpretation is correct?

well genetics as in they came from Abraham and if they came through Isaac which is if i remember they keep records so they can trace themselves back to him. to trace like that you kinda need genetics.

yes i know the gospels and letters in the bible were written by different men and at different times actually weren't meant to be in one book, but sent to different churches for the most part to help them. Also find where the bible contradicts its self many times, seeing how it several times i want you to get a bible online or in your hand and spend time to find it yourself for it should there should be easy to find.

Also what padding and this for what? it not like they gained anything from it, and also if it has "padding" why is it always a special thing that saves them? why would they make their own people constantly doing wrong and disobeying their bible? why is it that they are always falling from grace, and then being redeem constantly? Why is it never just this man, and only this man did it.

Also no just because they had a hard life doesn't make it truth, but in today world a lot of fake pastors go on telling lies just for money, and i wanted to clear up that the new testament writers weren't doing this for money or power.

Also we have old text that are very similar to the ones we have today, so that is one way we know that it is correct, at least in keeping the text.

 

[kidd25]

So the bible is either one or the other. The truth or a huge lie.

Do you realize what you just said? If the bible is, as you say, all or nothing then if even one story proves false it negates the entire book.

I guess you're free now though, since if that's the case the bible is a huge lie and it'd be silly to continue believing a lie.

yeah i know what i said and the bible is one or the other complete truth or entirely lie, for even in the bible they say that.

I guess i'm free now, since the bible is the truth and it would be smart to keep on reading, studying and learning from it.

Yeah. Uh huh. You keep tellin yourself that, kid.

yep. that right keep telling yourself your right. (btw i'm just copying what you saying, sorry i'm bored :/)

 

[evilneko]

I could point out a thing or two (or three, or more) from the bible that is false.

Or we could you know, go back on topic, not that I imagine we could have much of a discussion there either.

 

[Thaliur]

well genetics as in they came from Abraham and if they came through Isaac which is if i remember they keep records so they can trace themselves back to him. to trace like that you kinda need genetics.

Of course, genetics are really important in tracing ancestry back to a person who lived thousands of years before anyone thought of genes at all and who only gets mentioned in one single text or in reference to that single text.
Show me an electrophoretic print, a skin or hair sample with enough genetic material for analysis or even a blood test of anyone from that age, and I will believe you.

yes i know the gospels and letters in the bible were written by different men and at different times actually weren't meant to be in one book, but sent to different churches for the most part to help them. Also find where the bible contradicts its self many times, seeing how it several times i want you to get a bible online or in your hand and spend time to find it yourself for it should there should be easy to find.

Luckily, I don't need to dig through all that boring text myself:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#contradictions

Also what padding and this for what? it not like they gained anything from it, and also if it has "padding" why is it always a special thing that saves them? why would they make their own people constantly doing wrong and disobeying their bible? why is it that they are always falling from grace, and then being redeem constantly? Why is it never just this man, and only this man did it.

The benefit of this "padding" is easy to explain.
Would you prefer a gospel that just says "Jesus was a great person and told people to be nice to each other" to the ones currently in the bible?

Also no just because they had a hard life doesn't make it truth, but in today world a lot of fake pastors go on telling lies just for money, and i wanted to clear up that the new testament writers weren't doing this for money or power.

Are you sure? You probably didn't know these people. If I were to found a religion, I'd really make sure to write impressive religious texts for it containing lots of stories.

Also we have old text that are very similar to the ones we have today, so that is one way we know that it is correct, at least in keeping the text.

again: similar =/= the same.

Harry Potter is really similar to Ponder Stibbons, but no one would claim that they are the same person.

 

[kidd25]

well genetics as in they came from Abraham and if they came through Isaac which is if i remember they keep records so they can trace themselves back to him. to trace like that you kinda need genetics.

Of course, genetics are really important in tracing ancestry back to a person who lived thousands of years before anyone thought of genes at all and who only gets mentioned in one single text or in reference to that single text.
Show me an electrophoretic print, a skin or hair sample with enough genetic material for analysis or even a blood test of anyone from that age, and I will believe you.

yes i know the gospels and letters in the bible were written by different men and at different times actually weren't meant to be in one book, but sent to different churches for the most part to help them. Also find where the bible contradicts its self many times, seeing how it several times i want you to get a bible online or in your hand and spend time to find it yourself for it should there should be easy to find.

Luckily, I don't need to dig through all that boring text myself:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#contradictions

Also what padding and this for what? it not like they gained anything from it, and also if it has "padding" why is it always a special thing that saves them? why would they make their own people constantly doing wrong and disobeying their bible? why is it that they are always falling from grace, and then being redeem constantly? Why is it never just this man, and only this man did it.

The benefit of this "padding" is easy to explain.
Would you prefer a gospel that just says "Jesus was a great person and told people to be nice to each other" to the ones currently in the bible?

Also no just because they had a hard life doesn't make it truth, but in today world a lot of fake pastors go on telling lies just for money, and i wanted to clear up that the new testament writers weren't doing this for money or power.

Are you sure? You probably didn't know these people. If I were to found a religion, I'd really make sure to write impressive religious texts for it containing lots of stories.

Also we have old text that are very similar to the ones we have today, so that is one way we know that it is correct, at least in keeping the text.

again: similar =/= the same.

Harry Potter is really similar to Ponder Stibbons, but no one would claim that they are the same person.

for the genealogy they kept a real record of who came from who, and while we do have a few in the bible most of it is kept by the Jews in other writings. also everyone one of those "contradictions" are misunderstanding of the bible, or taken from the Gnostic gospels that were written around that time, not that hard to disprove if you look closely at them. Also for the thing of padding you din't really respond to that, of course it would be nice for them to say that but that's not the only thing that the bible preaches. By similar i of course mean translations, you don't say something is different completely changed their message because its being spoken in a different language. Also for the genetics thing, if that is the only way your going to believe well i don't know if they have things like that, but to say you aren't going to trust written down history? you do know the genealogy of 99% of the Jews are outside the bible after they mention Jesus genealogy.

Also i would like to thank you for being nice, and doing your part to stand for what you believe in. keep in mind that i never mean any disrespect and i try my best to protect what i believe in as well.