---

Quote: from xXxLiberOxXx at 9:33 pm on Nov. 5, 2008

---

Quote: from MushroomSatsujin at 1:29 pm on Nov. 5, 2008

---

Quote: from xXxLiberOxXx at 1:27 pm on Nov. 5, 2008

---

Quote: from MushroomSatsujin at 1:17 pm on Nov. 5, 2008

---

Its not a matter of whether its wrong or right, its how people interpret it. The bible simply gives a message.  

  Some people take it literally, some people read between the lines. So whos right?

---

It depends. The Bible is mainly split into sections. One of which being: HISTORY. One is to read that, just like they would a History Textbook. I would read everything literally, except Revelation. The book of Revelation was a dream, so it's left to interpret. As to what Jesus said, he uses common items to make a stronger point. For example, he uses a hyperbole when he says, hate your life, hate your family, hate everything you own, and follow me. He simply means to forget what lies in the past and follow him. It's not contradictory to what he says, when he says Love. Answer your question?

---

So you take everything literally. Even Adam and Eve, I take it. The pastors at my church dont take the story of Adam and Eve literally. So whos right?

---

Tell me exactly how they don't take it literally.

---

You'd swear you had never heard of someone not believing in the Adam and Eve story before. It's rare that someone actually takes the literally. Evolution ftw and such.

---

---

Quote: from jon davis rocks at 1:34 pm on Nov. 5, 2008

---

Quote: from xXxLiberOxXx at 9:33 pm on Nov. 5, 2008

---

Quote: from MushroomSatsujin at 1:29 pm on Nov. 5, 2008

---

Quote: from xXxLiberOxXx at 1:27 pm on Nov. 5, 2008

---

Quote: from MushroomSatsujin at 1:17 pm on Nov. 5, 2008

---

Its not a matter of whether its wrong or right, its how people interpret it. The bible simply gives a message.      

     Some people take it literally, some people read between the lines. So whos right?

---

It depends. The Bible is mainly split into sections. One of which being: HISTORY. One is to read that, just like they would a History Textbook. I would read everything literally, except Revelation. The book of Revelation was a dream, so it's left to interpret. As to what Jesus said, he uses common items to make a stronger point. For example, he uses a hyperbole when he says, hate your life, hate your family, hate everything you own, and follow me. He simply means to forget what lies in the past and follow him. It's not contradictory to what he says, when he says Love. Answer your question?

---

So you take everything literally. Even Adam and Eve, I take it. The pastors at my church dont take the story of Adam and Eve literally. So whos right?

---

Tell me exactly how they don't take it literally.

---

 

 You'd swear you had never heard of someone not believing in the Adam and Eve story before. It's rare that someone actually takes the literally. Evolution ftw and such.

---

Ok, you're a dumbshit and pissing me off. I'm asking if they believe in theistic-evolution or any other related beliefs moron. I have tons of friends who don't believe it.

---

Well if you made a coherent and credible argument maybe I wouldn't be so quick to write you off as a simpleton.

-------
Le monde entier dépend de tes yeux purs
Et tout mon sang coule dans leurs regards.

---

There is a new version of the bible.  It's called Wikipedia.  It's kept all up to date, and inconsistencies are fixed within the century!

---

Haha!

-------
Le monde entier dépend de tes yeux purs
Et tout mon sang coule dans leurs regards.

---

The only problem with your theory is that the common Christian bible isn't the text which you describe. If it was it would be in its original unchanged form much like the Jewish Torah. The bible has various translations just with English alone, the king James, amplified, Lutheran ect. Now that's not to say that the real bible is wrong, just that its not in its original form.

---

---

Quote: from drifting at 1:23 pm on Nov. 5, 2008

---

Lack of original texts, lack of proof of creation, lack of proof that a man was taken to heaven in a chariot made of fire, lack of proof that a man could turn water in to wine, lack of proof that a man walked on water, lack of proof that a man ever made someone rise from the dead, lack of proof that a man ever rose from the dead.  

 One account doesnt make it true. Hell, multiple accounts dont make it true if they are all cited in the same source. There is absolutely no proof to prove the Bible. Those who believe it, believe it on faith alone.

---

We actually have tons of proof for creation, for example the salt levels in the ocean. We have the dead sea scrolls, which happen to be a lot, if you're unaware. Also, someone walking on water: more than 12 eyewitness accounts. Jesus resurrection: more than 700 eyewitness accounts of him living after he was crucified. So we have wayyyy more than 1 account. Second, the Bible was written across 3 continents: Asia, Africa and Europe. Therefore, a mix of cultures, yet all agreeing on these accounts. And true, some might believe it on faith alone, as I originally did. But then I questioned myself and researched it and got tons of proof.

---

Salt Levels? Are you retarded? Any number of factors could have produced that, and its far from being proof of creation, if anything, its evidence of a global flood. Not creation.

The dead sea scrolls are far from original text. They are only portions of text that were written by scribes. Far from being anything like the original.

And if you can find me proof, outside of the Bible or religious text, for Jesus walking on water, or rising from the dead, then I would be interested in seeing this.

And yes, anyone who believes it has to believe it on faith alone. There is no real hard evidence, outside of religious text to prove otherwise.

-------
Kids in the back seat can cause accidents.
Accidents in the back seat can cause kids.
Moral: Drive a two seater

---

Quote: from xXxLiberOxXx at 4:31 pm on Nov. 5, 2008

---

Quote: from drifting at 1:23 pm on Nov. 5, 2008

---

Lack of original texts, lack of proof of creation, lack of proof that a man was taken to heaven in a chariot made of fire, lack of proof that a man could turn water in to wine, lack of proof that a man walked on water, lack of proof that a man ever made someone rise from the dead, lack of proof that a man ever rose from the dead.

  One account doesnt make it true. Hell, multiple accounts dont make it true if they are all cited in the same source. There is absolutely no proof to prove the Bible. Those who believe it, believe it on faith alone.

---

We actually have tons of proof for creation, for example the salt levels in the ocean. We have the dead sea scrolls, which happen to be a lot, if you're unaware. Also, someone walking on water: more than 12 eyewitness accounts. Jesus resurrection: more than 700 eyewitness accounts of him living after he was crucified. So we have wayyyy more than 1 account. Second, the Bible was written across 3 continents: Asia, Africa and Europe. Therefore, a mix of cultures, yet all agreeing on these accounts. And true, some might believe it on faith alone, as I originally did. But then I questioned myself and researched it and got tons of proof.

---

Salt Levels? Are you retarded? Any number of factors could have produced that, and its far from being proof of creation, if anything, its evidence of a global flood. Not creation.  

The dead sea scrolls are far from original text. They are only portions of text that were written by scribes. Far from being anything like the original.  

And if you can find me proof, outside of the Bible or religious text, for Jesus walking on water, or rising from the dead, then I would be interested in seeing this.  

And yes, anyone who believes it has to believe it on faith alone. There is no real hard evidence, outside of religious text to prove otherwise.

---

As for the resurrection, check out my good-old friend Josh McDowell.
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

-------
The Only Difference Between .:Medicine:.
& .:Poison:. Is In The Dose ~.~

---

Quote: from drifting at 1:41 pm on Nov. 5, 2008

---

Quote: from xXxLiberOxXx at 4:31 pm on Nov. 5, 2008

---

Quote: from drifting at 1:23 pm on Nov. 5, 2008

---

Lack of original texts, lack of proof of creation, lack of proof that a man was taken to heaven in a chariot made of fire, lack of proof that a man could turn water in to wine, lack of proof that a man walked on water, lack of proof that a man ever made someone rise from the dead, lack of proof that a man ever rose from the dead.    

  One account doesnt make it true. Hell, multiple accounts dont make it true if they are all cited in the same source. There is absolutely no proof to prove the Bible. Those who believe it, believe it on faith alone.

---

We actually have tons of proof for creation, for example the salt levels in the ocean. We have the dead sea scrolls, which happen to be a lot, if you're unaware. Also, someone walking on water: more than 12 eyewitness accounts. Jesus resurrection: more than 700 eyewitness accounts of him living after he was crucified. So we have wayyyy more than 1 account. Second, the Bible was written across 3 continents: Asia, Africa and Europe. Therefore, a mix of cultures, yet all agreeing on these accounts. And true, some might believe it on faith alone, as I originally did. But then I questioned myself and researched it and got tons of proof.

---

 

 Salt Levels? Are you retarded? Any number of factors could have produced that, and its far from being proof of creation, if anything, its evidence of a global flood. Not creation.

 The dead sea scrolls are far from original text. They are only portions of text that were written by scribes. Far from being anything like the original.

 And if you can find me proof, outside of the Bible or religious text, for Jesus walking on water, or rising from the dead, then I would be interested in seeing this.

 And yes, anyone who believes it has to believe it on faith alone. There is no real hard evidence, outside of religious text to prove otherwise.

---

No, the salt levels are to discredit how old most people think the earth is. It's constantly rising, and if the earth were so many years it, the ocean would just be salt.

As for the resurrection, check out my good-old friend Josh McDowell.  
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

---

Mineral levels fluctuate constantly. The age of the earth has little to do with arguments about creation, or evolution, since it involves factors that are still largely unknown. Just because salt levels are rising at a rate right now, doesnt mean that rate has been consistent, or has never gone back down. Try again.

And I have personally heard Josh McDowell speak, and the man is certifiably insane. On both occasions that I had the misfortune to hear him ramble, we found him making up numbers, misquoting everything in sight, then ultimately falling back on the Bible as if it was 100% infallible. Which he probably believes it is, so in his credit, he cant really be blamed for that.

Anything that man says, or claims is not an argument. It is not proof. Ultimately, everything he says is one big circle, where he cites himself, the Bible, and his colleagues.

If what you claim has any real backing, you should be able to cite some sort of legitimate proof, with ease.

-------
Kids in the back seat can cause accidents.
Accidents in the back seat can cause kids.
Moral: Drive a two seater

---

because the bible is in no way true besides the word of a scribe that wrote it 150 years after all those events happened! and as an addition theres no proof of it being true text book at least have that!

---

---

Quote: from Nightshade09 at 1:16 pm on Nov. 5, 2008

---

because the bible is in no way true besides the word of a scribe that wrote it 150 years after all those events happened! and as an addition theres no proof of it being true text book at least have that!

---

By that logic books about evolution arn't true because they were also writen byu people  millions of years after the events happened.

---

/facepalm

-------
Le monde entier dépend de tes yeux purs
Et tout mon sang coule dans leurs regards.

---

How come people are afraid to accept the Bible as truth?
People accept text books as true; they accept internet as truth; they even accept music and their lyrics as truth, so why not the Bible?

---

textbooks aren't necessarily 100% accurate because they are textbooks
uhh i accept the internet as truth in the sense that i accept that the internet exists, beyond that it's mostly garbage

and what the hell are you talking about when you say music and lyrics are truth? stop pulling shit out of your ass