Topic: The Religion Thread

[RU9]

If you don't believe the bible is the Word of God, then that's OK.  
 

Is your belief on the bible as the word of god based on faith alone? Are there other factors?

[barrister]

My belief in the bible is mostly based on faith.  

Other evidences such as archeological evidence support the truth of the bible to some extent, but I don't believe the bible can be proven to be entirely true by way of scientific evidence and logical reasoning.

You will notice that I don't force people to believe in the bible, because I acknowledge that it's impossible to prove that the bible is true beyond a shadow of a doubt.  

So if someone boasts that he can prove that the bible is truly the Word of God, don't waste your time.  That guy has to be a religious nutjob...  

  

[leomarley]

If you don't believe the bible is the Word of God, then that's OK.  Just treat bible stories as fables, and there would be no need to search for a correct version.

But if you believe that the bible is the Word of God, then you would also believe that God will make sure that the correct version of the Torah is available.  Otherwise, why would God bother to have his word written if we won't be able to find a correct version anyway?

In studying scripture, reliance must be placed the oldest manuscripts rather than on newer versions.  Rest assured that the oldest manuscripts are consistent.  It is the newer versions that have variations, because the latter scribes tended to make changes that promote their own beliefs.

Yes, it's true that there are unreliable versions and translations of the bible, but those errors are identifiable and traceable.

problem here is, a lot of parts of the Bible specially the oldest parts were passed down orally so how could you be sure that it's consistent? The Catholic Church also has history of changing or revising the Bible for their own benefit specially back in the Middle Ages. Although all-in-all, I it think the lessons in the Bible is a gift from God.

[barrister]

problem here is, a lot of parts of the Bible specially the oldest parts were passed down orally so how could you be sure that it's consistent?

Not orally.  They were written down, then copied and recopied by scribes word for word.  But even then, the risk of error, whether deliberate or not, is still there. 

So how can you be sure?    

It all depends on your faith.  

If you believe that God caused the bible to be written, then you should also believe that God will also make sure that the correct version is available and can be easily found.

If you don't believe it's possible to know which version is correct, then it would be illogical to believe that God caused the bible to be written.  

And if you don't believe God caused it to be written, then logically, you shouldn't bother studying the bible because it's only going to be an enormous waste of your time.


=====================


Here's an example.

Anyone who quotes the bible by saying, "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" is a novice in scriptural studies.

John 7:53-8:11 is a forgery that was added to the original text.  It's called the "Pericope Adulterae":

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

It's true that there are unreliable portions of the bible.  But if you're diligently searching for God's Word, it's not going to be too difficult to distinguish the reliable portions from the unreliable ones.

[leomarley]

Not orally.  They were written down, then copied and recopied by scribes word for word.  But even then, the risk of error, whether deliberate or not, is still there. 

The Old Testament was written down from accounts of people who passed the story orally. So you're saying that at the time God was creating us and the world someone was already taking down notes?

this is from wikipedia:

The various books of the Jewish and Christian Bibles were the work of many persons over many centuries. Very few of them are the work of the individuals whose names have been attached to them by tradition (the major exception being a number of the letters of Paul in the New Testament), and the majority have been heavily edited to the point where their original form and history of composition are today uncertain.

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

So how can you be sure?    

It all depends on your faith.

If you believe that God caused the bible to be written, then you should also believe that God will also make sure that the correct version is available and can be easily found.

If you don't believe it's possible to know which version is correct, then it would be illogical to believe that God caused the bible to be written.  

And if you don't believe God caused it to be written, then logically, you shouldn't bother studying the bible because it's only going to be an enormous waste of your time.

sir, that can also be misinterpreted as naivety.

God works in mysterious ways but He cannot work alone. This also the reason why God gave us the power of reasoning and analysis. If you don't analyze anything you read, your faith can work for the devil's cause.

If you believe that God caused the bible to be written, then you should also believe that God will also make sure that the correct version is available and can be easily found.

If you don't believe it's possible to know which version is correct, then it would be illogical to believe that God caused the bible to be written.  

And if you don't believe God caused it to be written, then logically, you shouldn't bother studying the bible because it's only going to be an enormous waste of your time.

I didn't say that God didn't cause the Bible to be written but what I was saying was that the first parts of the Bible, specially the Book of Genesis, was passed down orally before being transcribed into writing. Somewhere along the way, maybe some parts of it got lost or omitted (in the case of the Middle Ages' Catholic Church where church corruption was adamant).

[BusyChild]

I just love the word naivety/naiveté. Ang ganda lang pakinggan. Hehe.

Where are the dead sea scrolls?   

[leomarley]

I just love the word naivety/naiveté. Ang ganda lang pakinggan. Hehe.

Where are the dead sea scrolls?   

hehehe me too. nakita ko pwedeng gamitin kaya ginamit ko lol

[barrister]

The Old Testament was written down from accounts of people who passed the story orally. So you're saying that at the time God was creating us and the world someone was already taking down notes?

What about the time before God created humans.  Who witnessed God creating the heavens and the earth so as to start an oral story that will be passed on to others?

The creation account was written by Moses.  Moses got that from God himself, not from other persons who passed an oral story down to him.  Then scribes copied the written text.  

sir, that can also be misinterpreted as naivety.

I agree.

I believe Jesus rose from the dead.  If someone thinks that's naive, I'm not offended.  But I'm not going to force anyone else to believe it.

I didn't say that God didn't cause the Bible to be written but what I was saying was that the first parts of the Bible, specially the Book of Genesis, was passed down orally before being transcribed into writing. Somewhere along the way, maybe some parts of it got lost or omitted (in the case of the Middle Ages' Catholic Church where church corruption was adamant).

And I'm saying that the bible text came from God's inspiration, not from oral tradition.

The bible is not one book that lost some parts.  Instead, different books were collected to form the bible.

It takes faith to believe that the bible is complete for purposes of our salvation.  If you don't have that faith, then I won't blame you.  Just go ahead and believe what you want to believe.

What I'm saying is that those doubts cannot be disproved with absolute certainty.

Where are the dead sea scrolls?  

In a vault in Jerusalem.  

[BusyChild]

My belief in the bible is mostly based on faith.  

I admire people who have faith. Backslider ako eh... hehe. But don't get me wrong, I still believe in God.

[Moks007]

dpogs dun sa NBA thread inaalaska kita pero dito sa thread na ito, kanina pa kita talaga inaantay, pati si moks at JT

hehe present!!!..kamusta na Tirso?

One just really have to have faith.


John 20•24-29

One of the eleven disciples was missing. This was a man named Thomas.

After Jesus was gone, Thomas came back to the room where everyone was hiding. When he entered, the disciples told him, “Thomas, oh Thomas, it is true! We’ve seen Jesus! He’s alive! “He said to them, “No. I won’t believe it unless I see the nail marks in His hands. I have to put my finger where the nails were. If I can put my hand into His side, then I’ll believe you.”

Eight days later, Jesus visited the disciples again. This time Thomas was with them. Jesus walked right through the locked doors. “Peace be with you,” He said. Then He said, “Thomas, come here with your finger and see My hands. Touch the wounds in My hand. Put your hand into My side. Stop doubting now and believe.”

Thomas felt very ashamed for not believing. He hung his head, “My Lord and my God!”

Jesus answered him, “Is it because you have seen Me, that you now believe? There will be many who do not see and are still willing to believe. Those people are special to Me.”

[panzer]

  guys can anyone explain these ? si adam and eve ang unang tao ? are they caucasian or asian ? how come ang daming races? anak nila si cain and abel? so sino sa kanila ang male and female? paano dumami yung tao?

[barrister]

 guys can anyone explain these ? si adam and eve ang unang tao ? are they caucasian or asian ? how come ang daming races? anak nila si cain and abel? so sino sa kanila ang male and female? paano dumami yung tao?

si adam and eve ang unang tao.  had middle eastern features, not caucasian, not asian. maraming races because of dominance of genetic traits due to geographic location. mga unang anak nila sina cain and abel. parehong lalaki. wag mong isipin na iyon lang ang anak nila, kasi nagkaroon pa sila ng mga anak na lalaki at mga anak na babae (Gen.5:4). dumami yung tao kasi hindi naman sila puro lalaki.  

[panzer]

 ok sir dominance of traits how about yung blacks? parang ang layo nun sa caucasian? sir if its geographic location say for example a black person from africa . pag nasa europe or america kahit ilang generations na nakalipas still black pa rin di ba?

[barrister]

ok sir dominance of traits how about yung blacks? parang ang layo nun sa caucasian? sir if its geographic location say for example a black person from africa . pag nasa europe or america kahit ilang generations na nakalipas still black pa rin di ba?

Hindi tayo puwedeng mangahas na sabihing "kahit ilang generations na nakalipas", kasi konting generations lang naman ang kaya nating obserbahan.

There are speculations that when God confused the languages of the people at the Tower of Babel, he also created the different races.  That's when racial diversity appeared, and the appearance was immediate.

However, the bible has no specific information about this issue.  

[Wildfire™]

ok sir dominance of traits how about yung blacks? parang ang layo nun sa caucasian? sir if its geographic location say for example a black person from africa . pag nasa europe or america kahit ilang generations na nakalipas still black pa rin di ba?

humans adopt to their environment to survive ung mga nasa cold places tumangos ang ilong for them to easily breathe, color darkens in places with high degree of sun exposure (effect of melanin) and of course dominance of traits (singkit, pango, etc)

[jhelenz]

humans adopt to their environment to survive ung mga nasa cold places tumangos ang ilong for them to easily breathe, color darkens in places with high degree of sun exposure (effect of melanin) and of course dominance of traits (singkit, pango, etc)

so true.at hindi lang ang tao kundi pati mga animals,plants,etc nag aadopt sila sa environment nila to survive.

[dpogs]

adaptation is not equal to evolution

[panzer]

 precisely sir dpogs , adaptation and evolution are two different things....if black people or asians lives in europe and america sana naging caucasian din mga features nila di ba? like for example yung sa south africa na whites they stayed their for centuries how come they are still white? sana naging blacks din sila, sana nag evolve sila to become blacks because of their environment? pero hindi e they remain whites pa rin. compare na lang yung structure ng asians to caucasians to blacks? magkaiba yun di ba? my point is if we come from adam and eve di tayo nagkakalayo sa kanilang physical features sana di ba?

[Moks007]

If you guys like reading the Bible, I can suggest one here: The Life Application Study Bible

http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDkQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FLife-Application-Study-Bible-NIV%2Fdp%2F0842348921&rct=j&q=life%20application%20study%20bible&ei=njcWTtjEHND1mAXl-aEH&usg=AFQjCNFT71YS4cHVrYHAw6ZTOrprLtPYTQ&cad=rja

It is really good.

[Wildfire™]

there is this theory that adam and eve are black that's why blacks are better in sports, music , etc. in other words they are the dominant race

at kahit magasawa sila ng puti pag nag anak sila laging black din anak nila

pati ung garden of eden sa may africa daw un kaya rich sila sa natural resources and animal diversity

[barrister]

precisely sir dpogs , adaptation and evolution are two different things....if black people or asians lives in europe and america sana naging caucasian din mga features nila di ba? like for example yung sa south africa na whites they stayed their for centuries how come they are still white? sana naging blacks din sila, sana nag evolve sila to become blacks because of their environment? pero hindi e they remain whites pa rin. compare na lang yung structure ng asians to caucasians to blacks? magkaiba yun di ba? my point is if we come from adam and eve di tayo nagkakalayo sa kanilang physical features sana di ba?

Hindi mo nagets si sir dpogs.  He meant the human race came from Adam and Eve, not from apes.

Puro "sana" yung sinasabi mo --- sana ganon, sana ganito --- pero hindi mo naman kayang patunayan yung mga "sana" na yon.

Ni hindi mo nga alam kung ilang libong taon ang lumipas mula nang nilikha sina Adan at Eba.  Hindi mo rin alam kung nagkaroon ng racial diversity sa Tower of Babylon.

May nakita ka ngang caucasian sa South Africa, pero hindi mo naman na-trace ang mga ninuno niya kahit isang libong taon man lang.

From the scientific point of view, monogenism is now the predominant view in the scientific community.  Most current genetic and archaeological evidence supports a recent single origin of modern humans in East Africa.


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

[jhelenz]

precisely sir dpogs , adaptation and evolution are two different things....if black people or asians lives in europe and america sana naging caucasian din mga features nila di ba? like for example yung sa south africa na whites they stayed their for centuries how come they are still white? sana naging blacks din sila, sana nag evolve sila to become blacks because of their environment? pero hindi e they remain whites pa rin. compare na lang yung structure ng asians to caucasians to blacks? magkaiba yun di ba? my point is if we come from adam and eve di tayo nagkakalayo sa kanilang physical features sana di ba?

maybe because people today don't live long enough to para magkaroon ng effect yung environment sa atin.poeple before lived very long,and for that evolution to happen requires  time and gradual change siguro nangyari nun.
just another wild guess?,for example the dogs.kahit nung una palang wala pa atang aso if i remember correctly.they came from wolves ata.at nung nagkaroon ng aso,iba iba itsura di ba?madaming breed ng aso.so what happened?well every breed of dogs as they said was the result of people in breeding them.they bred out of purpose.for example,the dachshund was bred for hunting,german shepperd for protection,etc.and it was a trial and error at that time until nakuha ng mga tao yung trait na gusto nila makuha sa dogs.kaya ngayun you have a consistent line of dogs.may papers pa nga yang mga dogs.now,applicable ba to sa tao?i dont have proof,just a wild guess or theory.anyone here an expert in genetics?  

[Wildfire™]

From the scientific point of view, monogenism is now the predominant view in the scientific community.  Most current genetic and archaeological evidence supports a recent single origin of modern humans in East Africa.


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

yan nga ung sinasabi ko tnx brader eve theory yata ung name

[panzer]

 sir barrister base from monogenism as you said is it possible that adam and eve are blacks? sori sir ha i don't want to create an argument here  .

[barrister]

yan nga ung sinasabi ko tnx brader eve theory yata ung name

Yung term na "Eve Theory" ay short cut lang yata ng buong term na "Mitochondrial Eve Hypothesis" in human genetics.  Mitochondrial Eve refers to the woman from whom all living humans today descend.

Ang opposite ng Mitochondrial Eve Hypothesis ay yung Multiregional Hypothesis.

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

Ang Multiregional view ay nag-umpisa sa Peking Man discovery in the 1920s.  Nalaos ang Multiregional view nang sumikat ang Mitochondrial DNA.  Ngayon, Mitochondrial Eve na ang usong theory.    

[barrister]

sir barrister base from monogenism as you said is it possible that adam and eve are blacks? sori sir ha i don't want to create an argument here ha .

Yes, of course it's possible that Adam and Eve were blacks, because nobody knows how they looked like.

The bible does not have that information.  However, this does not mean that the bible is incomplete.

The bible is complete for purposes of salvation.  It does not tell us how Adam and Eve looked like because that information is not necessary for our salvation.



================





5 kids of Afro-Brazilian parents --- 2 black; 3 white with blond hair.  Both parents carry the albinism gene.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1210632/Meet-black-Brazilian-mother-albino-children.html

That's one generation.  Add hundreds of generations to that and you'll see that black ancestors to white descendants is not such a wild idea.

 

[BusyChild]

If you believe in Heaven.... uhm... may animals din kaya dun? Diba sabi all dogs go to heaven... what about other animals?

[dpogs]

Remember that yesterday, today and tomorrow God is still God of creation...

ibig ko lang sabihin... through all those times na akala natin nagaadopt ang tao sa kanyang sorrounding... naisip na ba natin na puwedeng sa concepcion pa lang naglagay na ng bagong genes ang Diyos para ang mga taong napunta sa malalamig ay makakapagadopt at ang mga taong napupunta sa mga maiinit na lugar ay nagiging itim...

scientifically... malaking factor ang gene/dna sa pagbuo ng tao... spiritually... God is the supreme architect/creator/engineer ng ating dna... bakit may guwapo at pangit sa mundo... gawa ng Diyos yan (God is not bound by beauty or ugliness... para sa kanya... isa tayong precious creation above all things.

[barrister]

If you believe in Heaven.... uhm... may animals din kaya dun? Diba sabi all dogs go to heaven... what about other animals?

The bible does not specifically answer that, but it provides an indication that there are no animals in heaven (2 Peter 2:12).

Those who believe there are animals in heaven cite Isaiah 11:6-9 and 65:25.  I disagree because those verses don't refer to heaven, they refer to Christ's millennial rule on earth.

If you're Catholic, I suppose you should believe there are animals in heaven, based on Pope John Paul II's 1990 statement that animals possess a soul.

[BusyChild]

I like this thread. People actually answer my questions. Thanks again.