New edition of bible coming soon!

[UShadItcoming]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1032642/The-ancient-scripts-predate--rewrite--Bible.html

This could be good news for christians because it will give them the opportunity to write a bible which suits the modern world. A new interpretation could for instance say that evolution is now known fact and the god only got it all started or something like that. Of course all the ridiculous crap such as the guy getting swallowed by a fish and noah's ark can be discarded. The new one can say that the sune was always the center of our solar system and the earth never was. The possibilities are endless. It can even talk about the genome theory and it can depend on modern science to interlpret what it says. At the current rate of scientific knowledge being advanced this could give the believers another 50 years before another new version is needed.

[ciaranxavier]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1032642/The-ancient-scripts-predate--rewrite--Bible.html

This could be good news for christians because it will give them the opportunity to write a bible which suits the modern world. A new interpretation could for instance say that evolution is now known fact and the god only got it all started or something like that. Of course all the ridiculous crap such as the guy getting swallowed by a fish and noah's ark can be discarded. The new one can say that the sune was always the center of our solar system and the earth never was. The possibilities are endless. It can even talk about the genome theory and it can depend on modern science to interlpret what it says. At the current rate of scientific knowledge being advanced this could give the believers another 50 years before another new version is needed.

this article says nothing about a new version of the bible coming anytime soon. and everybody knows that there are numerous gospels existing and only a handful are actually in the bible.

[UShadItcoming]

this article says nothing about a new version of the bible coming anytime soon. and everybody knows that there are numerous gospels existing and only a handful are actually in the bible.

The topic is about the bible, not the gospels. Please stay on topic. If you would like to split this thread and start a new one on the gospels I'm willing to do that. Just leave my thread on the new bible coming alone.

Thanks anyway.

[ciaranxavier]

The topic is about the bible, not the gospels. Please stay on topic. If you would like to split this thread and start a new one on the gospels I'm willing to do that. Just leave my thread on the new bible coming alone.

Thanks anyway.

and the gospels make up the bible so how am i off topic? especially considering your article is relating to one of the gospels. nice try. you failed. like usual. again could you show me where it says theres a new bible coming. maybe just quote it because i cant find in anywhere in the article.

[UShadItcoming]

cx please!

[ciaranxavier]

if you keep wasting space by posting that over the whole forum i may have to start deleting them.

[UShadItcoming]

cx please!

[Gareth]

I've discussed this on another forum, and it doesn't mean the Bible has to be rewritten at all? It actually doesn't contradict the Bible as far as I know.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055329361

[ciaranxavier]

cx please!

you keep saying this you sound like a broken record. now please what or are you doing that in a sad attempt to annoy me???

[Ldn_Irish]

Can you copy and paste the part where it says there is a new bible coming soon please?

[UShadItcoming]

The ancient scripts that predate - and might rewrite - the Bible Can you copy and paste the part where it says there is a new bible coming soon please?

Me saying that there is a new edition coming soon is simply paraphrasing what the article said in it's heading. You will notice that it said-'Might rewrite'.

I didn't answer the question for the prior questioner because it seems to me that he doesn't want answers as much as he just wants to fight. What I'm also saying is that this could be the opportunity to clear up all the places where modern day knowledge has proven the bible to be just a bunch of hogwash. If they can now say that the current edition wasn't really the word of their god then they can come out with something a little more sensible. I suspect that's what's going on in at least some minds because it's been done before by the Mormons when they reinvented a christian set of beliefs to create their new religion.

Interesting to say the least that all the christians have always said that the bible is completely infallible and has to be because it's the word of god and now we may see some revisions. proves to some of us at least that it's always been a load of baloney.

[Ldn_Irish]

Oh right, I'm only new here and the other forum I frequent people aren't allowed to alter article titles to make new headings so I got confused.

In fairness to Christians (I'm not one) revisions wouldn't prove it was all hogwash, it would mean they were wrong that it was an infallible word of God and would then make the revisions and claim this was the infallible word of God. Personally, I think the vast majority is fiction.

[UShadItcoming]

Oh right, I'm only new here and the other forum I frequent people aren't allowed to alter article titles to make new headings so I got confused.

In fairness to Christians (I'm not one) revisions wouldn't prove it was all hogwash, it would mean they were wrong that it was an infallible word of God and would then make the revisions and claim this was the infallible word of God. Personally, I think the vast majority is fiction.

I didn't intend to be dishonest when I posted the title but I did try to put my interpretation on what it meant. I don't think that's against the rules here but if it is then I did wrong. Actually I've never visited a forum which demands that the title of the article be the title of the thread. However the title of the article could perhaps be posted in the OP.

In any case I'm glad to hear that you concur with my interpretation of the fact that if anything is changed in the bible then the christians lose their credibility. It can no longer be called the word of god because it is no longer infallible. They're going to have to come up with some creative damage control over this one. Maybe it will be the beginning of another new religion just as scientology has sprung up out of the ashes of christian corruption.

[quirk]

In fairness though I don't think they do say it is the actual word of God but rather inspired by Him. I stand open to correction though.

[Ldn_Irish]

In any case I'm glad to hear that you concur with my interpretation of the fact that if anything is changed in the bible then the christians lose their credibility. It can no longer be called the word of god because it is no longer infallible. They're going to have to come up with some creative damage control over this one. Maybe it will be the beginning of another new religion just as scientology has sprung up out of the ashes of christian corruption.

I'm not concurring, I'm saying that just because they got it wrong on this one (if they did which I'm not convinced on based on this article) it doesn't mean that everything they say is bollocks. It also doesn't mean the word of God isn't infallible, it just means they didn't know what the actual word of God is.

But let's face it, it's bollocks regardless of all of this, Jesus condemned money borrowers and lenders as much as he spoke out at homosexuality, but you don't see people running around screaming at bankers "Banking is Wrong!!" like you do see nutters legging it about screaming "homosexuality is a sin!" These people pick and choose what they want to condemn, their condemning is reserved for things that they find distasteful regardless of religion, and things that they can avoid doing themselves. They don't personally find money lending a terrible thing like they do homosexuality, and they can't avoid borrowing money (unless they are very lucky or don't like owning property!) like they can avoid having sex with men. It's all choice on their part, to say they are guided by Gods word is misguided at best.

[UShadItcoming]

In fairness though I don't think they do say it is the actual word of God but rather inspired by Him. I stand open to correction though.

quirk- I'm no religious scholar but I think I'm knowledgable enough on the subject so that I won't get the wool pulled over my eyes. So I offer you this in answer to the question: is the bible the word of god?

Of course normal people living in the 21st. century know that of course it's nothing more than a huge collection of ideas put together in a hodge-podge and contradictory in itself. Not to mention that one religion has it enterpreted totally different than another in some cases.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-God-Word.html

There can be no doubt about the fact that the Bible does claim to be the very Word of God. This is clearly seen in verses like 2 Timothy 3:15-17, which say, “. . .from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

That's not to say that some brands of religion may not differ and I think that if it's found by this new info that the bible has been incorrect then all of them will quickly make claims of the bible not being the word of god.

At the moment though I think that most christians accept the above interpretation. I also think that we shouldn't take any of this too seriously.

[UShadItcoming]

I'm not concurring, I'm saying that just because they got it wrong on this one (if they did which I'm not convinced on based on this article) it doesn't mean that everything they say is bollocks. It also doesn't mean the word of God isn't infallible, it just means they didn't know what the actual word of God is.

But let's face it, it's bollocks regardless of all of this, Jesus condemned money borrowers and lenders as much as he spoke out at homosexuality, but you don't see people running around screaming at bankers "Banking is Wrong!!" like you do see nutters legging it about screaming "homosexuality is a sin!" These people pick and choose what they want to condemn, their condemning is reserved for things that they find distasteful regardless of religion, and things that they can avoid doing themselves. They don't personally find money lending a terrible thing like they do homosexuality, and they can't avoid borrowing money (unless they are very lucky or don't like owning property!) like they can avoid having sex with men. It's all choice on their part, to say they are guided by Gods word is misguided at best.

I'm not saying that everything they say is bollocks and that's not the question I don't think. Having said that I think that most of what they say is bollocks because it's obviously dreamed up by mortals living in a time when they made crucial errors which science now allows us to laugh at with impunity. I do maintain that if even one small item is found to be incorrect because of these new socalled revelations then they have lost credibility in the simple fact that the bible will be seen to not be infallible.

And like you say, it's all bollocks regardless of all this.

[Drycon]

I'm not saying that everything they say is bollocks and that's not the question I don't think. Having said that I think that most of what they say is bollocks because it's obviously dreamed up by mortals living in a time when they made crucial errors which science now allows us to laugh at with impunity.

Examples?

[UShadItcoming]

Examples?

Examples? There are hundreds of examples but let's start with the biggest lie of them all. Creation, which maintains the earth is close to 6000 years old. Some christians can claim that they all don't subscribe to the young earth theory but we know that if they don't then they are forced into making different and novel interpretations of the bible.

But first you tell me Drycon, is it something that we want to involve ourselves in? Is it not a ridiculous waste of time and energy to go around in circles with a christian who has nothing but his faith on which to base all his arguments? Do we really want to afford the wackos an audience?

[Drycon]

Examples? There are hundreds of examples but let's start with the biggest lie of them all. Creation, which maintains the earth is close to 6000 years old. Some christians can claim that they all don't subscribe to the young earth theory but we know that if they don't then they are forced into making different and novel interpretations of the bible.

I have never subscribed to the young earth approach, but then, it can not be proven within the shadow of a doubt how old this earth is in the first place, science is not flawless.

But first you tell me Drycon, is it something that we want to involve ourselves in? Is it not a ridiculous waste of time and energy to go around in circles with a christian who has nothing but his faith on which to base all his arguments? Do we really want to afford the wackos an audience?

This is as much of a response as you can hope to get from me if you are going to resort to name calling of every person who does not share your belief.

[UShadItcoming]

I have never subscribed to the young earth approach, but then, it can not be proven within the shadow of a doubt how old this earth is in the first place, science is not flawless.

Ahhh Drycon, so you're a christian believer! And you are one who obviously holds out hope for the 6000 year old earth theory! I say that because anyone who would say that the theory of the earth being billions of years old is not proven has to be a young earther. Don't be ashamed of your beliefs when you are talking to me to start with. I am not ashamed of mine and I am going to tell you unabashedly that there is simply no way that a young earth theory can even be contemplated as something that sane people would support.

Are you a young earther or are you not? Do 'you' still contemplate the theory that the earth may not be as old as science tells us it is, give or take a few million years. You are either one or you are not. Now is the time to set the parameters of the debate we are going to have if I have read you correctly. You won't be alone as there are apparently 53% of Americans who subscribe to the young earth theory. Here is proof and here is their argument to support it from at least one source.

http://www.dailyadvance.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/02/021207_news_creation.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=7

Crazy bunch of f---ers or do they have a point?

This is as much of a response as you can hope to get from me if you are going to resort to name calling of every person who does not share your belief.

Have I offended you? My sincere apologies if I have but I assumed that you were not a young earther and so I attempted to talk to you on my own level as a believer in evolution. Please don't go away now just because I have misread you.

[Drycon]

No, I do not belive the earth is only 6000 years old, and no where in the bible does it state that the earth is young. I was mearly stateing that carbon dateing was not flawless. The earth could be many many times older then what we think it is.

Yes I do belive in evolution, Microevolution.

Yes I am a christian, and im willing to discuss any number of things with you, but if you are going to name call, or lable my god a sky fairy, we might aswell stop now. I will not disrespect you, I expect the same.

[UShadItcoming]

No, I do not belive the earth is only 6000 years old, and no where in the bible does it state that the earth is young. I was mearly stateing that carbon dateing was not flawless. The earth could be many many times older then what we think it is.

Yes I am a christian, and im willing to discuss any number of things with you, but if you are going to name call, or lable my god a sky fairy, we might aswell stop now. I will not disrespect you, I expect the same.

Carbon dating? What that hell has that got to do with what you believe? Are you trying to suggest to me now that carbon dating is so inaccurate that it oculd make a mistake on the order of billions of years? Are you suggesting that the earth could be many times younger than what we think? Is that what you want to say? Are you perhaps not aware that carbon dating is only one of many methods of dating articles which range from a few years old to billions of years old? Are you not aware that carbon dating is not accurate for some articles but can be accurate to within 1/10 of one percent for others. Are you not aware that carbon dating can be done on an item and several others can carbon date the same item and they will all agree? Are you trying to suggest that the bible doesn't imply that humans weren't created by their god? Are you actually attempting to suggest that there is any doubt in the least that the earth is billions of years old? Do you believe that humans were created by god thousands of years ago?

Yes I do belive in evolution, Microevolution.

Are you attempting to tell me that you believe in some special kind of evolution which can be in agreement with creationist beliefs? If so then tell me what you believe.

Yes I am a christian, and im willing to discuss any number of things with you, but if you are going to name call, or lable my god a sky fairy, we might aswell stop now. I will not disrespect you, I expect the same.

I am not a christian and I'm willing to discuss the issue with you with not conditions attached. I believe that all gods are sky fairies and it's unfair of you to try to place restrictions on my beliefs. I make no claims in the least on what you will be allowed to discuss with me and I have no right to do that.

Now if you are going to discuss the issue with me I suggest you stop putting off answering all my questions. Do you totally reject the notion that the earth is 6000 - 10,000 years old as the bible implies? Do you believe in Adam and Eve and creation or do you not?

[Drycon]

I belive the earth is older then 6000 years, I said that allready, and again, the bible does not imply that the earth is young.

I do belive that man and woman were created by god.

One more time so i dont have to repeat myself, the earth could be a billion years old, I do not follow the young earth theroy.

This will be my last response to you on any topic concerning religion as you can not be respectful to other people, you are here mearly to troll and get people angry, not to debate.

[Gareth]

Interestingly this is what I said to him last time. Don't worry about it Drycon.

[UShadItcoming]

I belive the earth is older then 6000 years, I said that allready, and again, the bible does not imply that the earth is young.

I do belive that man and woman were created by god.

One more time so i dont have to repeat myself, the earth could be a billion years old, I do not follow the young earth theroy.

This will be my last response to you on any topic concerning religion as you can not be respectful to other people, you are here mearly to troll and get people angry, not to debate.

Actually I think it's just a matter of christians needing to run away from any debate where they will be cornered and have to come to terms with their beliefs. For that reason I went out of my way to apologize to you, superficial as it was on my part. I didn't want you to be able to find a reason to run away. But you needed to run anyway and that's o.k. because you have decided to censor yourself in the same way as the young moderator has and that's your loss, not mine.

What else could you do when you knew very well that you had left yourself wide open to needing to explain a timeline of events in the history of the earth which of course is billions of years old. For just a beginning I would begin by asking you to place Adam and eve on a timeline which included dinosaurs and you would immediately be in trouble up to your eyebrows. And that's only the beginning of the fun.

You christians ask for respect in a way which is impossible to give from an atheist or an agnostic. But it's not an issue of wanting respect as much as it's a ploy being used by christians to channel the discussion in a direction which is suitable to them. How can we possibly comply when you speak of your god as a god and we recognize that all gods are nothing more than imaginary entities which are created in the interest of manipulating people. It is entirely appropriate to call them sky fairies.

On the other hand we atheists don't place rules on how the issue will be discussed. It's not fair to place restrictions on your debating practices.

So be it then Drycon, the opportunity to learn and better yourself was offered and even though you can remain anonymous you aren't mature enough to be able to discuss even on thos terms.

And גארט, if you want more trouble then keep throwing third person insults at me. If you want to keep it on a basis of peaceful coexistence then you know how to behave yourself.

[UShadItcoming]

It's worth noting here for anyone else who is interested in the debate that drycon says: One more time so i dont have to repeat myself, the earth could be a billion years old, I do not follow the young earth theroy.

He says the earth could be a billion years old, not defininitively that he acknowledges that the earth is at least a billion years old and obviously older. This appears to be a dishonest attempt to keep his reply ambiguous.

Those who continue to pretend that the earth can't be dated appropriately are merely attempting to reject scientific knowledge and remain non-commital for their dishonest religious purposes. As soon as they proclaim that C14 dating is not reliable and accurate they betray their dishonest motives IMO.

[quirk]

There is no dispute on the issue however. The earth is much more than a billion years old.

[ciaranxavier]

There is no dispute on the issue however. The earth is much more than a billion years old.

well dinosaurs prove that i believe. :o

[UShadItcoming]

There is no dispute on the issue however. The earth is much more than a billion years old.

According to polls there are 53% of the people in the US who believe in the young earth theory. Is there a dispute? If you hold their feet to the fire quirk they have to evade answering the question because to believe that the earth is billions of years old flies in the face of their religious beliefs. Some will come right out and say that the earth has to be about 6000 years old but most will try to avoid answering the question. The bible and an earth which is billions of years old are two ideas which are irreconcilable and that is why they will use clever ways to avoid the debate in much the same way Drycon did.

Can they always continue to run from the truth by making claims that those who don't believe don't respect them and their religion? Can one show respect for their religion at the same time as he is out of common sense and necessity, telling them that it is nonsense?

Christians need to separate faith based beliefs from reality and there's no more respectful way of putting it. They need to keep their faith based beliefs within the confines of their homes and their churches. And even doing that they are going to cause problems for their children who will be indoctrinated into believing in fairy tales before they are old enough to decide for themselves what is right and what is ridiculous nonsense.

It has been proven that a christian can work in any of the earth sciences and be successful if they are capable of separating the religion from the real world. Even geologists who are christians know that paths must not cross. But are they living a lie? I think they have to be but I've tried to draw a christian into a debate on it many times and they invariably run away after making excuses of being not respected. Then rather than just live with their inadequacy they have brought on themselves through their beliefs they need to somehow start working in another devious way to eliminate their detractors. Such is their miserable lot in life.

[Drycon]

There is no dispute on the issue however. The earth is much more than a billion years old.

The earth could be a trillion years old, I dont have that much faith in men to know the exact date that the earth was created. I dont know how many times i have to say it

I DO NOT FOLLOW THE YOUNG EARTH THEORY.

[UShadItcoming]

The earth could be a trillion years old, I dont have that much faith in men to know the exact date that the earth was created. I dont know how many times i have to say it

I DO NOT FOLLOW THE YOUNG EARTH THEORY.

And I don't know how many times I have to say to all christians that they need to acknowledge that the age of the earth is estimated to be billions of years old and there is ample evidence to show that it is. Your continuous shallow dodge of saying that you don't know the date that the earth was 'created' is pretty transparent to say the least. Not to mention that you sneak in the word 'created' expecting somebody to believe that it was 'created' in the sense of the sky fairy creating it.

Just say 'is', not 'could be' when you talk about the earth being billions of years old. Then we will be able to move on and destroy some religious fantasies.

If you don't wish to take part in a normal discussion then don't. I could care less. If you want to begin to recognize that your christian beliefs can't stand beside real science then you have come to the right place.

Or if you feel that I don't respect your religion or your religious ideas then you needn't bother with the debate.

[mynameisstíofán]

You're quite the little instigator, UShad.

[mynameisstíofán]

In fairness though I don't think they do say it is the actual word of God but rather inspired by Him. I stand open to correction though.

You are, in fact, correct. However, there are Christians who don't even take the Hebrew Bible to be any more than a collection of oral tradition. Stories passed down that carry certain ideas to teach you, morally or what have you.

I'm both a Christian and an Anthropology major, as such I deal with the idea of evolution every day in my studies and work. I also have a slight focus in my studies, since my Anthro emphasis is Archaeology, with Physical Geography, dealin with the age of the Earth quite frequently in the effort of dating. It seems to me that UShad is only allowing for his or her own interpretation of what Christians believe to exist. Quite a funny change from the accusation of "narrow-minded Christians" that generally gets bandied about by non-Christians.

[Thoba]

I dont have that much faith in men

Well said Drycon my brother, me neither. All they really are is just a kind of fancy new ape, they have a poor track record and they're not to be trusted IMO

Personally all I can really trust is Science and Reason and Logic. I think these are the greatest gifts from God.

I am curious though about one thing; if you do not trust in men then why do you trust and have total faith in a book that was written by men, and then kept by men for men? It seems a little odd to me.