The Religion Discussion

[megadoc1]

I think the real guess work is in the exegesis and hermeneutics of religious texts

its not about what you think pal unless you have some kind of proof

The proof is clearly that there are dozens of different principles in biblical hermeneutics, proving that each principle is based on what the translator chose. The fact that not all agree with your principle of hermeneutics means that you think the others are guessing incorrectly as is the case with roman catholic hermeneutics or trajectory hermeneutics.

please try again.

some gland seems to raise and excite you when ever I type "I think" or "I feel" apparently because you can jump in and say "well that is your opinion and therefore not true" or "its not about what you think pal". It is getting rather old.

YOU DO NOT HAVE PROOF so unless you plan to produce some here you should stop pretending to be an authority on what is fact and what is fiction.

In your case, these 190 pages just boils down to ONE thing: You made a claim which you cannot prove is real and so far all evidence points to the fact that it is just your imagination.

Can you prove otherwise?

at this point I guess you will have to call me a fraud and call it a day
I just hope it is enough to comfort you

so then you have no proof to show here to back up your claims?

nope none at all .........but it does not mean I will stop making those claims
so just call me a liar and have a nice day.. cool?

[toyo682]

Sitting behind you computer it is easy to scoff at others especial when it is only our opinion and not what you truly believe that they are allow to see.

d spike said it earlier: what him and I believe is irrelevant here. You and bluefete and megadoc1 have been claiming that your beliefs in Christianity is correct and other's (such as Roman Catholics) are wrong I have posted my beliefs with scriptures that clearly contradict what many of these sects believe. If we all can't be right....well you think about it. And as I said it is posted for you and d spike to pick apart, show me where the scriptures I have posted are misread.and also your beliefs are the truth and those of other religions are false.

We are asking you to prove your claims - and so far you have not.
Is it that you cannot prove you are correct and other beliefs are wrong?

What will tuner land accept as proof, videos, letters, test-tube results? You fail to realize that this is why Mega Doc invited you to come and see or even better bring your own so that the results cannot be doctored. So what proof will satisfy your mind?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ just some empirical evidence that shows your beliefs as right over others beliefs.

so the proof that proves your claims can ONLY be shown by ME taking megadoc1's invitation?
he said his group is powerful, yet it is not possible for them to help him prove it here?
You both say your way is the right way and the truth, yet you cannot do a simple thing such as give empirical evidence of your claims?

[toyo682]

^ just some empirical evidence that shows your beliefs as right over others beliefs.

so the proof that proves your claims can ONLY be shown by ME taking megadoc1's invitation?
he said his group is powerful, yet it is not possible for them to help him prove it here?
You both say your way is the right way and the truth, yet you cannot do a simple thing such as give empirical evidence of your claims?

But I am asking you what will satisfy you as empirical evidence, a video of a said event talking place, a testimony what will constitute as proof here on tuner. What???????????????

[Computerman]

How old is the earth then? According to literal biblical calculations the earth is 6000-10,000 years old?

How should I know and why should I be concerned. Does it really matter at the end when it comes to my relationship with God. There are many things we will never understand. No where in the Bible does it say so, man may have estimated it to be so, but man has proven to not always be correct.

LOL that is a cop-out. Are you saying there are things in the bible that does not really matter to you? you get caught up in the details of one verse and ignore the other because you feel to or it conflicts with the scientifically proven truth?

Once again you exhibit a lack of comprehension that you scold others for having. Read what I have written or do you have a verse in the Bible that says, 'thus saith the Lord the earth is between 6000-10000 years", if so please post.

But if such a verse did exist the real question would be 'when did the Lord say it?'

Genesis5:3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died. 6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh. 7 And after he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8 Altogether, Seth lived 912 years, and then he died. 9 When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. 10 And after he became the father of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters. 11 Altogether, Enosh lived 905 years, and then he died. 12 When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel. 13 And after he became the father of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and had other sons and daughters. 14 Altogether, Kenan lived 910 years, and then he died. 15 When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared. 16 And after he became the father of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years and had other sons and daughters. 17 Altogether, Mahalalel lived 895 years, and then he died. 18 When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch. 19 And after he became the father of Enoch, Jared lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 20 Altogether, Jared lived 962 years, and then he died. 21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. 22 And after he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Altogether, Enoch lived 365 years. 24 Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away. 25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he became the father of Lamech. 26 And after he became the father of Lamech, Methuselah lived 782 years and had other sons and daughters. 27 Altogether, Methuselah lived 969 years, and then he died. 28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 29 He named him Noah [c] and said, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed." 30 After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters. 31 Altogether, Lamech lived 777 years, and then he died. 32 After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.


Luke3:23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, 25Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 26Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, 27Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, 28Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, 29Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, 30Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 31Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, 32Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, 33Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, 34Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

There is more, but I am tired.

[sMASH]

the greek word for eternal, the scripture it was written, exact to the first dictation? may be , may be not.
some body may have heard that story and amazed by it told it to another person, and that person zealously, made the time sound so long it could be considered eternal, and then the person who wrote it wrote eternal in aramic and then it was translated into spanish and then read out to the greeks who scribed it as eternal in greek

perfect example here of guess work
when you read the bible with this attitude you end up with what you think it could/should be

i was makin ah point there.
u quarreling with the SDA man about the word eternal. that is like when some one wanted to know where othaheittie was and i drew a map, and u guys arguing about specific details on my map. i drew dat map using paint and i have very little skills, so it was looking like billy, age 8.

the earliest possible manuscripts about jesus (pbuh) available today still cannot be directly associated with him. there is a gap between the time those words were first uttered, then scribed to the parchments u have available today. and that time period is unaccounted for, so any thing could have happened. the numbers which are available may have stemmed from one source, so are in agreement with each other, but which may not be the complete and accurate to what was originally intended. the possibility is there that it is not the words used the first time, and because of the inability to link them directly to jesus(pbuh) a high probability is also there.

u mention the qur'an being like that. the possibility is also there, but the circumstances of its compilation leave it less likely, (but admittedly, not impossible) that is not accurate to what was originally intended. there were many people who memorized the qur'an exactly, totally, and in perfect order and pronunciation, (even today there are people like that, earning the title of haffiz). when deciding on the authenticity of a verse, a committee was set up to decide, and never less than four haffiz at any time were present.

the circumstances of the compilation of both books are somewhat different, and one is more water tight than the other. but the fact that it is exactly the way it was for the last 1400 years gives it credit.


so when u critiquing specifics and it not even able to verify what it was in the first place,,,,,, well

[axe]

The fact that this thread is longer than any NWS thread is testament to how everyone of you is searching for the truth.

Yet the truth so so simple to find! I f God really exists then just appeal to him from the heart to reveal his truth. I did just that. I put God to the test and he revealed to me in a special circumstance (a miraculous deliverance from a nightmare i was experiencing) that He is real and Jesus is his only begotten son.

I didn't have to go through rationalizing why a Supreme creator would want us to make figures and bow to them, or wonder how a man claiming to be a prophet and ridiculed by Medinan Jews would write a book filled with anti-Semitism that becomes a religion. Oh no, I posed the question (because i really wanted an answer) and now I believe.

Since then I have marvelled that secular historians and scholars cannot dispute a historical Jesus, that Paul has left inescapable footprints in Western development, and the fact that the prophesy in Ezekiel 37 (written during Babylonian captivity, when no Israel existed) has come to pass!

There is an unavoidable war to be brewed between Iran and other Islamic regimes (backed by Russia) against Israel (Ezekiel 38, 39). This is very soon and would reveal whom God favours. Look at the situation in the Middle East. Until then choose whom you believe cautiously with much prayer. Prove Him and find out that He is God.

[megadoc1]

There are SO MANY versions of the bible.

not versions but translations ....two thing stop guessing or just be honest when making these kind of statements ,it only tells how much you are not aware of

being condescending makes you feel more right, ent? I thought you were supposed to follow Jesus' ways?

why do they call it the "King James Version"?

version means that in the translation it is different from the original because it is put into a different language with different lingual nuances. Words have many different meanings in different languages; the translator will choose what he feels is the best fit, which is why there are so many VERSIONS because there are different translators.

it is in this same translation context that words that mean "eternal" and "forever" or "a thousand years" can get mixed meanings from different translators.

Wait like yuh did not read what I posted before
look again and see how the "versions" came about
please read it research it and then make an informed post
it is not what you and I think it should/could be
but rather what it is
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

biased me again
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

English Bible History


The fascinating story of how we got the Bible in its present form actually starts thousands of years ago, as briefly outlined in our Timeline of Bible Translation History. As a background study, we recommend that you first review our discussion of the Pre-Reformation History of the Bible from 1,400 B.C. to 1,400 A.D., which covers the transmission of the scripture through the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, and the 1,000 years of the Dark & Middle Ages when the Word was trapped in only Latin. Our starting point in this discussion of Bible history, however, is the advent of the scripture in the English language with the “Morning Star of the Reformation”, John Wycliffe.


The first hand-written English language Bible manuscripts were produced in the 1380's AD by John Wycliffe, an Oxford professor, scholar, and theologian. Wycliffe, (also spelled “Wycliff” & “Wyclif”), was well-known throughout Europe for his opposition to the teaching of the organized Church, which he believed to be contrary to the Bible. With the help of his followers, called the Lollards, and his assistant Purvey, and many other faithful scribes, Wycliffe produced dozens of English language manuscript copies of the scriptures. They were translated out of the Latin Vulgate, which was the only source text available to Wycliffe. The Pope was so infuriated by his teachings and his translation of the Bible into English, that 44 years after Wycliffe had died, he ordered the bones to be dug-up, crushed, and scattered in the river!


One of Wycliffe’s followers, John Hus, actively promoted Wycliffe’s ideas: that people should be permitted to read the Bible in their own language, and they should oppose the tyranny of the Roman church that threatened anyone possessing a non-Latin Bible with execution. Hus was burned at the stake in 1415, with Wycliffe’s manuscript Bibles used as kindling for the fire. The last words of John Hus were that, “in 100 years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed.” Almost exactly 100 years later, in 1517, Martin Luther nailed his famous 95 Theses of Contention (a list of 95 issues of heretical theology and crimes of the Roman Catholic Church) into the church door at Wittenberg. The prophecy of Hus had come true! Martin Luther went on to be the first person to translate and publish the Bible in the commonly-spoken dialect of the German people; a translation more appealing than previous German Biblical translations. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs records that in that same year, 1517, seven people were burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church for the crime of teaching their children to say the Lord’s Prayer in English rather than Latin.


Johann Gutenberg invented the printing press in the 1450's, and the first book to ever be printed was a Latin language Bible, printed in Mainz, Germany. Gutenberg’s Bibles were surprisingly beautiful, as each leaf Gutenberg printed was later colorfully hand-illuminated. Born as “Johann Gensfleisch” (John Gooseflesh), he preferred to be known as “Johann Gutenberg” (John Beautiful Mountain). Ironically, though he had created what many believe to be the most important invention in history, Gutenberg was a victim of unscrupulous business associates who took control of his business and left him in poverty. Nevertheless, the invention of the movable-type printing press meant that Bibles and books could finally be effectively produced in large quantities in a short period of time. This was essential to the success of the Reformation.


In the 1490’s another Oxford professor, and the personal physician to King Henry the 7th and 8th, Thomas Linacre, decided to learn Greek. After reading the Gospels in Greek, and comparing it to the Latin Vulgate, he wrote in his diary, “Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel… or we are not Christians.” The Latin had become so corrupt that it no longer even preserved the message of the Gospel… yet the Church still threatened to kill anyone who read the scripture in any language other than Latin… though Latin was not an original language of the scriptures.


In 1496, John Colet, another Oxford professor and the son of the Mayor of London, started reading the New Testament in Greek and translating it into English for his students at Oxford, and later for the public at Saint Paul’s Cathedral in London. The people were so hungry to hear the Word of God in a language they could understand, that within six months there were 20,000 people packed in the church and at least that many outside trying to get in! (Sadly, while the enormous and beautiful Saint Paul’s Cathedral remains the main church in London today, as of 2003, typical Sunday morning worship attendance is only around 200 people… and most of them are tourists). Fortunately for Colet, he was a powerful man with friends in high places, so he amazingly managed to avoid execution.


In considering the experiences of Linacre and Colet, the great scholar Erasmus was so moved to correct the corrupt Latin Vulgate, that in 1516, with the help of printer John Froben, he published a Greek-Latin Parallel New Testament. The Latin part was not the corrupt Vulgate, but his own fresh rendering of the text from the more accurate and reliable Greek, which he had managed to collate from a half-dozen partial old Greek New Testament manuscripts he had acquired. This milestone was the first non-Latin Vulgate text of the scripture to be produced in a millennium… and the first ever to come off a printing press. The 1516 Greek-Latin New Testament of Erasmus further focused attention on just how corrupt and inaccurate the Latin Vulgate had become, and how important it was to go back and use the original Greek (New Testament) and original Hebrew (Old Testament) languages to maintain accuracy… and to translate them faithfully into the languages of the common people, whether that be English, German, or any other tongue. No sympathy for this “illegal activity” was to be found from Rome… even as the words of Pope Leo X's declaration that "the fable of Christ was quite profitable to him" continued through the years to infuriate the people of God.


William Tyndale was the Captain of the Army of Reformers, and was their spiritual leader. Tyndale holds the distinction of being the first man to ever print the New Testament in the English language. Tyndale was a true scholar and a genius, so fluent in eight languages that it was said one would think any one of them to be his native tongue. He is frequently referred to as the “Architect of the English Language”, (even more so than William Shakespeare) as so many of the phrases Tyndale coined are still in our language today.


Martin Luther had a small head-start on Tyndale, as Luther declared his intolerance for the Roman Church’s corruption on Halloween in 1517, by nailing his 95 Theses of Contention to the Wittenberg Church door. Luther, who would be exiled in the months following the Diet of Worms Council in 1521 that was designed to martyr him, would translate the New Testament into German for the first time from the 1516 Greek-Latin New Testament of Erasmus, and publish it in September of 1522. Luther also published a German Pentateuch in 1523, and another edition of the German New Testament in 1529. In the 1530’s he would go on to publish the entire Bible in German.

William Tyndale wanted to use the same 1516 Erasmus text as a source to translate and print the New Testament in English for the first time in history. Tyndale showed up on Luther's doorstep in Germany in 1525, and by year's end had translated the New Testament into English. Tyndale had been forced to flee England, because of the wide-spread rumor that his English New Testament project was underway, causing inquisitors and bounty hunters to be constantly on Tyndale's trail to arrest him and prevent his project. God foiled their plans, and in 1525-1526 the Tyndale New Testament became the first printed edition of the scripture in the English language. Subsequent printings of the Tyndale New Testament in the 1530's were often elaborately illustrated.

They were burned as soon as the Bishop could confiscate them, but copies trickled through and actually ended up in the bedroom of King Henry VIII. The more the King and Bishop resisted its distribution, the more fascinated the public at large became. The church declared it contained thousands of errors as they torched hundreds of New Testaments confiscated by the clergy, while in fact, they burned them because they could find no errors at all. One risked death by burning if caught in mere possession of Tyndale's forbidden books.

Having God's Word available to the public in the language of the common man, English, would have meant disaster to the church. No longer would they control access to the scriptures. If people were able to read the Bible in their own tongue, the church's income and power would crumble. They could not possibly continue to get away with selling indulgences (the forgiveness of sins) or selling the release of loved ones from a church-manufactured "Purgatory". People would begin to challenge the church's authority if the church were exposed as frauds and thieves. The contradictions between what God's Word said, and what the priests taught, would open the public's eyes and the truth would set them free from the grip of fear that the institutional church held. Salvation through faith, not works or donations, would be understood. The need for priests would vanish through the priesthood of all believers. The veneration of church-canonized Saints and Mary would be called into question. The availability of the scriptures in English was the biggest threat imaginable to the wicked church. Neither side would give up without a fight.

Today, there are only two known copies left of Tyndale’s 1525-26 First Edition. Any copies printed prior to 1570 are extremely valuable. Tyndale's flight was an inspiration to freedom-loving Englishmen who drew courage from the 11 years that he was hunted. Books and Bibles flowed into England in bales of cotton and sacks of flour. Ironically, Tyndale’s biggest customer was the King’s men, who would buy up every copy available to burn them… and Tyndale used their money to print even more! In the end, Tyndale was caught: betrayed by an Englishman that he had befriended. Tyndale was incarcerated for 500 days before he was strangled and burned at the stake in 1536. Tyndale’s last words were, "Oh Lord, open the King of England’s eyes". This prayer would be answered just three years later in 1539, when King Henry VIII finally allowed, and even funded, the printing of an English Bible known as the “Great Bible”. But before that could happen…


Myles Coverdale and John “Thomas Matthew” Rogers had remained loyal disciples the last six years of Tyndale's life, and they carried the English Bible project forward and even accelerated it. Coverdale finished translating the Old Testament, and in 1535 he printed the first complete Bible in the English language, making use of Luther's German text and the Latin as sources. Thus, the first complete English Bible was printed on October 4, 1535, and is known as the Coverdale Bible.


John Rogers went on to print the second complete English Bible in 1537. It was, however, the first English Bible translated from the original Biblical languages of Hebrew & Greek. He printed it under the pseudonym "Thomas Matthew", (an assumed name that had actually been used by Tyndale at one time) as a considerable part of this Bible was the translation of Tyndale, whose writings had been condemned by the English authorities. It is a composite made up of Tyndale's Pentateuch and New Testament (1534-1535 edition) and Coverdale's Bible and some of Roger's own translation of the text. It remains known most commonly as the Matthew-Tyndale Bible. It went through a nearly identical second-edition printing in 1549.


In 1539, Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, hired Myles Coverdale at the bequest of King Henry VIII to publish the "Great Bible". It became the first English Bible authorized for public use, as it was distributed to every church, chained to the pulpit, and a reader was even provided so that the illiterate could hear the Word of God in plain English. It would seem that William Tyndale's last wish had been granted...just three years after his martyrdom. Cranmer's Bible, published by Coverdale, was known as the Great Bible due to its great size: a large pulpit folio measuring over 14 inches tall. Seven editions of this version were printed between April of 1539 and December of 1541.


It was not that King Henry VIII had a change of conscience regarding publishing the Bible in English. His motives were more sinister… but the Lord sometimes uses the evil intentions of men to bring about His glory. King Henry VIII had in fact, requested that the Pope permit him to divorce his wife and marry his mistress. The Pope refused. King Henry responded by marrying his mistress anyway, (later having two of his many wives executed), and thumbing his nose at the Pope by renouncing Roman Catholicism, taking England out from under Rome’s religious control, and declaring himself as the reigning head of State to also be the new head of the Church. This new branch of the Christian Church, neither Roman Catholic nor truly Protestant, became known as the Anglican Church or the Church of England. King Henry acted essentially as its “Pope”. His first act was to further defy the wishes of Rome by funding the printing of the scriptures in English… the first legal English Bible… just for spite.


The ebb and flow of freedom continued through the 1540's...and into the 1550's. After King Henry VIII, King Edward VI took the throne, and after his death, the reign of Queen “Bloody” Mary was the next obstacle to the printing of the Bible in English. She was possessed in her quest to return England to the Roman Church. In 1555, John "Thomas Matthew" Rogers and Thomas Cranmer were both burned at the stake. Mary went on to burn reformers at the stake by the hundreds for the "crime" of being a Protestant. This era was known as the Marian Exile, and the refugees fled from England with little hope of ever seeing their home or friends again.


In the 1550's, the Church at Geneva, Switzerland, was very sympathetic to the reformer refugees and was one of only a few safe havens for a desperate people. Many of them met in Geneva, led by Myles Coverdale and John Foxe (publisher of the famous Foxe's Book of Martyrs, which is to this day the only exhaustive reference work on the persecution and martyrdom of Early Christians and Protestants from the first century up to the mid-16th century), as well as Thomas Sampson and William Whittingham. There, with the protection of the great theologian John Calvin (author of the most famous theological book ever published, Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion)and John Knox, the great Reformer of the Scottish Church, the Church of Geneva determined to produce a Bible that would educate their families while they continued in exile.


The New Testament was completed in 1557, and the complete Bible was first published in 1560. It became known as the Geneva Bible. Due to a passage in Genesis describing the clothing that God fashioned for Adam and Eve upon expulsion from the Garden of Eden as "Breeches" (an antiquated form of "Britches"), some people referred to the Geneva Bible as the Breeches Bible.


The Geneva Bible was the first Bible to add numbered verses to the chapters, so that referencing specific passages would be easier. Every chapter was also accompanied by extensive marginal notes and references so thorough and complete that the Geneva Bible is also considered the first English "Study Bible". William Shakespeare quotes hundreds of times in his plays from the Geneva translation of the Bible. The Geneva Bible became the Bible of choice for over 100 years of English speaking Christians. Between 1560 and 1644 at least 144 editions of this Bible were published. Examination of the 1611 King James Bible shows clearly that its translators were influenced much more by the Geneva Bible, than by any other source. The Geneva Bible itself retains over 90% of William Tyndale's original English translation. The Geneva in fact, remained more popular than the King James Version until decades after its original release in 1611! The Geneva holds the honor of being the first Bible taken to America, and the Bible of the Puritans and Pilgrims. It is truly the “Bible of the Protestant Reformation.” Strangely, the famous Geneva Bible has been out-of-print since 1644, so the only way to obtain one is to either purchase an original printing of the Geneva Bible, or a less costly facsimile reproduction of the original 1560 Geneva Bible.

With the end of Queen Mary's bloody reign, the reformers could safely return to England. The Anglican Church, now under Queen Elizabeth I, reluctantly tolerated the printing and distribution of Geneva version Bibles in England. The marginal notes, which were vehemently against the institutional Church of the day, did not rest well with the rulers of the day. Another version, one with a less inflammatory tone was desired, and the copies of the Great Bible were getting to be decades old. In 1568, a revision of the Great Bible known as the Bishop's Bible was introduced. Despite 19 editions being printed between 1568 and 1606, this Bible, referred to as the “rough draft of the King James Version”, never gained much of a foothold of popularity among the people. The Geneva may have simply been too much to compete with.

By the 1580's, the Roman Catholic Church saw that it had lost the battle to suppress the will of God: that His Holy Word be available in the English language. In 1582, the Church of Rome surrendered their fight for "Latin only" and decided that if the Bible was to be available in English, they would at least have an official Roman Catholic English translation. And so, using the corrupt and inaccurate Latin Vulgate as the only source text, they went on to publish an English Bible with all the distortions and corruptions that Erasmus had revealed and warned of 75 years earlier. Because it was translated at the Roman Catholic College in the city of Rheims, it was known as the Rheims New Testament (also spelled Rhemes). The Douay Old Testament was translated by the Church of Rome in 1609 at the College in the city of Douay (also spelled Doway & Douai). The combined product is commonly referred to as the "Doway/Rheims" Version. In 1589, Dr. William Fulke of Cambridge published the "Fulke's Refutation", in which he printed in parallel columns the Bishops Version along side the Rheims Version, attempting to show the error and distortion of the Roman Church's corrupt compromise of an English version of the Bible.


With the death of Queen Elizabeth I, Prince James VI of Scotland became King James I of England. The Protestant clergy approached the new King in 1604 and announced their desire for a new translation to replace the Bishop's Bible first printed in 1568. They knew that the Geneva Version had won the hearts of the people because of its excellent scholarship, accuracy, and exhaustive commentary. However, they did not want the controversial marginal notes (proclaiming the Pope an Anti-Christ, etc.) Essentially, the leaders of the church desired a Bible for the people, with scriptural references only for word clarification or cross-references.

This "translation to end all translations" (for a while at least) was the result of the combined effort of about fifty scholars. They took into consideration: The Tyndale New Testament, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and even the Rheims New Testament. The great revision of the Bishop's Bible had begun. From 1605 to 1606 the scholars engaged in private research. From 1607 to 1609 the work was assembled. In 1610 the work went to press, and in 1611 the first of the huge (16 inch tall) pulpit folios known today as "The 1611 King James Bible" came off the printing press. A typographical discrepancy in Ruth 3:15 rendered a pronoun "He" instead of "She" in that verse in some printings. This caused some of the 1611 First Editions to be known by collectors as "He" Bibles, and others as "She" Bibles. Starting just one year after the huge 1611 pulpit-size King James Bibles were printed and chained to every church pulpit in England; printing then began on the earliest normal-size printings of the King James Bible. These were produced so individuals could have their own personal copy of the Bible.


The Anglican Church’s King James Bible took decades to overcome the more popular Protestant Church’s Geneva Bible. One of the greatest ironies of history, is that many Protestant Christian churches today embrace the King James Bible exclusively as the “only” legitimate English language translation… yet it is not even a Protestant translation! It was printed to compete with the Protestant Geneva Bible, by authorities who throughout most of history were hostile to Protestants… and killed them. While many Protestants are quick to assign the full blame of persecution to the Roman Catholic Church, it should be noted that even after England broke from Roman Catholicism in the 1500’s, the Church of England (The Anglican Church) continued to persecute Protestants throughout the 1600’s. One famous example of this is John Bunyan, who while in prison for the crime of preaching the Gospel, wrote one of Christian history’s greatest books, Pilgrim’s Progress. Throughout the 1600’s, as the Puritans and the Pilgrims fled the religious persecution of England to cross the Atlantic and start a new free nation in America, they took with them their precious Geneva Bible, and rejected the King’s Bible. America was founded upon the Geneva Bible, not the King James Bible.

Protestants today are largely unaware of their own history, and unaware of the Geneva Bible (which is textually 95% the same as the King James Version, but 50 years older than the King James Version, and not influenced by the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament that the King James translators admittedly took into consideration). Nevertheless, the King James Bible turned out to be an excellent and accurate translation, and it became the most printed book in the history of the world, and the only book with one billion copies in print. In fact, for over 250 years...until the appearance of the English Revised Version of 1881-1885...the King James Version reigned without much of a rival. One little-known fact, is that for the past 200 years, all King James Bibles published in America are actually the 1769 Baskerville spelling and wording revision of the 1611. The original “1611” preface is deceivingly included by the publishers, and no mention of the fact that it is really the 1769 version is to be found, because that might hurt sales. The only way to obtain a true, unaltered, 1611 version is to either purchase an original pre-1769 printing of the King James Bible, or a less costly facsimile reproduction of the original 1611 King James Bible.


Although the first Bible printed in America was done in the native Algonquin Indian Language by John Eliot in 1663; the first English language Bible to be printed in America by Robert Aitken in 1782 was a King James Version. Robert Aitken’s 1782 Bible was also the only Bible ever authorized by the United States Congress. He was commended by President George Washington for providing Americans with Bibles during the embargo of imported English goods due to the Revolutionary War. In 1808, Robert’s daughter, Jane Aitken, would become the first woman to ever print a Bible… and to do so in America, of course. In 1791, Isaac Collins vastly improved upon the quality and size of the typesetting of American Bibles and produced the first "Family Bible" printed in America... also a King James Version. Also in 1791, Isaiah Thomas published the first Illustrated Bible printed in America...in the King James Version. For more information on the earliest Bibles printed in America from the 1600’s through the early 1800’s, you may wish to review our more detailed discussion of The Bibles of Colonial America.


While Noah Webster, just a few years after producing his famous Dictionary of the English Language, would produce his own modern translation of the English Bible in 1833; the public remained too loyal to the King James Version for Webster’s version to have much impact. It was not really until the 1880’s that England’s own planned replacement for their King James Bible, the English Revised Version(E.R.V.) would become the first English language Bible to gain popular acceptance as a post-King James Version modern-English Bible. The widespread popularity of this modern-English translation brought with it another curious characteristic: the absence of the 14 Apocryphal books.

Up until the 1880’s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had 80 books, not 66! The inter-testamental books written hundreds of years before Christ called “The Apocrypha” were part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible until their removal in the 1880’s! The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail. Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha. There is, however, no truth in that myth, and no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880’s has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination.

The Americans responded to England’s E.R.V. Bible by publishing the nearly-identical American Standard Version (A.S.V.) in 1901. It was also widely-accepted and embraced by churches throughout America for many decades as the leading modern-English version of the Bible. In the 1971, it was again revised and called New American Standard Version Bible (often referred to as the N.A.S.V. or N.A.S.B. or N.A.S.). This New American Standard Bible is considered by nearly all evangelical Christian scholars and translators today, to be the most accurate, word-for-word translation of the original Greek and Hebrew scriptures into the modern English language that has ever been produced. It remains the most popular version among theologians, professors, scholars, and seminary students today. Some, however, have taken issue with it because it is so direct and literal a translation (focused on accuracy), that it does not flow as easily in conversational English.

For this reason, in 1973, the New International Version (N.I.V.) was produced, which was offered as a “dynamic equivalent” translation into modern English. The N.I.V. was designed not for “word-for-word” accuracy, but rather, for “phrase-for-phrase” accuracy, and ease of reading even at a Junior High-School reading level. It was meant to appeal to a broader (and in some instances less-educated) cross-section of the general public. Critics of the N.I.V. often jokingly refer to it as the “Nearly Inspired Version”, but that has not stopped it from becoming the best-selling modern-English translation of the Bible ever published.

In 1982, Thomas Nelson Publishers produced what they called the “New King James Version”. Their original intent was to keep the basic wording of the King James to appeal to King James Version loyalists, while only changing the most obscure words and the Elizabethan “thee, thy, thou” pronouns. This was an interesting marketing ploy, however, upon discovering that this was not enough of a change for them to be able to legally copyright the result, they had to make more significant revisions, which defeated their purpose in the first place. It was never taken seriously by scholars, but it has enjoyed some degree of public acceptance, simply because of its clever “New King James Version” marketing name.

In 2002, a major attempt was made to bridge the gap between the simple readability of the N.I.V., and the extremely precise accuracy of the N.A.S.B. This translation is called the English Standard Version (E.S.V.) and is rapidly gaining popularity for its readability and accuracy. The 21st Century will certainly continue to bring new translations of God’s Word in the modern English language.

As Christians, we must be very careful to make intelligent and informed decisions about what translations of the Bible we choose to read. On the liberal extreme, we have people who would give us heretical new translations that attempt to change God’s Word to make it politically correct. One example of this, which has made headlines recently is the Today’s New International Version (T.N.I.V.) which seeks to remove all gender-specific references in the Bible whenever possible! Not all new translations are good… and some are very bad.

But equally dangerous, is the other extreme… of blindly rejecting ANY English translation that was produced in the four centuries that have come after the 1611 King James. We must remember that the main purpose of the Protestant Reformation was to get the Bible out of the chains of being trapped in an ancient language that few could understand, and into the modern, spoken, conversational language of the present day. William Tyndale fought and died for the right to print the Bible in the common, spoken, modern English tongue of his day… as he boldly told one official who criticized his efforts, “If God spare my life, I will see to it that the boy who drives the plowshare knows more of the scripture than you, Sir!”

Will we now go backwards, and seek to imprison God’s Word once again exclusively in ancient translations? Clearly it is not God’s will that we over-react to SOME of the bad modern translations, by rejecting ALL new translations and “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”. The Word of God is unchanging from generation to generation, but language is a dynamic and ever-changing form of communication. We therefore have a responsibility before God as Christians to make sure that each generation has a modern translation that they can easily understand, yet that does not sacrifice accuracy in any way. Let’s be ever mindful that we are not called to worship the Bible. That is called idolatry. We are called to worship the God who gave us the Bible, and who preserved it through the centuries of people who sought to destroy it.

We are also called to preserve the ancient, original English translations of the Bible… and that is what we do here at WWW.GREATSITE.COM

Consider the following textual comparison of the earliest English translations of John 3:16, as shown in the English Hexapla Parallel New Testament:

* 1st Ed. King James (1611): "For God so loued the world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life."
* Rheims (1582): "For so God loued the vvorld, that he gaue his only-begotten sonne: that euery one that beleeueth in him, perish not, but may haue life euerlasting"
* Geneva (1560): "For God so loueth the world, that he hath geuen his only begotten Sonne: that none that beleue in him, should peryshe, but haue euerlasting lyfe."
* Great Bible (1539): "For God so loued the worlde, that he gaue his only begotten sonne, that whosoeuer beleueth in him, shulde not perisshe, but haue euerlasting lyfe."
* Tyndale (1534): "For God so loveth the worlde, that he hath geven his only sonne, that none that beleve in him, shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe."
* Wycliff (1380): "for god loued so the world; that he gaf his oon bigetun sone, that eche man that bileueth in him perisch not: but haue euerlastynge liif,"
* Anglo-Saxon Proto-English Manuscripts (995 AD): “God lufode middan-eard swa, dat he seade his an-cennedan sunu, dat nan ne forweorde de on hine gely ac habbe dat ece lif."

Timeline of Bible Translation History

1,400 BC: The first written Word of God: The Ten Commandments delivered to Moses.

500 BC: Completion of All Original Hebrew Manuscripts which make up The 39 Books of the Old Testament.

200 BC: Completion of the Septuagint Greek Manuscripts which contain The 39 Old Testament Books AND 14 Apocrypha Books.

1st Century AD: Completion of All Original Greek Manuscripts which make up The 27 Books of the New Testament.

315 AD: Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, identifies the 27 books of the New Testament which are today recognized as the canon of scripture.

382 AD: Jerome's Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All 80 Books (39 Old Test. + 14 Apocrypha + 27 New Test).

500 AD: Scriptures have been Translated into Over 500 Languages.

600 AD: LATIN was the Only Language Allowed for Scripture.

995 AD: Anglo-Saxon (Early Roots of English Language) Translations of The New Testament Produced.

1384 AD: Wycliffe is the First Person to Produce a (Hand-Written) manuscript Copy of the Complete Bible; All 80 Books.

1455 AD: Gutenberg Invents the Printing Press; Books May Now be mass-Produced Instead of Individually Hand-Written. The First Book Ever Printed is Gutenberg's Bible in Latin.

1516 AD: Erasmus Produces a Greek/Latin Parallel New Testament.

1522 AD: Martin Luther's German New Testament.

1526 AD: William Tyndale's New Testament; The First New Testament printed in the English Language.

1535 AD: Myles Coverdale's Bible; The First Complete Bible printed in the English Language (80 Books: O.T. & N.T. & Apocrypha).

1537 AD: Tyndale-Matthews Bible; The Second Complete Bible printed in English. Done by John "Thomas Matthew" Rogers (80 Books).

1539 AD: The "Great Bible" Printed; The First English Language Bible Authorized for Public Use (80 Books).

1560 AD: The Geneva Bible Printed; The First English Language Bible to add Numbered Verses to Each Chapter (80 Books).

1568 AD: The Bishops Bible Printed; The Bible of which the King James was a Revision (80 Books).

1609 AD: The Douay Old Testament is added to the Rheims New Testament (of 1582) Making the First Complete English Catholic Bible; Translated from the Latin Vulgate (80 Books).

1611 AD: The King James Bible Printed; Originally with All 80 Books. The Apocrypha was Officially Removed in 1885 Leaving Only 66 Books.

1782 AD: Robert Aitken's Bible; The First English Language Bible (KJV) Printed in America.

1791 AD: Isaac Collins and Isaiah Thomas Respectively Produce the First Family Bible and First Illustrated Bible Printed in America. Both were King James Versions, with All 80 Books.

1808 AD: Jane Aitken's Bible (Daughter of Robert Aitken); The First Bible to be Printed by a Woman.

1833 AD: Noah Webster's Bible; After Producing his Famous Dictionary, Webster Printed his Own Revision of the King James Bible.

1841 AD: English Hexapla New Testament; an Early Textual Comparison showing the Greek and 6 Famous English Translations in Parallel Columns.

1846 AD: The Illuminated Bible; The Most Lavishly Illustrated Bible printed in America. A King James Version, with All 80 Books.

1885 AD: The "English Revised Version" Bible; The First Major English Revision of the KJV.

1901 AD: The "American Standard Version"; The First Major American Revision of the KJV.

1971 AD: The "New American Standard Bible" (NASB) is Published as a "Modern and Accurate Word for Word English Translation" of the Bible.

1973 AD: The "New International Version" (NIV) is Published as a "Modern and Accurate Phrase for Phrase English Translation" of the Bible.

1982 AD: The "New King James Version" (NKJV) is Published as a "Modern English Version Maintaining the Original Style of the King James."

2002 AD: The English Standard Version (ESV) is Published as a translation to bridge the gap between the accuracy of the NASB and the readability of the NIV.

[d spike]

Wait like yuh did not read what I posted before
look again and see how the "versions" came about
please read it research it and then make an informed post
it is not what you and I think it should/could be
but rather what it is
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

Why are you suggesting that he "read what is" in order for him to "make an informed post" (a highly commendable act) and then recommending that he read a very biased script to do so? How can anyone reading this very prejudiced article make an informed decision - other than the decision to not read biased articles? (Do you actually know ANY unbiased sites?)

How could a pro-Protestant, anti-Catholic article be unbiased? Your inability to be logical simply defeats the purpose in attempting a discussion.

[d spike]

My point is there is no proof of this and thus we must go with what we have not what we speculate to be.

My goodness. Whatever would happen to you if you held firm to this statement. Where are your slaves? How many adulterers have you stoned lately? How many wives and concubines have you? Antibiotics and modern anesthesia are nowhere in the bible... I hope you never have to undergo surgery done according to your beliefs - if the pain doesn't kill you, then the secondary infections will. Cars, planes, calculators, computers... are they in the bible? Are they then the result of the Devil's machinations? (Do you use them? )

If you really held to this, then why are you not living like the Amish? Fiddling with all these infernal, modern contraptions... perhaps that explains all these nonsensical, endless arguments... they are just attempts to ease the guilt-ridden soul, stained with the muck of modernity...

read what I wrote again obviously you lack comprehension as well, I said that there is no proof that word was change as smash hypothesized according to another gentle man here. I did not say if it is not in the Bible it cannot be so. But I guess that is how people like you play, make others out to be ignorant to discredit them. Sitting behind you computer it is easy to scoff at others especial when it is only our opinion and not what you truly believe that they are allow to see.

Now you are really making me wonder if you actually finished secondary school... far less attended a university. Let's see who precisely is lacking comprehension skills here...
First of all, I quoted a statement of yours:

My point is there is no proof of this and thus we must go with what we have not what we speculate to be.

Then I referred to it:

Whatever would happen to you if you held firm to this statement.

My post was based on this theme - nothing else.
This was just an amusing exercise in logic. If, in the absence of proof, one must only adhere to what is, and avoid speculation... then a certain lifestyle would be appropriate.
Your clear inability to decipher what I wrote about, simply shows: either you misplaced your spectacles; your monitor is failing; you preferred to guess what I meant rather than actually read it, Megadoc style;
or you failed to comprehend.

If I quoted you out of context, then perhaps you should state such a thing - and this time, please use the correct tense. I had to read your response quite a few times in an attempt to make sense of it.

Sitting behind you computer it is easy to scoff at others especial when it is only our opinion and not what you truly believe that they are allow to see.

First of all, what makes it easy to scoff at others is when they write absolute bullcrap;
Secondly, don't do like Megadoc and take offense at something I wrote WITHOUT reading it carefully, especially that post about my belief and opinion - that was written to bait a fool, and boy, did it ever;
Thirdly, I have little patience for idiots. I make an effort to write PRECISELY what I think, and I have no time for a twit who skims over my post without seeing what is there, simply because he thinks whatever I placed there is most likely antagonistic.

One must certainly be an arse of the highest degree, if he doesn't realise that someone's BELIEFS guides that person through life, provides a basis for making decisions and forming OPINIONS. What I told the cretin was that my religious beliefs were not for public consumption (in other words, I was not going to discuss them in public) but I was just stating my opinion.
Obviously, various unmitigated backsides were unaware that one's opinions were based on one's beliefs! Are you one of these?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

The fact that this thread is longer than any NWS thread is testament to how everyone of you is searching for the truth.

Yet the truth so so simple to find! I f God really exists then just appeal to him from the heart to reveal his truth. I did just that. I put God to the test and he revealed to me in a special circumstance (a miraculous deliverance from a nightmare i was experiencing) that He is real and Jesus is his only begotten son.

I didn't have to go through rationalizing why a Supreme creator would want us to make figures and bow to them, or wonder how a man claiming to be a prophet and ridiculed by Medinan Jews would write a book filled with anti-Semitism that becomes a religion. Oh no, I posed the question (because i really wanted an answer) and now I believe.

Since then I have marvelled that secular historians and scholars cannot dispute a historical Jesus, that Paul has left inescapable footprints in Western development, and the fact that the prophesy in Ezekiel 37 (written during Babylonian captivity, when no Israel existed) has come to pass!

There is an unavoidable war to be brewed between Iran and other Islamic regimes (backed by Russia) against Israel (Ezekiel 38, 39). This is very soon and would reveal whom God favours. Look at the situation in the Middle East. Until then choose whom you believe cautiously with much prayer. Prove Him and find out that He is God.

I take it that this is the intolerance of his religion that megadoc1 was talking about.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ just some empirical evidence that shows your beliefs as right over others beliefs.

so the proof that proves your claims can ONLY be shown by ME taking megadoc1's invitation?
he said his group is powerful, yet it is not possible for them to help him prove it here?
You both say your way is the right way and the truth, yet you cannot do a simple thing such as give empirical evidence of your claims?

But I am asking you what will satisfy you as empirical evidence, a video of a said event talking place, a testimony what will constitute as proof here on tuner. What???????????????

someone else testimony cannot be empirical evidence as we did not observe what happened to them nor can we test it.

megadoc1 claimed he can heal people from sickness, cast out demons and he does not get sick. So yes, a video showing him doing these things would be invaluable for his argument.

Or why not go all the way and heal everyone at the hospital?

[bluefete]

Take Dat!!!


As researchers prove the Red Sea really could have parted... How science backs the Bible's best stories

By Zoe Brennan
Last updated at 8:55 AM on 24th September 2010



One of the most dramatic stories in the Old Testament, the parting of the Red Sea, may actually have happened, according to new research.

Scientists believe the phenomenon may have been caused by freak weather conditions, and computer modelling shows that a storm could have divided the 6ft deep sea, just as the story is told in the Bible - allowing Moses and the Israelites to escape the pursuing Egyptians and enter the wilderness.

How many other Biblical tales could have a basis in science?



Noah’s Flood
In the book of Genesis, God despairs of human corruption and decides to flood the Earth, instructing Noah to build an ark to save himself, his family and a pair of each animal species.

Could such a flood actually have happened?

Researchers have suggested that, during a warming period in the cycle of the Earth’s temperature around 5600BC, melting glaciers caused an onrush of seawater from the Mediterranean.

This cascaded through Turkey’s Straits of Bosporus - dry land at the time - to the Black Sea, transforming it from a freshwater lake into a vast saltwater inlet.

In 1997, drawing on archaeological and anthropological evidence, Colombia University geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman claimed that ‘ten cubic miles of water poured through each day’, and that the deluge continued for at least 300 days.

More than 60,000 square miles of land were flooded, and the lake’s level rose by hundreds of feet after merging with the Mediterranean, triggering mass animal migrations across Europe.

The researchers, whose findings have been backed up by carbon dating and sonar imaging, claim that the story of Noah’s flood had its origin in this cataclysmic event.




The Ten Plagues
Scientists believe that the Ten Plagues - the ten calamities inflicted in Exodus upon the Egyptians for their treatment of the Jews - could have been caused by a massive volcanic eruption in the 16th century BC, either on the Greek island of Santorini or on the Aegean island of Thera.

The plagues were total darkness, the Nile turning to blood, fiery hailstorms, a fatal cattle plague, plagues of boils, of frogs, of lice, of flies, of locusts and finally, the death of all the firstborn children.

And in his book The Moses Legacy, author Graham Phillips claims they could all have stemmed from the volcano’s ash cloud blocking the sun over the Nile Delta.

He bases his argument on an examination of the eruption of the volcano of Mount St Helens in the U.S. state of Washington in 1980.

After it blew its top, the massive cloud of ash obscured the sun for hours for 500 miles around.

Hot volcanic debris fell like hailstones, flattening crops far and wide. As a result of the acidic dust permeating everything, hundreds of people were afflicted with skin sores, and cattle perished.

Fish were found floating dead in the water which had to be purified before it could be drunk - as in the Bible’s description of ancient Egypt where ‘the fish died, the river stank and the Egyptians could not drink of the river’.

But why frogs, lice and flies? Shortly after the Mount St Helens eruption, there was a plague of frogs in Washington State.

So many covered the roads that driving over the squelchy swarms became dangerous. They clogged waterways and infested houses and gardens.

The reason was that the volcanic ash had killed off fish but not submerged frogspawn. Tadpoles hatched and multiplied in unprecedented numbers because they were not eaten by predators.

As for insects, they reproduce at an alarming rate in vast numbers so swarms searching for food ahead of the ash-layer are a common aftermath of volcanic eruptions.

The survivors of a volcanic eruption on Martinique in 1901 were attacked by swarms of flying ants that consumed everything that was still growing, just like locusts.




The Resurrection of Lazarus
In the New Testament account, Lazarus was raised from the dead by Jesus.

In fact, returning from the dead is a well-documented phenomenon.
Known in medical books as ‘Lazarus syndrome’, it is the spontaneous restarting of the heart after failed attempts at resuscitation.

Its occurrence has been noted by doctors at least 25 times since 1982.

Its causes are not well understood: one theory is that the relaxation of pressure after resuscitation efforts have ended allows the heart to expand and triggers electrical impulses that cause it to resume beating.

In 2008 the heart of an American woman, Velma Thomas, stopped beating three times and she was clinically brain dead for 17 hours.

Her son had left the hospital to make funeral arrangements.

But ten minutes after her life-support system was shut down and doctors were preparing to take her organs for donation, the 59-year-old woke up.

The Walls of Jericho
The Fall of Jericho, as told in Joshua, is one of the most graphic Old Testament stories. In it, the Israelites defeat the city of Jericho when they entered the Promised Land after wandering in the wilderness for 40 years.

They marched around the city for six days, and on the seventh day, they encircled the city seven times.

On the seventh round, the priests blew trumpets, the people shouted, and the walls came tumbling down. Could it be true?

Excavations in the southern Jordan valley of Palestine produce tantalising evidence. British archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon excavated the area in the Fifties, and found piles of collapsed mud bricks at the site.

What caused the walls to collapse? The most likely explanation is an earthquake, as the ancient city is located on a fault line extending from the Red Sea.




The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
Did God destroy these two ancient cities because of the sins of their inhabitants?

Genesis reports that ‘the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire out of the Heaven ...’

Two years ago, an ancient clay tablet was identified as a witness account of an asteroid believed to have crushed Sodom and Gomorrah, cities which existed between what are now Israel and Jordan.

The tablet was found in the 19th century by Victorian explorer Henry Layard in the remains of the library in the royal place at Nineveh - the ancient capital of the Assyrian empire, near what is now the city of Mosul in Iraq.

Its significance remained a mystery until researchers decoded its symbols and suggested it was a 700BC copy of notes made by a Sumerian astronomer observing the asteroid.

Using computers to recreate the night sky thousands of years ago, scientists have pinpointed his sighting to shortly before dawn on June 29 in the year 3123BC




Adam and Eve
In his book River Out Of Eden, the zoologist and atheist Richard Dawkins set out to take us back to one common ancestor - a black woman who lived in Africa a quarter of a million years ago.

He used a complicated mathematical model to work backwards through our DNA genealogy, saying:

‘There has to be a woman of whom this claim can be made. The only argument is over whether she lived here rather than there, at this time rather than at that time.

'The fact that she did live, in some place and at some time, is certain.’

So to the extent that Eve is our common ancestor, even the Godless believe she existed.

The Burning Bush
This is a pivotal moment in the Passover story, in which God speaks to Moses from a burning bush and tells him: ‘I am come down to deliver [the Israelites] out of the hand of the Egyptians.’
Scientists believe the bush was either growing over a natural gas vent, or could have spontaneously combusted because of local volcanic action. Norwegian physicist Dag Kristian Dysthe has studied the subsurface combustion of organic material in Mali, West Africa, and concludes such events do happen in the natural world.
As for the voice of God, Hebrew University psychology professor Benny Shannon proposes that Moses was taking a local hallucinogenic substance derived from leaves of the ayahuasca plant found in the Negev and Sinai deserts.


Well at least they are not making God out to be a liar!!!!!!!!!!

The Lazarus explanation is a bit dodgy though.

Off to work now.

[Kasey]

you've got to be kidding.

[Kasey]

To make it clear again. No one said, or is trying to prove that God is a liar. God never spoke to me, or wrote to me (directly and literally addressed to me I mean eh), so all I know of God is what books and scriptures say of God. This debate (in my humble opinion) is about the clarification and understanding of what is written on all the texts. This, is the reason me, and many other curious tuners follow this thread.

Oh yeah and it is also about why some people condemn, scoff at, and even criticize other beliefs because they think their beliefs are the only right ones and the only right way to live (cause they BELIEVE it is the only way to God).

[16 cycles]

what site bluefete got that information from?

The researchers, whose findings have been backed up by carbon dating and sonar imaging, claim that the story of Noah’s flood had its origin in this cataclysmic event.

^ same carbon dating that 'proves' the earth is older than age 'calculated' from the bible???

In fact, returning from the dead is a well-documented phenomenon.
Known in medical books as ‘Lazarus syndrome’, it is the spontaneous restarting of the heart after failed attempts at resuscitation.

Its occurrence has been noted by doctors at least 25 times since 1982.

^ confused....does this credit or dis-credit the 'miracle'?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Bluefete those are no better than people using reverse comparison to prove Nostradamus is a prophet.
the interpreting is always done after the fact, with the benefit of hindsight, and with the concerted aim of proving the relevance of a given passage to an actual event.

On another note, there is no discounting that these events took place in antiquity and evetually through storytelling would have made their way to religious texts as a show of God's power, however there is no proof that they actually occurred for the religious reasons stated in the bible, qu'ran or torah. i.e. there may be evidence of a great flood, but there is NO scientific evidence that it occurred because God was angry with the world and decided to save one man, his family and two of each species of animal.

On a another note, your quoted 'scientific proof' above stated that Noah's flood "More than 60,000 square miles of land were flooded". Clearly that is not the WHOLE world as suggested in the biblical account and so not all of mankind and animals would have been destroyed except those in the ark.

On a last note, it is amusing that you would use science, geology, archeology and anthropology to prove that the bible is right, picking out only what you want from it, yet totally reject the same science, geology, archeology and anthropology when it proves evolution and that the earth is billions of years old.

Somehow I thought we covered all this much earlier on in the discussion. Or are you now recycling stuff?

[Halfbreed07]

woowoo Daddy D sounding annoyed

[d spike]

what site bluefete got that information from?

Probably the same site that told him that Hindus were enraged by the depiction of blue-skinned aliens called 'avatars', and that bulls' penises were not 'kosher'.

[d spike]

woowoo Daddy D sounding annoyed

That's because he has had to put up with 190 pages worth of the blathering of blinded, wretched mortals... who refuse to open their eyes...

[sMASH]

he can do great things, but he doesn't have to sacrifice for our sins, and what sort of sacrifice it is if nothing is lost, and even if it is, it could be restored exactly as if it was never lost?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

and what sort of sacrifice it is if nothing is lost, and even if it is, it could be restored exactly as if it was never lost?

very interesting perspective.

[megadoc1]

Wait like yuh did not read what I posted before
look again and see how the "versions" came about
please read it research it and then make an informed post
it is not what you and I think it should/could be
but rather what it is
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

Why are you suggesting that he "read what is" in order for him to "make an informed post" (a highly commendable act) and then recommending that he read a very biased script to do so? How can anyone reading this very prejudiced article make an informed decision - other than the decision to not read biased articles? (Do you actually know ANY unbiased sites?)

How could a pro-Protestant, anti-Catholic article be unbiased? Your inability to be logical simply defeats the purpose in attempting a discussion.

simply because you choose to ignore that I told him do some research
if he is unbiased he would look at the ones that I am biased towards ,the ones I am against and the ones that to him may seem unbiased because it may be against both what I am biased to or against,at the end of it all he could never come back with his nonsense statement as long as he claim to be unbiased
but then again you know what you are about

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

simply because you choose to ignore that I told him do some research
if he is unbiased he would look at the ones that I am biased towards ,the ones I am against and the ones that to him may seem unbiased because it may be against both what I am biased to or against,at the end of it all he could never come back with his nonsense statement as long as he claim to be unbiased
but then again you know what you are about

but I have been doing research, reading as many points of view as possible.

What d spike is asking is WHY are you presenting clearly BIASED content as an argument?

you claim "he would look at the ones that I am biased towards" and "because it may be against both what I am biased to or against", is it then you are admitting that you and your arguments are biased?

please understand what biased means:- "Show prejudice for or against (someone or something) unfairly"

what is the point in having a fair discussion with you when you are going to be biased?

[megadoc1]

woowoo Daddy D sounding annoyed

That's because he has had to put up with 190 pages worth of the blathering of blinded, wretched mortals... who refuse to open their eyes...

well that's more than being annoyed that's frustration, it really is,
it comes about when he being blind seeks to lead the blind
then worries more about the ones who eyes have been opened,the ones who are pleading with him and others to turn around from the ditch before them
,

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

well that's more than being annoyed that's frustration, it really is,
it comes about when he being blind seeks to lead the blind
then worries more about the ones who eyes have been opened,the ones who are pleading with him and others to turn around from the ditch before them
,

I am not frustrated at all, more like amused.

if your eyes have been opened, why then are you being biased?

[megadoc1]

simply because you choose to ignore that I told him do some research
if he is unbiased he would look at the ones that I am biased towards ,the ones I am against and the ones that to him may seem unbiased because it may be against both what I am biased to or against,at the end of it all he could never come back with his nonsense statement as long as he claim to be unbiased
but then again you know what you are about

but I have been doing research, reading as many points of view as possible.
and still came up with what you posted? ok then
What d spike is asking is WHY are you presenting clearly BIASED content as an argument? i posted something for you to understand how the term versions
came about but clearly you guys missed it
the first time i posted it was for you to see what Catholicism was really about
hoping you would come up with something but you know very well you cannot refute that

you claim "he would look at the ones that I am biased towards" and "because it may be against both what I am biased to or against", is it then you are admitting that you and your arguments are biased? yess

please understand what biased means:- [i]"Show prejudice for or against (someone or something) unfairly"[/i
good so why not put yourself in a position to determine if I am acting unfairly?
why not dig into the reason behind it ?
how come you limit yourself on how far you would go to see truth?

what is the point in having a fair discussion with you when you are going to be biased?
yuh think a discussion can be any better when you bring your tricks ,lies and false misunderstanding to the table yuh think it make sense after you telling someone about their lack of comprehension you willingly show yours just to move the convo in another direction? try putting a stop to that and lets see where it goes

[QG]

But I must admit, I give bluefete A for effort!

It was very interesting to read! I wanted to reply this morning but my Black Berry start giving trouble to post on tuner again!

[megadoc1]

well that's more than being annoyed that's frustration, it really is,
it comes about when he being blind seeks to lead the blind
then worries more about the ones who eyes have been opened,the ones who are pleading with him and others to turn around from the ditch before them
,

I am not frustrated at all, more like amused.

if your eyes have been opened, why then are you being biased?

no I think at this point I will be intolerant, to the lies that is

[Kasey]

what lies? The man related stuff which you (or your scripture) disaggre with, so they are lies? You keep calling ppl liars when they just simply say things that you yourself dont BELIEVE.

Mega, the more I read, the more I realise what an idiot you really are, everytime you disrecpectfully call ppl liars, when all they doing is stating their opinions.