Does anyone deserve to burn forever?

[gobear]

I just love the digs that are thrown into these posts.

Then don’t open yourself up by writing posts that treat “The Bible” as an infallible oracle that is not open to debate, such as “The Bible is clear we are not judged for the sins of our fathers.”

don’t forget to add that the RCC also corrupted the original language, so we don’t have the ability to go back and see what was originally there, and also overlook the amount of manuscripts found, as well as the locations where they were found.

And now you’re just parroting Jack Chick’s ahistorical nonsense. The truth is that there are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, and none of them agree on the wording of the New Testament. For example (from the Secular Web):

Let me give just a few examples, from many which could have been chosen. Take Luke 22:43-44, “And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down upon the ground.” This is not present in the very earliest Greek manuscripts p66 and p75 from the third century. (P66 stands for papyrus number 66, p75 for papyrus number 75). Will they be dropped from future printings of the King James Version because they are not in the earliest manuscripts we have? Somehow, I doubt it.

These verses are also omitted by Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus (4th century), Codex Washingtonensis (5th century), etc., but are in Sinaiticus (4th century) and the great majority of later manuscripts. They are cited by the early church father Justin (c. A. D. 130). Whenever these verses were added or dropped, it must have been very early.

We know that these verses were quoted, not always exactly, in the second century by the early church fathers to counter the heretical view that Jesus was not a real human being and only quoted for that doctrinal purpose.

<snip>
These verses were cited only for doctrinal purposes and are missing from the earliest manuscripts of Luke’s Gospel. What more proof is needed that Luke’s Gospel was altered no more than decades after being written and that this was done for doctrinal reasons?

Moreover, there was no RCC until the split with the Orthodox Church in the Great Schism of 1054, so no RCC to meddle with manuscripts.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

As for the translations, don’t forget to add that the RCC also corrupted the original language, so we don’t have the ability to go back and see what was originally there, and also overlook the amount of manuscripts found, as well as the locations where they were found.

WTF are you talking about? Where did you get this shit, out of a Chick tract? What language do you think the RCC “corrupted?” Hebrew? Greek? How did they manage that, exactly?

I assure you, the original languages are quite well preserved. There is no mystery as to the original text of the Hebrew Bible or the Greek New Testament. The KJV is a bad translation. Learn Greek or Hebrew and you’ll see what I mean.

[zwaldd]

I was just having a conversation about this at work…we were talking about a very set-in-stone atheist who used to work with us. I said that if God would torture this decent person for not believing in him then God is simply a jerk and doesn’t deserve anybody’s worship. An omnipotent being that gets in a twist over people’s beliefs is pretty pathetic.

[Svt4Him]

Diogenes, sorry, I was being sarcastic. And I believe you regarding the KJV. Not the best, some things are good, some aren’t.

God won’t torture a decent person for not believing in Him.

" “The Bible” as an infallible oracle that is not open to debate, such as “The Bible is clear we are not judged for the sins of our fathers.” "

I fail to see the point here. The Bible is clear that we aren’t judged by our fathers sins, so how is that not relevant.

“I know you’d like to believe that God handed Moses a copy of the KJV bound in black leather”

This is what provoked my sarcasm, is you will find no post of mine that even implies the KJV of the Bible was used by Moses, or Jesus, or even that I believe it’s the most accurate translation. Therefore a comment like the one above is made purely out of ignorance. Again I say assumption is the lowest form of knowledge.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Diogenes, sorry, I was being sarcastic. And I believe you regarding the KJV. Not the best, some things are good, some aren’t.

Fair enough, but you should really use a winky so that people know you’re being sarcastic.

We’ve had some anti-Catholic posters before so you have to be careful.

[Ilsa_Lund]

---

God doesn’t rate sin. It’s all the same to Him. Basically, this means that lying is the same as stealing, murder, whatever, to God.

---

This is a perfectly valid position, once you posit that God is an evil motherfucker.

Can I use this as a sig?

[Ilsa_Lund]

Actually, original sin is more of a church doctrine. The Bible is clear we are not judged for the sins of our fathers. Not only that, but if we were born sinful, then children would not be innocent when they died, and they are. But to say we are born with a desire to sin may be more accurate.

Numbers, 14:18

This is actually a fairly common theme in the Bible.

[Ilsa_Lund]

Above quote from Svt4Him, who has obviously never cracked the Bible.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Ilsa,

Svt4Him is right about the doctrine of Original Sin. It is a doctrine which was formulated by Augustine and is not found in the Bible (Your cite from Numbers has nothing to do with OS, it does not mean that sin can be “inherited,” only that the actions of the living can have a deleterious effect on [innocent] descendants).

Original Sin was never adopted by Eastern Orthodoxy and is not a universal Christian doctrine now.

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by gobear *
The Bible as a whole may not have been rewritten (although individual books have been), but it has certainly been retranslated, and each translation puts a particular theological spin on the text, from the evangelical Good News Version to the more liberal Jerusalem Bible.

Cite?

[Ilsa_Lund]

I understand that, Dio. Svt4Him stated unequivocally that: “Bible is clear we are not judged for the sins of our fathers.”

This is false.

I can provide more cites for this position.
I am familiar with Originial Sin, having been raised RCC.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

*Originally posted by JThunder *
**Cite? **

Are you serious?

[gypsymoth3]

okay, i’m not about to read this whole thread, but i think…

as my 8th grade teacher suggested, and actually it’s also written in Revelation i think, that once the earth is destroyed and all that lovely stuff,time will no longer exist. so, define “forever” without time. this kinda goes along with a theory mentioned in the thread i made about dimensions that all dimensions including length, width, height, time, etc. can all be squashed into one point. i think it quantum physics or something that says everything is happening at the same time, isn’t it?

[Revtim]

Surely you’re not implying that the Bible wasn’t written in God’s language, English, Dio?

[robertliguori]

Can I use this as a sig?

All yours. Woo, I’ve been sigified.

[dal_timgar]

Economists that can’t do grammar school algebra.

LOL

[gobear]

The Bible as a whole may not have been rewritten (although individual books have been), but it has certainly been retranslated, and each translation puts a particular theological spin on the text, from the evangelical Good News Version to the more liberal Jerusalem Bible.

*Originally posted by JThunder *
**Cite? **

Dude, you are aware, I trust, that different Bibles use different wording to put across their particular theological views? For example, check out this side-by-side comparison of the KJV and the NIV.

[MEBuckner]

*Originally posted by hawkeyejo *
You are a nut.

And oh so gullible.

*Originally posted by The Great Unwashed *
Nut.

Liar.

Moderator’s Note: Please don’t insult people in Great Debates. (Not even if they ask you to.)

[Svt4Him]

*Originally posted by Ilsa_Lund *
**I understand that, Dio. Svt4Him stated unequivocally that: “Bible is clear we are not judged for the sins of our fathers.”

This is false.

I can provide more cites for this position.
I am familiar with Originial Sin, having been raised RCC. **

Please provide cites for this position. And if you bring up the third or forth generation, I’ll have to address it seperate, as I will have to go find some great notes on that. I too am familiar with original sin, but I disagree with some church doctrines about it.

[FriendRob]

Origen, an influential 3rd century Christian writer and “Church Father”, believed that Hell was not forever, that eventually everyone would be saved so that God’s triumph would be complete. As the church narrowed it’s ideas of acceptable interpretations of the Bible, Origen’s views were declared heretical.

C. S. Lewis, in his book The Great Divorce, suggests that there is free will even after death - the damned souls take field trips to heaven, where the saved souls try to convince them to stay. Read it - the reasons the damned decide to return to Hell are quite fascinating. At the end, Lewis intimates that perhaps Origen was right after all.

There are a lot of views besides the simplistic “damned for all time” in Christianity.