Enough objective proof for you?

[I'mConvinced]

14 minutes ago, FrethKindheart said:

Attached is an image of Genesis 1:1.  Note the original Hebrew.  You can click on each word and get its definition.  There's no possible way you can get a wrong translation, it's using a dictionary of every word.

Ok so lets look at the second one on the list, elohiym which translates as God...or does it? 

http://www.simpledevotions.org/learningcenter/elohiym.html

Quote

For the Christian who believes that there is only one God, supreme creator and ruler over all, the very first verse of the Bible seems to create problems.
In biblical Hebrew, Genesis 1:1 is translated from reshiyth 'elohiym bara' shamayim 'erets to "In the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth."
However, elohiym (el-o-heem') is the plural form of elowahh, or "the Deity," and usually means "gods."
A polytheist will also be quick to point out that elohiym is also used in Genesis 1:26, which states "And God [elohiym] said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness..."
We will also see that when Moses speaks to the burning bush in Exodus chapter 3, he is speaking to elohiym, again the plural form of elowahh

So it might actually mean Gods...which is a bit of an issue wouldn't you say? And therein lies the problems with translations made by man, they contain errors and mistakes that are then copied for generations.  Who is to say that the KJB is more or less accurate than anything else?

[FrethKindheart]

1 minute ago, I'mConvinced said:

Ok so lets look at the second one on the list, elohiym which translates as God...or does it? 

http://www.simpledevotions.org/learningcenter/elohiym.html

So it might actually mean Gods...which is a bit of an issue wouldn't you say? And therein lies the problems with translations made by man, they contain errors and mistakes that are then copied for generations.  Who is to say that the KJB is more or less accurate than anything else?

If you read the Bible, you already know that Jesus said I AM, pointing to existing before creation.  God and Jesus (as well as the Holy Spirit) were at creation, thus the plural.\

As for the problems with KJV, it mostly has to do with using the true name of God instead of Lord.

You're grasping at straws. 

[Aquila King]

10 hours ago, FrethKindheart said:

The reason I quote scripture:

• I'm a Christian.  It's the foundation of my belief system.
• The Bible tells me to use it for reproof and correction, which is exactly what I'm doing.
  • 2 Timothy 3:16-17 "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 perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

You quote the Bible, because the Bible tells you to quote it.

Circular reasoning 101.

10 hours ago, FrethKindheart said:

For hundreds (and thousands) of years, theologians and scholars have come to consensus about the Bible, especially when it comes to prophecy and how it points to the antichrist.  Yet I'm supposed to ignore their findings because someone said it's bunk on a conspiracy forum. 

Do you even realize how horrendously wrong you are on that?

Theologians and scholars have been at each others throats over different interpretations of scripture for thousands of years. Why do you think there are so many different denominations of Christianity? They're all using the exact same scripture, and coming to totally different conclusions.

You should ignore their findings because none of them seem to have a clue what they're talking about, not because I or anyone else on here says so.

10 hours ago, FrethKindheart said:

In that case, ignore all books of knowledge. They can't possibly be used as reasonably drawn conclusion or fact, because someone on a conspiracy forum said so. You do realize how ridiculous that sounds, right?

It sounds ridiculous because it is ridiculous, mainly because I never said anything like that. That kinda nonsensical logic is coming from you my friend.

Why ignore all books just because you disprove the veracity of one? That's like finding one piece of food that's poisoned, so you just get rid of all food and starve. That's ridiculous and you know it.

10 hours ago, FrethKindheart said:

If you don't agree with my posts, post evidence to the contrary and I'll take it at face value, or debunk it.  Making vague references to refuted arguments isn't debunking anything, it's just being dismissive because you don't believe the subject matter.  If that's the case, why be here in the first place?

Very well.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

https://godisimaginary.com/

Start there, and we'll see where this goes. Though I doubt you'll actually read any of it.

10 hours ago, FrethKindheart said:

In case you missed it, the numerous book quotes in my last post were from Catholic church books, from men of renown in the Roman Catholic Church.  I disagree with everything those quotes say, because it goes against what the Bible says.  The RCC is supposed to be a Christian church, but it's far from it if it rewrites the Bible to suit its own needs and uses pagan tradition and idolatry.  All of these are against what the Bible teaches.

It doesn't go against what the Bible says, it goes against your interpretation of what the Bible says. Or rather, it goes against the numerous different protestant interpretations of what the Bible says. That's my entire point.

You aren't contributing your own opinion, or saying anything new or of value. Merely repeating what some theologians have said before, and quoting the Bible. Your words are essentially worthless.

10 hours ago, FrethKindheart said:

This thread is about having enough proof of the existence of God.  Fulfilled prophecy is proof (as per my previous post).  The Bible is definitely relevant to the subject matter of God, I would think; being the Word of God and all.  As are findings written in countless books on the subject. that remain true to scripture.

You're right, the Bible is relevant to the topic of whether God (specifically the Abrahamic God) exists or not. That's why it's important to point out that the Bible is so horribly wrong on so many different accounts. As for evidence of this, I posted it in the links above. I dare you to read it.

And as for 'proof via prophecy', I'll link the specific page that debunks that nonsense whole-stop.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html

11 hours ago, FrethKindheart said:

Please, I invite you to go point for point and debunk every one of my posts.  That's the point of the forum.  Keep in mind, this isn't about winning an argument for me, it's about truth.  The Bible is my truth and I stand by it, because that's what I'm called to do as a Christian and it's what I believe.  Your truth may be different.  There's nothing wrong with that.

Very well, I just did.

And btw, truth is not something that can be owned by different people. There is no 'your truth' and 'my truth'. There is only truth. What's true is true regardless of anyone's opinion of it.

Just for the record, I spent my first 20 plus years as a devout fundamentalist Christian before realizing the whole thing was just a load of bunk, so I understand your position very well, more then you probably realize. I'm telling you, there's not a damn thing you've said today that I haven't either heard or said myself a thousand times before.

[Guyver]

2 hours ago, FrethKindheart said:

In the book of Romans, we find Paul's letter to the Romans.  It's perfect illustration of proof enough.

NOTE:  I originally posted this in KJV with summarization, but decided the NIV was better for clear understanding.

 

Romans 1:18-20 NIV

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

FredKindheart......I agree with you that you have made your position quite clear.  You are a bible believer.  I don't have anything against you for that, and I respect your right to your beliefs.  I would like to ask you about this part here though......that you have offered as illustration, or "proof enough."

So, this passage is saying that by examining that which is made, not only the knowledge of God is available to people, but also his very nature and attributes are evident.  Would you mind explaining exactly how you see this as being real?  

When I look at the natural world, ie....life on this planet....what I see is a constant struggle for survival.  I see it from the birds and the bees, and from every living thing.  I see a world that is kill or be killed.  I see a world that is harsh enough to kill you without even thinking twice about it.  As I view nature, and study it....I see that every living thing dies, and this death provides life for other living things.

Can you explain how examining these things, as well as the existence of harmful diseases, bacteria, viruses and other pathogens demonstrate the existence of a loving God?

[I'mConvinced]

6 minutes ago, FrethKindheart said:

If you read the Bible, you already know that Jesus said I AM, pointing to existing before creation.  God and Jesus (as well as the Holy Spirit) were at creation, thus the plural.\

As for the problems with KJV, it mostly has to do with using the true name of God instead of Lord.

You're grasping at straws. 

I'm grasping at straws? You've failed to address almost all of my points and you think I'm the one grasping? Errors in translation are a massive problem when what you are translating is, supposedly, the word of God and immutable and unchangeable.  I wonder how he would feel about the odd error, word change or rewriting.  Heck, we don't even have the original texts to compare the copies to, there could be any amount of errors in there and you'd never know it.  

My original point was that you should be careful not to throw stones at others from inside your glass house.  Your version of the bible is no more or less accurate than any other.

[FrethKindheart]

13 minutes ago, Guyver said:

FredKindheart......I agree with you that you have made your position quite clear.  You are a bible believer.  I don't have anything against you for that, and I respect your right to your beliefs.  I would like to ask you about this part here though......that you have offered as illustration, or "proof enough."

So, this passage is saying that by examining that which is made, not only the knowledge of God is available to people, but also his very nature and attributes are evident.  Would you mind explaining exactly how you see this as being real?  

When I look at the natural world, ie....life on this planet....what I see is a constant struggle for survival.  I see it from the birds and the bees, and from every living thing.  I see a world that is kill or be killed.  I see a world that is harsh enough to kill you without even thinking twice about it.  As I view nature, and study it....I see that every living thing dies, and this death provides life for other living things.

Can you explain how examining these things, as well as the existence of harmful diseases, bacteria, viruses and other pathogens demonstrate the existence of a loving God?

To find the answer as to why things are against each other, we need to look at Genesis 3, just after Adam and Eve sinned.

Genesis 3:17-19 KJV

"And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

Sin introduced a curse, not only on man, but the earth.  Things changed in a huge way.  Where before, everything was in harmony, man now had to work to live and still sin resulted in death.  It's not clear in this passage whether God cursed man and the earth or whether sin did, but considering the overarching theme of the Bible and why Jesus came and died (for our sins), one can deduce that the cause is sin.  My guess is that there's something about sin being introduced into a sinless world that affected creation on a mass scale.  Only God knows for sure the real ramifications of sin on our reality, but if we can see what is around us (depravity, sinfulness) and see how it's shaped mankind since that first sin, we can somewhat understand that the consequences are dire.

That's my take on it.

 

[AZDZ]

When it comes to the LORD getting a message to the reader which version one is reading matters not one bit. It is the HS that will cause a reader to comprehend beyond the printed words.

Just like the arguments over the 'name' of God, so is the debate over which Bible to use all divisionist distraction.

 

[FrethKindheart]

10 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

I'm grasping at straws? You've failed to address almost all of my points and you think I'm the one grasping? Errors in translation are a massive problem when what you are translating is, supposedly, the word of God and immutable and unchangeable.  I wonder how he would feel about the odd error, word change or rewriting.  Heck, we don't even have the original texts to compare the copies to, there could be any amount of errors in there and you'd never know it.  

My original point was that you should be careful not to throw stones at others from inside your glass house.  Your version of the bible is no more or less accurate than any other.

It comes down to belief.

I believe the KJV is the closest you can get to the actual translation.  I believe that it is inspired by God, because God speaks to me through it... despite anything King James might've added.  If you think about it, selfishness would've shown through if King James had altered anything of consequence, but it doesn't.  I've read the Bible and I have yet to find a verse that benefits King James.  All of it points to God.

You don't have to trust KJV.  I would think anyone serious about learning God's Word would research word translations and understand them vs any version of the Bible.

[FrethKindheart]

Plural God

Jesus points to His existence before Abraham.  I AM is a perpetual existence; God.

John 8:57-58 KJV "Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

 

The Holy Spirit moved upon the waters.  God was there, the Holy Spirit was there and Jesus was there.

Genesis 1:1-2 KJV "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

 

Jesus equates Himself with the Father (God)

John 14:9 KJV " Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?"

 

Word of God

Again, pointing to the duality of God and Jesus and the Word, which became flesh.

John 1:1 KJV " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

 

Jesus was the Word of God made flesh.  He referenced scripture that already existed in that day (Old Testament), as He ministered.

John 1:14 KJV "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

 

Narrow is the Way

Matthew 7:14 KJV "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

 

In this verse, Jesus is referring to a gate that existed in Jerusalem that required a camel to stoop and have all of its baggage removed, to get past it.  The obvious double meaning of repentance and humility, even kneeling is evident.

Mark 10:25 KJV "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

Edited November 6, 2017 by FrethKindheart

[jmccr8]

18 minutes ago, FrethKindheart said:

It comes down to belief.

I believe the KJV is the closest you can get to the actual translation.  I believe that it is inspired by God, because God speaks to me through it... despite anything King James might've added.  If you think about it, selfishness would've shown through if King James had altered anything of consequence, but it doesn't.  I've read the Bible and I have yet to find a verse that benefits King James.  All of it points to God.

You don't have to trust KJV.  I would think anyone serious about learning God's Word would research word translations and understand them vs any version of the Bible.

Just because one can believe in something doesn't necessarily equate with whether or not it has a truth value that can be demonstrated objectively.

jmccr8

[FrethKindheart]

22 minutes ago, AZDZ said:

When it comes to the LORD getting a message to the reader which version one is reading matters not one bit. It is the HS that will cause a reader to comprehend beyond the printed words.

Just like the arguments over the 'name' of God, so is the debate over which Bible to use all divisionist distraction.

 

Exactly.  I choose KJV because it speaks to me.  If NIV can bring a person to God, I'm all for it.

[FrethKindheart]

18 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Just because one can believe in something doesn't necessarily equate with whether or not it has a truth value that can be demonstrated objectively.

jmccr8

Belief, at least as far as the Bible is concerned, requires faith.  That's how God set it up, to separate the wheat from the chaff.  I'm sure He could've provided physical proof beyond the complexity of creation, but He didn't.  I think He knew that men would reject it anyway, which is why He set it up that way.  If you think about it, it's genius, because it creates a clear cut separation between the saved and the condemned.

I believe in climate change, but not global warming.  I understand the need for objective proof.  I'm human.  Unfortunately, God doesn't work that way.

I do think there are subtle hints, if you pay attention.  Personally, I can't believe a human being can look at the complexity of all things around them, including themselves, and not believe in God in some form.

Edited November 6, 2017 by FrethKindheart
typo

[Aquila King]

3 minutes ago, FrethKindheart said:

I understand the need for objective proof.  I'm human.  Unfortunately, God doesn't work that way.

Well isn't that convenient.

[jmccr8]

2 minutes ago, FrethKindheart said:

Belief, at least as far as the Bible is concerned, requires faith.  That's how God set it up, to separate the wheat from the chaff.  I'm sure He could've provided physical proof beyond the complexity of creation, but He didn't.  I think He knew that men would reject it anyway, which is why He set it up that way.  If you think about it, it's genius, because it creates a clear cut separation between the saved and the condemned.

I believe in climate change, but not global warming.  I understand the need for objective proof.  I'm human.  Unfortunately, God doesn't work that way.

 

My comment was with respect to the personal interpretation of what is written similarly in how people perceive what one says to them.

jmccr8

[FrethKindheart]

Just now, Aquila King said:

Well isn't that convenient.

We can agree to disagree, of course.  There's an old saying:  The truth always comes out in the end.  We will see.

[Aquila King]

Just now, FrethKindheart said:

We can agree to disagree, of course.

Is that why you conveniently ignore my point by point previous response also?

1 minute ago, FrethKindheart said:

There's an old saying:  The truth always comes out in the end.  We will see.

And is this a snide subtle threat of Hell?

I've got bad news buddy, according to Muslims we're both headed to Hell. But hey, the truth always comes out in the end. We will see.

[AZDZ]

I love the sign of "I am". 

To the uninitiated, it goes like this...

In Exodus 3, Moses is on the mountain with God, he receives information about what the LORD is going to do to Pharaoh, and what to tell the people regarding why he is saving them from him. Moses inquires...

13And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? 14And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. Which he does tell them.

Then fast forward thousands of years, Jesus is the garden waiting for the Israeli Priests to lead the Romans in to him arrest him. When they arrive one of the Romans asks if he is who they seek and the LORD replies: I am. 

Hearing that, one of the Priests, making the mental connection with the ancient past, feints and falls over backwards.  And it is said the LORD doesn't have a sense of humor, or patience. 

[Guyver]

1 hour ago, FrethKindheart said:

To find the answer as to why things are against each other, we need to look at Genesis 3, just after Adam and Eve sinned.

Genesis 3:17-19 KJV

"And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

Sin introduced a curse, not only on man, but the earth.  Things changed in a huge way.  Where before, everything was in harmony, man now had to work to live and still sin resulted in death.  It's not clear in this passage whether God cursed man and the earth or whether sin did, but considering the overarching theme of the Bible and why Jesus came and died (for our sins), one can deduce that the cause is sin.  My guess is that there's something about sin being introduced into a sinless world that affected creation on a mass scale.  Only God knows for sure the real ramifications of sin on our reality, but if we can see what is around us (depravity, sinfulness) and see how it's shaped mankind since that first sin, we can somewhat understand that the consequences are dire.

That's my take on it.

 

I do appreciate that you responded here, unfortunately your response fails to answer my question or provide any support for the point you offered as "proof enough."

But this is how it goes with Christian Theology....which fails to address the world in which we live properly.  It's fine that you believe as you do, but these beliefs of yours certainly don't settle the issue for everyone.  They only help people who believe as you do.  You offered Romans chapter one as "proof enough" but failed to establish how this passage is actually applicable.  I mean, I used to quote it myself, so I understand your perspective.....but it's really more of a platitude that sounds good on the surface, but fails to be factual.

Examining that which exists (that which is made) demonstrates an endless cycle of suffering; life and death.  It doesn't demonstrate a loving God.  Inserting the "curse" only serves to obfuscate this fact further....IMHO.  

[Guyver]

1 hour ago, AZDZ said:

When it comes to the LORD getting a message to the reader which version one is reading matters not one bit. It is the HS that will cause a reader to comprehend beyond the printed words.

Just like the arguments over the 'name' of God, so is the debate over which Bible to use all divisionist distraction.

Would you mind explaining how the HS instructs you to view the following passage from the KJV of the bible?

Isaiah 13:21 - "But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there."

Do you believe that satyrs dance in the abandoned ruins of Babylon now, ever have or ever will?  Do you believe that satyrs actually exist at all outside Greek mythology?  Is this what you would consider a divisionist distraction, or a simple mistake in the translation of biblical text?

[I'mConvinced]

51 minutes ago, FrethKindheart said:

Exactly.  I choose KJV because it speaks to me.  If NIV can bring a person to God, I'm all for it.

Yet my original point of discussion was made because you were lambasting Roman Catholics. So if a person finds God through Catholacism you'd be all for it? Doesn't sound that way.

The things you were saying previously sounded exactly like the divisionist distractions you were agreeing were bad...

Quote

The RCC is supposed to be a Christian church, but it's far from it if it rewrites the Bible to suit its own needs and uses pagan tradition and idolatry.  All of these are against what the Bible teaches

[AZDZ]

59 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Do you believe that satyrs dance in the abandoned ruins of Babylon now, ever have or ever will?  Do you believe that satyrs actually exist at all outside Greek mythology?  Is this what you would consider a divisionist distraction, or a simple mistake in the translation of biblical text?

I've never been there so I cannot say one way or the other. But I do draw some spiritual meaning from the texts regardless. In that area of the world people may, just as in other areas believe Bigfoot or any other Cyptos exist - believe in and/or even think they've seen satyrs.

Them really existing or not isn't important, that anyone thinks or believes they exist validates the text.

So imagine that, your request led us to discover the LORD actually acknowledging "nutjobs" that believe magical beasts exists. Don't you feel validated?

Edited November 6, 2017 by AZDZ

[Parsec]

On 5/11/2017 at 6:07 PM, FrethKindheart said:

 

Of course I'm opinionated, that's what forums are for, to opine.

I didn't get snide until a perceived insult lobbed my way.  Turns out it was misplaced... or was it?

I'm here to post an opinion, based on the Bible.  KJV is my preferred Bible version, but I use other versions like Amplified as well as Strong's Concordance and a few different websites with lexicons and research tools, which I use to look at word meanings and root definitions.

As for the Catholic version of the Bible... Daniel and Revelation clearly point to the beast power being the Roman Catholic Church/papacy (again, common knowledge).  The Roman Catholic Church changed the day of worship to Sunday.  They also persecuted and killed 50 million Christians for hundreds of years, because they wanted to read the Bible and have a personal relationship with Jesus (which, the pope shunned recently, by the way).  The pope puts himself before God, priests think they can forgive sin and the RCC has sought to change laws (prophecy fulfillment deluxe), but don't take my word for it... check these out (these are ALL from Catholic books).

 

Yeah... I don't think I'll trust anything the Catholic church puts out.  I'll stick with Protestantism.

You don't have to believe a word I post.  I'm not your personal research assistant.  I'm sorry if that sounds snide, because it's not meant to sound that way.  Do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

I appreciate your more constructive reply. 

What's interesting is that out of all the things I've written in my post, you chose to focus solely on the catholic church. 

Personal opinions aside (you believe they are the beast, they don't) you said you don't trust anything the Catholic Church puts out. 

And yet, the anthology of books you read (the bible) has been collated, chosen and heavily influenced by that very institution you don't trust.

So, by extension, how can you trust your version of the bible? 

 

Possibly you missed the point, but when I mentioned that there is not one bible, but several depending who you are asking (catholic, orthodox, copt, syrian and all the several protestant churces) that should raise inside you a legitimate question of which is which. 

The bible you trust has been chosen and collated by men roughly 500 years ago. 

They decided arbitrarily what to include and what not and how to translate the text. 

 

I will not dig now into the differences between the vulgata, the masoretic text and the septuaginta, but, again, if you only take into account how many "original" versions of the bible are out there, it should raise at least some doubts in you. 

 

The Bible is far from perfect, it contradicts itself several times, sometimes within the same book. 

To answer the  question in your first post, it's pretty easy to find one that doesn't include god: since the bible is a collation of books aribtrarily chosen and translated by men (with an agenda) who lived centuries after those books were written, it's no mistery that you can find some coherence. 

They wanted to convey a specific message and they tweaked and adjusted where necessary. 

[Will Due]

4 minutes ago, Parsec said:

I appreciate your more constructive reply. 

What's interesting is that out of all the things I've written in my post, you chose to focus solely on the catholic church. 

Personal opinions aside (you believe they are the beast, they don't) you said you don't trust anything the Catholic Church puts out. 

And yet, the anthology of books you read (the bible) has been collated, chosen and heavily influenced by that very institution you don't trust.

So, by extension, how can you trust your version of the bible? 

 

Possibly you missed the point, but when I mentioned that there is not one bible, but several depending who you are asking (catholic, orthodox, copt, syrian and all the several protestant churces) that should raise inside you a legitimate question of which is which. 

The bible you trust has been chosen and collated by men roughly 500 years ago. 

They decided arbitrarily what to include and what not and how to translate the text. 

 

I will not dig now into the differences between the vulgata, the masoretic text and the septuaginta, but, again, if you only take into account how many "original" versions of the bible are out there, it should raise at least some doubts in you. 

 

The Bible is far from perfect, it contradicts itself several times, sometimes within the same book. 

To answer the  question in your first post, it's pretty easy to find one that doesn't include god: since the bible is a collation of books aribtrarily chosen and translated by men (with an agenda) who lived centuries after those books were written, it's no mistery that you can find some coherence. 

They wanted to convey a specific message and they tweaked and adjusted where necessary. 

Yes, everything you said is true.

Nonetheless, there it is . . .

You have to be discerning when it comes to unwrapping the package.

 

 

 

[Guyver]

2 hours ago, AZDZ said:

I've never been there so I cannot say one way or the other. But I do draw some spiritual meaning from the texts regardless. In that area of the world people may, just as in other areas believe Bigfoot or any other Cyptos exist - believe in and/or even think they've seen satyrs.

You've never been there so you can't say one way or another?   OK.  Well then.  So, you're open to the possibility that satyrs may exist or people may believe in them.

Quote

Them really existing or not isn't important, that anyone thinks or believes they exist validates the text.

No, the satyrs actually existing as the text says would validate the text....not someone believing that they do.  How in the world would you come up with such an idea?

Quote

So imagine that, your request led us to discover the LORD actually acknowledging "nutjobs" that believe magical beasts exists. Don't you feel validated?

No.  This post doesn't even make sense.  But thanks for responding.  

[+Sherapy]

28 minutes ago, Guyver said:

You've never been there so you can't say one way or another?   OK.  Well then.  So, you're open to the possibility that satyrs may exist or people may believe in them.

No, the satyrs actually existing as the text says would validate the text....not someone believing that they do.  How in the world would you come up with such an idea?

No.  This post doesn't even make sense.  But thanks for responding.  

Whistles, look at you go Guyv., stepped into your authenticity.