<p>actually, the bible makes no references to itself, or that is should be taken literally.</p>
<p>Niikil, have you ever played the game telephone?
When one person whispers something to someone else,
it sometimes gets messed up. When one person passes
this information along a line of 30 people,
"100 days" can sound like "Fun in Hun's dreaded May"</p>
<p>This is just 30 years.</p>
<p>Now imagine this going on for 3000+ years.</p>
<p>Genesis.</p>
<p>Probably not accurate.</p>
<p>Skier,</p>
<p>If only man were involved in the penning of Genesis, your analogy would be extremely accurate...but man wasn't the only force involved in the penning of Genesis, God was involved.....therefore, the accuracy remains inact.</p>
<p>ok. so if "God" wrote it, then what makes you feel that 500 translations later, nothing would get lost/added to the word?</p>
<p>Is it not the teaching of the christian church that god does not display himself in flashy ways? If there is a building burning down, God does not appear in the sky and douse the flames, then stay for the applause. He could make it rain, or give everyone inside the courage and strength to escape successfully. Bear with me here, it's just a rough example. The point being that if God openly displayed himself one wouldn't need faith to believe in him.</p>
<p>Why, then, would God create earth in such an extravagant way? If the first people on earth simply appeared without any explanation, then it would go without saying that they were created by some greater being and, thus, they would not need faith to believe in God.</p>
<p>Now, before we even start talking about evolution, we need to realize that the entire universe is a very carefully proportioned and delicate place. It is governed by seemingly infinite number of physical constants (gravitational, electrostatic, chemical, magnetic, etc.). If even a single one of these constants were changed a little bit, the world as we know it would cease to exist. For example, there is a certain distance that a planet must be from a star in order to provide the correct conditions for life. If the earth were a little closer to or farther from the sun, it would have been too hot/cold for life.</p>
<p>So, finally getting to my point here, it makes sense to believe that God is really working behind the scenes to create life. Evolution is God's way of designing life. When a certain species evolves, it is because it can survive and flourish in an environment. With God controlling all the elements of the universe, it is his decision whether or not a certain species survives, so it's intelligent design through the use of evolution.</p>
<p>Additionally, the geocentric model was based on an interpretation of the Bible, just like creationism. It was long believed that Earth had to be the center of the universe because "god said so", which is the same defense used for creationism. This idea was eventually abandoned when man finally discovered another aspect of God's universe, and the same thing will happen to creationism. There is a large amount of evidence available to support evolution, whether or not you want to acknowledge it.</p>
<p>Jews I know seem amused that fundamentalist Christians take the old testament literally; Jews themselves don't. It's more like a story-telling version of their history. Even more laughable is believing the English versions; the translation errors and ambiguities are well documented by bible scholars. It's the same old story; people believe what they want to believe.</p>
<p>Pastafarians unite! FSM forever!</p>
<p>
[quote]
ok. so if "God" wrote it, then what makes you feel that 500 translations later, nothing would get lost/added to the word?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How different are copies today of the Magna Carta from the original 800 years ago?</p>
<p>From what I can tell, they look pretty identical.</p>
<p>There is no way on god's little green earth the bible's accounts occured. I'm so sick of people who have this damn lukewarm attitude, like people who call themselves moderate, hello jackass, you are either a republican, democrat, ect. or you don't vote. Please, do us athiest and christians a favor and just pick a side. You are not helping yourself out. Please show me a scripture where it says you can pick and choose what you believe out of the bible. Maybe you should look back to the book of revelations and see what it says about people who add or take away words from the holy book. The bible is a faith, hence, not based on literal fact, but based on things you cannot see. Which makes complete sense. I suggest you take a geology class or talk to a geology professor and they will clear the whole flood and time scale thing up for you. Please do us all a favor and pick a side.</p>
<p>Torah believing Jews take the bible literally, secular Jews can care less. You just haven't met the right Jews. Just like you have extremist Christians and Christians who aren't really Christians, but like to think they are. Or extremist Muslims and regular muslims, or people who call themselves agnostics and then people who call themselves atheist.</p>
<p>evolution is god's way of designing life, oh now I've heard it all, for the love of god, lol. Why can't people accept things for the way they are. As Richard Dawkins said, science if very interesting, if you don't like it FUCCCCCCKKKKK OFF!</p>
<p>Forever LSU: Why do you place limits on God's abilities? Either God exits, or God doesn't. If God exists, then who are you to tell God what it can or cannot do?</p>
<p>
[quote]
ok. so if "God" wrote it, then what makes you feel that 500 translations later, nothing would get lost/added to the word?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While I think OperaDad's responded sufficiently succinctly and clearly about the issue, I'd add 2 thoughts.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>In line with his observation, modern day interpretations have been found to be fully consistent w/ the dead sea scrolls, early drafts found in 1948. And on the $$.</p></li>
<li><p>There has been one major notable error that Catholic translators have paid a huge price for their errant translation. The word was 'celebrate'...not 'celebate.'</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Honestly, I believe that creationism/intelligent design is the biggest load of bulls**t that exists in this world. The interesting part is that you can wedge evolution into the bible just fine if you interpret it differently, whereas you can't ever explain creationism scientifically.</p>
<p>
[quote]
whereas you can't ever explain creationism scientifically.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And you can never scientifically explain how matter was created in the first place. You can explain what the big bang is, but you can explain how it came to be.</p>
<p>God always was, matter/energy/the universe always was; there is no difference.</p>
<p>"How different are copies today of the Magna Carta from the original 800 years ago?"</p>
<p>Bad example. There were numerous additions to the magna carta over a span of 80 years. so technically there's more than one. Also it's not like the people who made copies had to translate the text, all they had to do was transcribe it. The magna carta of 1297 still exists today as a primary source document. Since there is no true original bible since it's a compilation of texts, we do not have a primary source document. All we have are translations of translations. Something's bound to be lost.</p>
<p>I'm not talking about the additions to the magna carta, I'm talking about the original one. Just like I would talk about the original constitution of the united states, without amendments. I believe there are approximately 3 of the original 13 or so copies still in existence.</p>
<p>There may not be primary (original) source documents of the bible, but there are agreed upon early texts. The texts for that language, especially Hebrew, are relatively unchanged. Even the parts that have changed are considered typos or not material to the intent of the texts. For instance, does it matter if 400 or 4000 are fed? It is still a miracle.</p>
<p>The issue is whether the substance of the Bible has change due to transcription/copying errors. I claim it doesn't.</p>
<p>Now, when you get in to translations, then there is a serious issue of translator's interpretations, whether idioms of the original language carry over into the new language, and whether a passage that conveys meaning on multiple levels can translate all the levels into a new language. Even idioms of the original language, or multiple levels of meaning, may not be properly understood by current speakers of the language. That can be easily seen today in translation of the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution. What does it mean by the right of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms? It is fairly clear what they meant 200 years ago, but in today's society, how do you apply the concept?</p>
<p>In any case, the original question was whether anything would get lost or added? I think a serious review of the original language texts would show no change in material issues. What the Word means to us has changed as our understanding of God has changed. However, even those changes deal with minor issues (head covering, whether women should be pastors, etc.), and not the fundamental principles.</p>
<p>"The issue is whether the substance of the Bible has change due to transcription/copying errors."</p>
<p>Which bible?</p>
<p>Here is an article on the substantial political and doctrinal errors in the KJV and its derivatives:</p>
<p>Which</a> Bible translation is a true translation from the original manuscripts?</p>
<p>I only really read the first 2 pages of this so forgive me if i stray from the current subject, but i just wanted to say some stuff.</p>
<p>I find it hard to believe that self-proclaimed christians can fully believe in the evolution of man from apes. Doesn't this ruin the special status given to humans? If humans were once apes, then apes should be considered the same as humans in God's eyes (you can't tell me that sounds right). Don't get me wrong, I understand that there is the possibility that the world is very old, and I even believe that other animals have evolved significantly, but not humans. Could someone please try to disprove my thoughts on this so I can see where some of you are coming from?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I find it hard to believe that self-proclaimed christians can fully believe in the evolution of man from apes. Doesn't this ruin the special status given to humans?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What's the difference from Man being created from Apes (with God's help) vs. Man being created from Clay (also with God's help)?</p>