What can I say, they're creative. And the argument is senseless, either way, lots of people died.

 

You're argument has no basis. You claimed Muslims have the market cornered on using bombs in our country. Then you cited 9/11 as your one and only example of this being the case. If the argument is senseless, I am unsure as to why you made the erroneous claim to begin with.

As you are a history major I am sure you understand the importance of citing your sources/examples. I am curious as to which specific instances you are citing here as evidence of "God's wrath" because of turning away from God.

 

I am patient enough for you to gather your sources, so there is no need to rush.

 

That's what I was wondering. And as the Bible is mainly used by us commoners as a religious text, wouldn't most things in there have a "slant" to them? We didn't have things like the news or tv during those days so you could pretty much put a spin on any story you want back in those days especially in your religious text.

 

Try reading the Bible, it will give you a few examples.

 

Read above. I'm not being blasphemus, I'm just saying that many times the bible contradicts what science and research have told us. You would need atleast a few non-biblical examples to make an argument, IMO.

 

You're argument has no basis. You claimed Muslims have the market cornered on using bombs in our country. Then you cited 9/11 as your one and only example of this being the case. If the argument is senseless, I am unsure as to why you made the erroneous claim to begin with.

 

Who knows???:deadhorse:

Try reading the Bible, it will give you a few examples.

 

Unless you are using other sources to corroborate it, the Bible is not a valid source for history.

You're argument has no basis. You claimed Muslims have the market cornered on using bombs in our country. Then you cited 9/11 as your one and only example of this being the case. If the argument is senseless, I am unsure as to why you made the erroneous claim to begin with.

 

How dare I say something bad about the peace loving Muslims.

Unless you are using other sources to corroborate it, the Bible is not a valid source for history.

Whatever floats you're boat. I don't need any other sources than what God gave us as the good news. There are many scientific and archological findings that back up what is recorded in the Bible as happening to cities and people back in those days.

Whatever floats you're boat. I don't need any other sources than what God gave us as the good news. There are many scientific and archological findings that back up what is recorded in the Bible as happening to cities and people back in those days.

 

I'm not doubting you, but I am interested in seeing these links.

I'm not doubting you, but I am interested in seeing these links.

 

I would be as well. I'm not doubting I just think that it would be interesting.

Whatever floats you're boat. I don't need any other sources than what God gave us as the good news. There are many scientific and archological findings that back up what is recorded in the Bible as happening to cities and people back in those days.

 

How is that any different than any other religion turning to their religious text?

How is that any different than any other religion turning to their religious text?

 

Because only one of them is correct.

Nothing was blown up on 9/11. Planes were hijacked planes and flown into buildings.

 

Oh is that all? Nevermind then. How foolish of me.

Because only one of them is correct.

 

No, actually none of them are probably correct. Every religious text has a strong humanistic influence to it. The bible as well. If you don't think that during the translations that something has been changed a few times then I don't know what to say. For instance I believe that many of the things we supposedly get from the bible such as laws against homosexual marriage have been added in. All I'm saying is that it was the Kings James Version for a reason. When you translate for a king you had better say things that the king likes.

 

If one is correct, then none of us will know while we're alive. That's why I don't concern myself with one religion. Sure, I lean towards some form of christianity, but not necessarily one denomination, they're all flawed. I don't think anyone can criticize anothers religion, call them terrorist or anything else. And to be fair I would say that all combined forms of Christianity have the most terroristic attacks in the course of history, when compared to the existing religions today. I don't know, it is a guess.

 

Closed mined thoughts like all Muslims are terrorist are no different than the Jihadist groups brainwashing innocent youngsters into believing that Christians are the enemy.

No, actually none of them are probably correct. Every religious text has a strong humanistic influence to it. The bible as well. If you don't think that during the translations that something has been changed a few times then I don't know what to say. For instance I believe that many of the things we supposedly get from the bible such as laws against homosexual marriage have been added in. All I'm saying is that it was the Kings James Version for a reason. When you translate for a king you had better say things that the king likes.

 

If one is correct, then none of us will know while we're alive. That's why I don't concern myself with one religion. Sure, I lean towards some form of christianity, but not necessarily one denomination, they're all flawed. I don't think anyone can criticize anothers religion, call them terrorist or anything else. And to be fair I would say that all combined forms of Christianity have the most terroristic attacks in the course of history, when compared to the existing religions today. I don't know, it is a guess.

 

Closed mined thoughts like all Muslims are terrorist are no different than the Jihadist groups brainwashing innocent youngsters into believing that Christians are the enemy.

 

:laugh: Who's being closed minded here. The bible says that Jesus is the son of God and the only way to heaven is to believe in him and repent. Muslims do not believe that Jesus is the son of God, but merely a prophet and they think that everyone who is not a Muslim is an infidel and either needs to be converted or destroyed. One of those two obviously has to be wrong, does it not?

No, actually none of them are probably correct. Every religious text has a strong humanistic influence to it. The bible as well. If you don't think that during the translations that something has been changed a few times then I don't know what to say. For instance I believe that many of the things we supposedly get from the bible such as laws against homosexual marriage have been added in. All I'm saying is that it was the Kings James Version for a reason. When you translate for a king you had better say things that the king likes.

 

If one is correct, then none of us will know while we're alive. That's why I don't concern myself with one religion. Sure, I lean towards some form of christianity, but not necessarily one denomination, they're all flawed. I don't think anyone can criticize anothers religion, call them terrorist or anything else. And to be fair I would say that all combined forms of Christianity have the most terroristic attacks in the course of history, when compared to the existing religions today. I don't know, it is a guess.

 

Closed mined thoughts like all Muslims are terrorist are no different than the Jihadist groups brainwashing innocent youngsters into believing that Christians are the enemy.

 

 

You are aware that the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek prior to the King James version aren't you? Many translations today are taken from the original Greek. I enjoy some of the old timers saying about the King James version, "If it was good enough for the apostles it's good enough for me.

No, actually none of them are probably correct. Every religious text has a strong humanistic influence to it. The bible as well. If you don't think that during the translations that something has been changed a few times then I don't know what to say. For instance I believe that many of the things we supposedly get from the bible such as laws against homosexual marriage have been added in. All I'm saying is that it was the Kings James Version for a reason. When you translate for a king you had better say things that the king likes.

 

If one is correct, then none of us will know while we're alive. That's why I don't concern myself with one religion. Sure, I lean towards some form of christianity, but not necessarily one denomination, they're all flawed. I don't think anyone can criticize anothers religion, call them terrorist or anything else. And to be fair I would say that all combined forms of Christianity have the most terroristic attacks in the course of history, when compared to the existing religions today. I don't know, it is a guess.

 

Closed mined thoughts like all Muslims are terrorist are no different than the Jihadist groups brainwashing innocent youngsters into believing that Christians are the enemy.

 

 

See Sodom and Gomorrah, old testament.

You are aware that the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek prior to the King James version aren't you? Many translations today are taken from the original Greek. I enjoy some of the old timers saying about the King James version, "If it was good enough for the apostles it's good enough for me.

 

Actually there were English translations prior to KJV.

 

While the scriptures were written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic - none of the original autographs exist. We have texts of copies of copies but nothing original. (Probably because God understood that idolatry thing pretty well.)

 

The translations we have rely on those older texts but not all look at them with the same lens of translation either.

 

Might be a good time to start a thread about the KJV since it seems to be so prevelant on this one. :thumb: