I believe anyone who pushes their religion off unwillingly on others completely misses the point of being religious in the first place.

Best Answer

Yes. Just like Twilight.

Best Answer

its a ' book for dummies'

Best Answer

The inescapable facts about the Bible is it has been under attack from all quarters for a long time and remains relevant to some.<br />
Those who claim that much was copied from earlier religions simply could not have bothered to investigate this matter without any bias, would you sit on a jury and not listen to all the evidence?

Best Answer

No, they are following an ancient dream, that there is a ready made and easy to understand story that explains most of our experiences. So, the immense work of the learning, research and discovery that is still ahead of us is unnecessary, we can basically sit back with a single book and enjoy the view.

Best Answer

No. I believe it is inspired by God and good for guidance in His will for us. :)

Best Answer

Ok I beg to differ but respect your view

Best Answer

I thank you for the polite manner of your reply. :)

Best Answer

Even the 1st edition was a way to control.

Best Answer

This is the same for all religious books. Man writes good fiction

Best Answer

No.

Best Answer

Thank you for your response to my question Kayje. I would be interested in the reasoning behind your answer. Should it be purely "Faith" then I will respect that as I do see that there may be a place for religion in some peoples lives. It is not those who believe that I wish to enter into a disagreement with only those who evangelise.

Best Answer

This could lead us to very many places of discussion, but I will do my best to keep it short, hopefully understandable, and coherent. Firstly, I as a believer in the Bible even do not agree with how much through the years, people have tampered with and changed the original and closest to the actual translation. Various versions today might now be more understandable to this day and age with changing culture and way of speaking, but often it has been changed so much that what it is now saying isn't anything close to what the original was meant to be conveying to the followers and believers of the Bible. That way, yes, it can be used to say anything that they want it to say. And that is not right. However, when you come down to the original, closest to the actual Greek and Hebrew translation, that version, I would not call a novel. Having said that, even then, there is a danger for people to twist anything they want and make it say what they want it to say. That is where faith and actual belief comes in, and that is a whole other discussion. Personally, I don't tend to enter into discussions of this nature unless people ask me about my beliefs, and only then will I elaborate. I don't like to push my faith into people's faces. God knows there is enough of that going round in the world, and that's not what we need. Hope that made sense. :) God bless.

Best Answer

No

Best Answer

Im sorry to say, but a lot. Take a good look into the book of Mark which the other three gospels were laid upon. Dude...have faith in your self. You will want to do good no matter what!

Best Answer

It's a little more complex than that. This is the oldest NT 'bible' but isn't the oldest NT texts, of which there are thousands, some of which are more than 200 years older than this. And 'adusted to suit the church's ability to control its followers' is simply a claim you're making not supported by the short article. <br />
<br />
Has the church attempted to control its followers? Yes. But not through changing the bible texts, because we have very early texts.

Best Answer

I believe that this article does support the claim all be it not in isolation. As you say there are more ancient text and all versions of the bible are an amalgamation of a number of these text. What goes into each version of The Bible will depend on what the church wanted it's followers to know or believe at that time. This book is I believe the oldest known Bible and it differs in many significant ways from the current Bible including not mentioning the resurrection of Jesus which is then clearly a later addition. Now I don't know for sure but I wouldn't be surprised if this element of the bible may have already been written prior to the production of this earliest version. However, it does serve to demonstrate how the church has pick and mixed a series of stories to serve their purposes over the years. Those who now treat the Bible as gospel are being deliberately misled by a church hierarchy who is manipulating it's text and rules to suit one purpose. That is to control those who follow that religion. I am pleased Abs that from your reply (which I do appreciate) we do agree on this point.

Best Answer

Ok, there's scholarship on this which I'm familiar with. 1. The earliest manuscripts do contain the resurrection, and external records (such as Flavius Josephus) show that the claim of the resurrection was made from the outset. 2. Your claim that the resurrection was a later addition only applies to the earliest fragment of the gospel of Mark. 3. There are no 'new versions' being created by the churches with new content, because we have the older manuscripts (more than 10,000 fragments) to know what was there originally. Manipulation by the church has beena matter of teaching or interpretation, not changing the bible itself.

Best Answer

it's all man made

Best Answer

Yes religion was a way of explaining the unexplainable to the masses until science finally worked out what's going on.

Best Answer

Related Questions