{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/19/2015 2:52:49 PM
1
Many people have been convicted of crimes based on eyewitness testimony, only to be released later because DNA evidence proved their innocence. Most of the witnesses believed what they were saying, too. The problem with testimony is that it comes from people, and people are idiots.
As for these prophecies, I don't need to tell you that the bible has been significantly edited. And once again, the entire bible is based on testimony.
Meanwhile, instead of trying to pull meaning for an ancient book, science can repeat observations and come to conclusions using the scientific method, which is infinitely more valuable than faith.
English
-
I can understand that first point. The bible has not been as edited as you think. The KJV is still very true to the original. This is [i]exactly[/i] what I was talking about earlier, how people who don't want to believe it come up with some excuse for why it's wrong. Don't let pride get in your way of the truth.
-
The council of Nicea heavily edited the Bible before that, though.
-
Do you have a source about that? Because I haven't heard they did but it'd definitely be something I want to know about.
-
All it takes is a [url=http://google.com]google[/url] search.
-
All I could find (though I didn't spend too much time on it) was that the Council voted on which books to include in the Bible, nothing about editing them. Although this is somewhat disturbing, considering the fact that the Bible says that what we read is God-breathed and such, I think God may have had influence on which books they chose to include.
-
You're making an unsubstantiated assumption that God had his hand in the work. Basically, the council of Nicea decided what stays and what goes in the Bible because people were having disputes about it.
-
That's fair. Unsubstantiated is true by a scientific perspective, though not by a Christian perspective. I know that means next to nothing to you, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
-
What does that even mean? Why deny scientific and logical terms?
-
What did I just say that denies science and logic?
-
[quote]Unsubstantiated is true by a scientific perspective, though not by a Christian perspective. [/quote]Unless if you're not a Christian...
-
I thought you were talking about something else when you said I was denying scientific and logical terms. Sorry for the confusion.
-
OK? Question: Are you a Christian?
-
-
-
Well... I've been raised in a Christian family but it was more or less like the typical "American Christian family," where we go to church every Sunday but none of our lives were really changed because of God. I started reading the Bible some more and watching videos, seeing people's testimonies, etc. and realized that there was much more to Christianity than I had been experiencing. So I'm actually currently trying to put my old life completely behind.
-
But why believe in something without evidence? Faith is irrational.
-
Edited by BenjyX55: 7/19/2015 3:01:32 PMSource?
-
[url=http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/fables.html]link[/url] I think that's what you're looking for. On another note, you need to remember that the translators of the KJV we're devout Christians. Mistakes definitely happen, but these guys wouldn't intentionally mess with God's word, unlike the translators of many versions like the NIV.
-
A source that just says "these are the facts, accept them." How very Christian.
