are we supposed to beleive the new testament of bible or can we go with the one we think is more comprehensive?

184 posts

Flag Post

i need to know what version of bible are we supposed to beleive in? where is the origional one? why dont we beleive in that? and why is that it keeps on changing with the passage of time with additions and subtraction?

 
Flag Post

lulwut?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by penguinwasher:

lulwut?

Good point.

Anyways, people believe in whatever part of Bible they want to. It’s pretty much a subjective thing. It has changed with time because in different times there were different authors. Think of the Bible as a collection of short stories.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by penguinwasher:

lulwut?

thanks !!..i’ll take it as a compliment MR !…anyways if you dont have any thing appropriate to say!..please dont bother for another reply !!!

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by dewyblue:
Originally posted by penguinwasher:

lulwut?

thanks !!..i’ll take it as a compliment MR !…anyways if you dont have any thing appropriate to say!..please dont bother for another reply !!!

Why the bizarre punctuation?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by SithDoughnut:
Originally posted by penguinwasher:

lulwut?

Good point.

Anyways, people believe in whatever part of Bible they want to. It’s pretty much a subjective thing. It has changed with time because in different times there were different authors. Think of the Bible as a collection of short stories.

a subjective thing !!?? does it mean there is no true version of bible present ?

 
Flag Post

sorry ! will try to avoid next time… its unintentional actually

 
Flag Post

a subjective thing !!?? does it mean there is no true version of bible present ?

Yes and no. It means that excepting the original Hebrew, none of the versions are really 100% true, and there is meaning to be found wherever you choose to find it. In short, it means “Make of it what you will”. The bible has changed so much over the ages, and the original context can be difficult to determine without the right frame of mind (i.e. 1st and 2nd century AD), that the best thing anyone can tell you about the bible is more or less their thoughts on what it is saying.

 
Flag Post

There is a true version, it is the original. However, there isn’t a true method for following it.

EDIT: Bloody hell, 1000 posts…

 
Flag Post

@SITHDOUGHNUT:
and where does the “TRUE VERSION” exist ?

@FUZZYBACON:
there are contradictions i know! but does this mean ’m following a blind religion if ’m a christian =$
as the real/origional teachings of jesus cannnot be located in todays world?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by dewyblue:

and where does the ORIGIONAL exist ?

Nowhere, really. Most of the originals have fallen to the ravages of time. I don’t think any complete original Torah or New Testament exists, or if they do, they aren’t in a language that we can understand.

@dewy

It’s good that you recognize that there are contradictions. What I really mean, though, is phrases that shift meaning over the years, across multiple translations. I hate to beat a dead horse here, but in one of the passages regarding homosexual behavior, for instance (Romans, I think, since I do know it was written by Paul), the phrase, which, in Greek, breaks down to “Man Beds”, as best we can figure, is translated into a decrying of homosexuality in general.

However, the alternate view could be taken that it was decrying male prostitution, or something completely different. The point being, we really don’t know what it means, and so we guessed. And that is what I meant when I said the original meaning has been lost.

Congrats, sith!

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by dewyblue:

and where does the ORIGIONAL exist ?

There isnt one original, however, there rae extremely old documents which reflect pretty much the same message as the ones we have today. The small differnces that do exist, are also commonly found in todays bible to. They dont change the overall message of the bible. Im not an expert on the subject, you could research and find more examples of how old literature.

 
Flag Post

I want to know when we are going to finally start calling the new testament the “old testament” and the old testament the “older testament”

 
Flag Post

and where does the “TRUE VERSION” exist ?

It probably doesn’t anymore. I suppose you could probably find a few manuscripts here or there, but not the whole thing. That’s one of the reasons why people cannot call themselves true Christians

Congrats, sith!

I feel like I’ve advanced into the upper echelons of the Kong Forums… and that I’ve lost a considerable chunk of my life. Is it bad when you spend twice as much time on the forums than you do playing the games that this site is designed for? I’m only level 10…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by pmr0078:

I want to know when we are going to finally start calling the new testament the “old testament” and the old testament the “older testament”

wont happen

 
Flag Post

I feel like I’ve advanced into the upper echelons of the Kong Forums… and that I’ve lost a considerable chunk of my life. Is it bad when you spend twice as much time on the forums than you do playing the games that this site is designed for?

This site has games? o.O

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by pmr0078:

I want to know when we are going to finally start calling the new testament the “old testament” and the old testament the “older testament”

When a third testament gets written. If it does.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by pmr0078:

I want to know when we are going to finally start calling the new testament the “old testament” and the old testament the “older testament”

When you convert to Islam.

 
Flag Post

@FuzzyBacon:
oh gosh !..you took my words !..thats what i really wanted to say !..you know..that day i read this subject matter regarding the FGM in the new testament and came to know that the male circumcision was actually a must according to the old testament .whereas,
the New Testament is clearly hostile to those who encourage circumcision, and opposes rather than encourages the procedure. The reasons for this are set out plainly in the text and can be seen in the words of Jesus, Saint Peter and Saint Paul. As a result, most Christians throughout history have not practised circumcision.

Jesus was circumcised (Luke 1:59) and so were his disciples. The Apostle Paul circumcised Timothy, or had him circumcised, (Acts 16:3). Paul cautioned the Corinthians against uncircumcising themselves. (1 Cor. 7:18)

While the New Testament distorts its message on this subject.its so confusing as to what set of rules should one follow?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by SithDoughnut:
Originally posted by pmr0078:

I want to know when we are going to finally start calling the new testament the “old testament” and the old testament the “older testament”

When a third testament gets written. If it does.

and what proof do you have the third version[that i bet is going to be written shortly] would be the last one to-be !
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by dewyblue:

@FuzzyBacon:

oh gosh !..you took my words !..thats what i really wanted to say !..you know..that day i read this subject matter regarding the FGM in the new testament and came to know that the male circumcision was actually a must according to the old testament .whereas,

the New Testament is clearly hostile to those who encourage circumcision, and opposes rather than encourages the procedure. The reasons for this are set out plainly in the text and can be seen in the words of Jesus, Saint Peter and Saint Paul. As a result, most Christians throughout history have not practised circumcision.

Jesus was circumcised (Luke 1:59) and so were his disciples. The Apostle Paul circumcised Timothy, or had him circumcised, (Acts 16:3). Paul cautioned the Corinthians against uncircumcising themselves. (1 Cor. 7:18)

While the New Testament distorts its message on this subject.its so confusing as to what set of rules should one follow?

Just another example of someone not understanding the context.

BTW, I dont feel like explaining and so if you dont feel like finding out the context, just consider what i said false.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by SaintAjora:
Originally posted by pmr0078:

I want to know when we are going to finally start calling the new testament the “old testament” and the old testament the “older testament”

When you convert to Islam.

the muslims say that "you do not convert to islam !..rather u “revert” to be a muslim !..that means that you by birth are born a muslim and you become a hindu..or a jew.. or whatever due to the family and surroundings and also that once in a lifetime every person has a chance to reveal the truth if he really wants to know!

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by pacaholic:
Originally posted by dewyblue:

@FuzzyBacon:


oh gosh !..you took my words !..thats what i really wanted to say !..you know..that day i read this subject matter regarding the FGM in the new testament and came to know that the male circumcision was actually a must according to the old testament .whereas,


the New Testament is clearly hostile to those who encourage circumcision, and opposes rather than encourages the procedure. The reasons for this are set out plainly in the text and can be seen in the words of Jesus, Saint Peter and Saint Paul. As a result, most Christians throughout history have not practised circumcision.

Jesus was circumcised (Luke 1:59) and so were his disciples. The Apostle Paul circumcised Timothy, or had him circumcised, (Acts 16:3). Paul cautioned the Corinthians against uncircumcising themselves. (1 Cor. 7:18)

While the New Testament distorts its message on this subject.its so confusing as to what set of rules should one follow?

Just another example of someone not understanding the context.

BTW, I dont feel like explaining and so if you dont feel like finding out the context, just consider what i said false.

lol!..you dont feel like explaining or u dont have a valid answer !…thats from the red book of bible…that they say are the exact words of jesus that could be possibly be kept from being distorted!

dont give me lame excuzes please! be factual!

 
Flag Post

Yeah because if you cared, you wouldnt being so offensive about it. There was a reason why paul cautioned the Corinthians. But like I have said, I dont want to explain to someone who i dont feel really wants to know. I feel more as if you are trying to prove a point. So go ahead and call me a liar, IDC. I wont defend myself, free shots at pacaholic.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by pacaholic:

Yeah because if you cared, you wouldnt being so offensive about it. There was a reason why paul cautioned the Corinthians. But like I have said, I dont want to explain to someone who i dont feel really wants to know. I feel more as if you are trying to prove a point. So go ahead and call me a liar, IDC. I wont defend myself, free shots at pacaholic.

haha! a nice way to escape i would say!..a true beleiver always welcoms someone who wants to learn rather than just proving him to be baseless!…are you trying to sat that the red book does not state the truth!.