...another converted to the truth

usp8riot

usp8riot

Registered Senior Member
Been a while since I posted here but I wouldn't be true to you guys if I didn't express how I've changed lately. But just for time's sake, I'll copy and paste what I wrote in my blog for my online friends to read. This is not meant to mock religion, just give my account the way I see it. I was at a point in my life where I was really trying to find God and believe and trying to tie in science with typical religion is just too overwhelming and it's too many contradictions so I just tired of debating. Anyhow, here's what I wrote:

You see, over the past couple months, I've been coming more to terms that religion isn't that big a concern. I was at a tough time in my life when I started my previous blog and looking for God or something to tell me where to go. I tried to find it through science and I knew science was right. I figured religion and science are one in the same. That the truth is in partly, at least, what we see and experience through science so religion in no way should conflict with it while keeping it's integrity. But I wanted to believe so much that at least the bible and the Abrahamic religions could be partly right that I tried with all my brains to have it all converge into one beautiful meaning, and you know what, it came to make more sense than I thought it would. I can convince myself there is a God through my own findings the past couple years. But with all the contradictions in all religions, I could never convince myself that they're 100% right. And that's what I failed at. Maybe I'm failing because I'm looking for that 100%. But you know, I feel much better being religion-less than having one. I feel free, yet I know right from wrong. I felt more angered the years I believed in a God that's ready to smite me for accidentally saying a curse word in my mind that is blasphemous, than I did in the years I didn't know of a God. As the bible says, blasphemy is the unforgiveable sin and I have sayed God's name in vain at least a few times in my mind, I hate to admit.

Not that I'm an atheist, or against religion. It's just when you're back in a corner and feeling threatened to be nice or you will pay with your soul, for people like me who worry about things too much sometimes, you feel even more stressed and angered in your life. Think about it. If someone is there standing over you and ready to smite you for a screw up and roast your soul for eternity if you fail, I'm one of those where I'm going to feel more pressured and if the whole deal is to play nice and be happy, then it's counter-productive. I just don't believe in heaven and hell anymore, believe me, I've tried. I've spent a long time debating in forums for God's sake, and I've made a lot of, I'd like to think, decent arguments if I say so myself, but not before spending lots of time thinking about the issue. People don't act the way they do because they're good and evil, it's just they're being true to the stimuli which is affecting them. And in that view, seeing people for who they are and changing their view and understanding where they're coming from, is a lot more productive then just calling them evil and rejecting them. I'm more at peace with others after studying science and slowly waining from religion. What I wrote in my previous blog was more about how I saw the truth, not how I felt. In some ways, I felt under pressure, and in judgement.

Have you ever been at work and felt like you were constantly being looked over and judged? I'm sure you have, and that's kind of the way I felt with religion. At first I was Christian, then came to accept all the Abrahamic religions the more I learned, then that heaven and hell are not what they are, and slowly but surely, I've evolved to seeing things the way they really are, through the eyes of the sciences. I'm sure any religious people out there are thinking, 'oh no, he's succumbed to the beast that is science'. Science is no beast, it is just the way things are. It's the study of God's laws/universe. Science is reason. Jesus' testimonies were very enlightening, as they were based on reason. But anyhow, I feel more normal. The pressure to do good all the time for someone who isn't sometimes happy with good enough, it's just too much and it's counterproductive. I can't teach others morals, or spreading the gospel as Christians call it, if I'm not feeling 100% what I'm teaching.

But yes, I still can believe in an intelligent God through science but that God isn't exactly the one I think most religions speak of. There is no magic. I feel I've outgrown religion and moved on. Like a worker who has worked under a guiding hand and learned all he needs to know so they need no one to constantly look over them and keeping the pressure on for them to do their job. And I can do my job here just as well as I did before no matter how I believed doing good was good. I do good now because it's what I naturally feel and for my health and others, not because I have to or else my soul's on the line.

Anyhow, maybe that will explain it for the most part. Life is all about changing and growing. Sometimes I think I change too much. Maybe it's my personality. Like a wandering dog trying to find his home and get comfortable. I'm just sort of one of those wandering types. I'm always looking and exploring new horizons. I get bored easily and as much as I may seem to, I don't like sitting still, that is, unless my mind has a place to go. And maybe I'm back home now, in my natural mindset I used to have as I was little and a lot more worry-free. I am more into life and feel more alive. They say religion is a tool to control the ignorant masses, maybe it was proposed for that. I've heard and debated about all the major anti-religion arguments and perhaps I was right on my side, that I was being true to what I know, the way I see it, and what I have experienced, but I didn't have the full story. But hopefully now, I can live at least another good half of my life a way I'm comfortable with."

I hope you enjoy reading it. I know there's been some thread here where people have talked about how they feel after giving up religion but if you don't mind, tell me how you felt. To me, it's almost like a weight was lifted off of my shoulders and now I can get back to doing my job of living life. If there is a God who would send me to Hell for not being religious, then to hell I go. But I know better. I have tried so much to find Him but to realize it's all an illusion in which man possibly didn't have the knowledge to understand the world around him at the time and so God seemed a likely solution and to keep the ignorant and rebellious somewhat at bay. Like I said before, I am for the truth. Seek and ye shall find. And I have found it. And I am at peace.
 
Thank you for posting your own story here. You have my deepest respect. You are finally free!

Best Wishes!
 
most atheists.agnostics,deists, have followed the same path as you, it is a hard path to travel, but well worth the journey, good luck.
 
Sometimes insight is difficult to obtain - it is a long, hard and winding road .........
You are lucky now USP ........
Free to pursue your dreams without the inhibitions of delusional religion ....

Do you love somebody - set them free ...
To all of you on sciforums - do you love your own mind ??????????

;)
 
The weight you feel lifted was your image of God as a cosmic policeman - the image people had gotten from the Pharisees, when Jesus started asking them to seriously reconsider it (cf. Luke 13:1-5). Judgement need only be feared if it is valid, and if you realize it is valid you show you agree with it - and you can work on that behaviour with God's blessing. That's what's called "repentance", and it's a continuous process of bettering yourself and being refined (God's judgement is a "refining fire"; 1 Cor. 3:13). Doesn't "being moral" require constantly judging one's own actions and intentions - even for an atheist? Isn't it a constant pressure, a constant "boundary" - even if it isn't always an unpleasant one? But if judgement isn't valid, then you have nothing to fear. As 1 John 4:18 explains: "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment". It's an important distinction. One that many Christians fail to make. Calling people evil and rejecting them is an evil act in itself. If you don't like someone, it's enough to stay away form them.

Another misunderstanding you describe is that "blasphemy is the unforgivable sin". Jesus said: "And so I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy" (Matt. 12:31). The so-called "unforgivable sin" has to do with rejecting the very Spirit of God that forgives sin, because it rejects even the possibility of forgiveness. Jesus mentioned it in response to people who could not doubt his miracles, so they doubted their source, by claiming it came from the devil himself rather than God.

If God intended to "smite" anyone on the spot, people would be dropping like flies. So fearing something like that is certainly unwarranted and counter-productive. But so is persisting with something that is bad for you. You saw religion as a set of rules with no particular goal (other than arbitrary oppression, perhaps), when it's actually a goal that requires certain attitudes and actions to reach. It means not to indulge in things that are counter-productive, harmful, or worse. Like James said: "Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."

Lastly, science is not a "beast", nor is it reason itself - it's an invaluable tool of reason. That's why its methods can change in response to new information, and why it often takes a (painful and laborious) paradigm shift in people to make and finally accept those changes. But it can be turned into a "having-been-wrong" bias - the idea that something, merely by seeming new and fresh, does away with all the ignorance that plagued the past. Because of that aura of enlightenment, new conceptions make the past seem more ignorant, barbarian, prejudiced and prone to illusion in comparison - when in fact those qualities aren't constrained by time at all.

My apologies if I seem to be picking your heartfelt confession apart. From my perspective, where you are now seems to be a much better place to find God (or for God to find you), than where you were before. You've made the move from external compulsion to internal compulsion. You've taken responsibility for your own actions. We'll never have the full story. It's a frustrating thought, and it takes an effort to come to terms with, but there it is, and you've finally become comfortable with it. Welcome to the truth.
 
Last edited:
Good to hear some honest, heartfelt sharing Patriot. You feel a lot lighter now dont ya? :)
 
Hi stretched!

I'm just worried that '"feeling lighter" or "better" becomes a measurement of truth, rather than what it is: a measurement of how you feel about something. Many people feel better once they find God or spirituality; what about the argument that that reflects the truth?

The truth is that the truth doesn't care how you feel about it. Feelings are a matter of how we think, feel, perceive and deal with what we're faced with - an indication of where one stands regarding something (or more accurately: regarding one's idea of something). They're our emotional senses. USP's idea of God and religion changed, so his feelings changed accordingly.

Some people think Jesus changed the understanding of God as it was expressed in the Old Testament. Maybe He did, in a way - but He did it by challenging the many preconceptions and illusions people had accumulated about God (no doubt in part because of the dumbing down of "religion"). He didn't make people feel better by dismissing God's judgement - on the contrary - but He did remind them of God's grace, which gave many hope - and probably made some people feel a lot better. But others (probably those with the most to lose) had mixed feelings. It demonstrated just how feelings could be an indication where people stood regarding God (and not necessarily where God stands regarding them) - like the young man who felt sadness because of his attachment to his wealth (Matt. 19:22), even though he otherwise lacked nothing in God's eyes (Matt. 19:20).
 
Last edited:
Jenyar,

It doesn't sound like you have ever been a genuine non-believer, am I right?

Given the thousands of conflicting cults and sects within Christianity and the other thousands of variations of theistic and non-theisistic religions and cults, then it is not difficult to understand the inevitable inner conflicts an ordinary person will experience when trying to unjumble all these competing concepts in an attempt to find one that might be true. Once one realises that all of them are entirely man made fantasies then it becomes a very sensible decision to say - to helll with all those ideas, I will withold belief until someone shows some truth. When that enlightened decision is made then it really does feel like an incredible weight has been lifted and a real sense of freedom and clarity of thought is experienced.

The truth that has been realized here is that no religious concept has presented anything that is remotely or objectively believable.
 
Cris said:
It doesn't sound like you have ever been a genuine non-believer, am I right?
Click to expand...
Might this genuine non-believer somehow be related to the true Scotsman? :)

Given the thousands of conflicting cults and sects within Christianity and the other thousands of variations of theistic and non-theisistic religions and cults, then it is not difficult to understand the inevitable inner conflicts an ordinary person will experience when trying to unjumble all these competing concepts in an attempt to find one that might be true. Once one realises that all of them are entirely man made fantasies then it becomes a very sensible decision to say - to helll with all those ideas, I will withold belief until someone shows some truth.
Click to expand...
Every bit of truth mankind claims to have has had or has developed its mutations or different applications, and it's no different in religion and in Christianity. The struggle to disentangle the interweaved threads is best left to adherents, enthusiasts and the respective scholars. I might have been inclined to withold all faith in my field of study (information science), if it was up to me to reconcile every theory and every point of view with something resembling a universal truth. Or forego study altogether, disencouraged by the many conflicting courses and choices presented at the various academic institutions. The one noticable difference is that Christianity starts out with its "universal truth", it's premise - namely Christ (why else call a sect or denomination "Christian"?) - and the source material concerning Him is widely available, in enough critical editions for an objective study. And it's been studied enough, and by such diverse groups, that libraries can be filled on every word in it. The same is true for any field of study.

An explanation I find useful when discussing denominations is that many "denominations" are just what the word means: "names". How many schools and universities share a common name, even if they are somehow affiliated? Does that automatically, logically, mean they present hopelessly confusing and diametrically contradictory courses? The fallacy might be easily exposed by a quick look at the member list of the World Council of Churches. And to see where the different traditions (groups of denominations) diverge, there are lists like this one: Comparison Chart of Christian Denominations' Beliefs and Doctrine.

Generally, the further back you go in history, the more you will find in common, the closer you will be to the originating "truth" of Christianity, and the less you will need to concern yourself with its many manifestations. That's why the first thing an evangelist would usually suggest is to read the Bible.

When that enlightened decision is made then it really does feel like an incredible weight has been lifted and a real sense of freedom and clarity of thought is experienced.
Click to expand...
Yes, it certainly does.

The truth that has been realized here is that no religious concept has presented anything that is remotely or objectively believable.
Click to expand...
Something is not only true if you can believe it - if it's true, it's true whether you believe it or not. We create our own standards for believability, often suited to a particular task. "What we observe is not nature itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning" (Heisenberg).
 
Jenyar said:
Might this genuine non-believer somehow be related to the true Scotsman? :)

Every bit of truth mankind claims to have has had or has developed its mutations or different applications, and it's no different in religion and in Christianity. The struggle to disentangle the interweaved threads is best left to adherents, enthusiasts and the respective scholars. I might have been inclined to withold all faith in my field of study (information science), if it was up to me to reconcile every theory and every point of view with something resembling a universal truth. Or forego study altogether, disencouraged by the many conflicting courses and choices presented at the various academic institutions. The one noticable difference is that Christianity starts out with its "universal truth", it's premise - namely Christ (why else call a sect or denomination "Christian"?) - and the source material concerning Him is widely available, in enough critical editions for an objective study. And it's been studied enough, and by such diverse groups, that libraries can be filled on every word in it. The same is true for any field of study.

An explanation I find useful when discussing denominations is that many "denominations" are just what the word means: "names". How many schools and universities share a common name, even if they are somehow affiliated? Does that automatically, logically, mean they present hopelessly confusing and diametrically contradictory courses? The fallacy might be easily exposed by a quick look at the member list of the World Council of Churches. And to see where the different traditions (groups of denominations) diverge, there are lists like this one: Comparison Chart of Christian Denominations' Beliefs and Doctrine.

Generally, the further back you go in history, the more you will find in common, the closer you will be to the originating "truth" of Christianity, and the less you will need to concern yourself with its many manifestations. That's why the first thing an evangelist would usually suggest is to read the Bible.


Yes, it certainly does.


Something is not only true if you can believe it - if it's true, it's true whether you believe it or not. We create our own standards for believability, often suited to a particular task. "What we observe is not nature itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning" (Heisenberg).
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: Jenyar, you are a true phony. It's obvious from your prolific use of metaphor. If your god was real, you wouldn't need to use metaphor. Your persistent use of metaphor proves you strive to create something real out of something very unreal.

Give us a break, you fool! You live in an imaginary world. You're not "dancing with the stars," you're "dancing with the zodiac!"
 
usp8riot said:
Been a while since I posted here but I wouldn't be true to you guys if I didn't express how I've changed lately. But just for time's sake, I'll copy and paste what I wrote in my blog for my online friends to read. This is not meant to mock religion, just give my account the way I see it. I was at a point in my life where I was really trying to find God and believe and trying to tie in science with typical religion is just too overwhelming and it's too many contradictions so I just tired of debating. Anyhow, here's what I wrote:

You see, over the past couple months, I've been coming more to terms that religion isn't that big a concern. I was at a tough time in my life when I started my previous blog and looking for God or something to tell me where to go. I tried to find it through science and I knew science was right. I figured religion and science are one in the same. That the truth is in partly, at least, what we see and experience through science so religion in no way should conflict with it while keeping it's integrity. But I wanted to believe so much that at least the bible and the Abrahamic religions could be partly right that I tried with all my brains to have it all converge into one beautiful meaning, and you know what, it came to make more sense than I thought it would. I can convince myself there is a God through my own findings the past couple years. But with all the contradictions in all religions, I could never convince myself that they're 100% right. And that's what I failed at. Maybe I'm failing because I'm looking for that 100%. But you know, I feel much better being religion-less than having one. I feel free, yet I know right from wrong. I felt more angered the years I believed in a God that's ready to smite me for accidentally saying a curse word in my mind that is blasphemous, than I did in the years I didn't know of a God. As the bible says, blasphemy is the unforgiveable sin and I have sayed God's name in vain at least a few times in my mind, I hate to admit.

Not that I'm an atheist, or against religion. It's just when you're back in a corner and feeling threatened to be nice or you will pay with your soul, for people like me who worry about things too much sometimes, you feel even more stressed and angered in your life. Think about it. If someone is there standing over you and ready to smite you for a screw up and roast your soul for eternity if you fail, I'm one of those where I'm going to feel more pressured and if the whole deal is to play nice and be happy, then it's counter-productive. I just don't believe in heaven and hell anymore, believe me, I've tried. I've spent a long time debating in forums for God's sake, and I've made a lot of, I'd like to think, decent arguments if I say so myself, but not before spending lots of time thinking about the issue. People don't act the way they do because they're good and evil, it's just they're being true to the stimuli which is affecting them. And in that view, seeing people for who they are and changing their view and understanding where they're coming from, is a lot more productive then just calling them evil and rejecting them. I'm more at peace with others after studying science and slowly waining from religion. What I wrote in my previous blog was more about how I saw the truth, not how I felt. In some ways, I felt under pressure, and in judgement.

Have you ever been at work and felt like you were constantly being looked over and judged? I'm sure you have, and that's kind of the way I felt with religion. At first I was Christian, then came to accept all the Abrahamic religions the more I learned, then that heaven and hell are not what they are, and slowly but surely, I've evolved to seeing things the way they really are, through the eyes of the sciences. I'm sure any religious people out there are thinking, 'oh no, he's succumbed to the beast that is science'. Science is no beast, it is just the way things are. It's the study of God's laws/universe. Science is reason. Jesus' testimonies were very enlightening, as they were based on reason. But anyhow, I feel more normal. The pressure to do good all the time for someone who isn't sometimes happy with good enough, it's just too much and it's counterproductive. I can't teach others morals, or spreading the gospel as Christians call it, if I'm not feeling 100% what I'm teaching.

But yes, I still can believe in an intelligent God through science but that God isn't exactly the one I think most religions speak of. There is no magic. I feel I've outgrown religion and moved on. Like a worker who has worked under a guiding hand and learned all he needs to know so they need no one to constantly look over them and keeping the pressure on for them to do their job. And I can do my job here just as well as I did before no matter how I believed doing good was good. I do good now because it's what I naturally feel and for my health and others, not because I have to or else my soul's on the line.

Anyhow, maybe that will explain it for the most part. Life is all about changing and growing. Sometimes I think I change too much. Maybe it's my personality. Like a wandering dog trying to find his home and get comfortable. I'm just sort of one of those wandering types. I'm always looking and exploring new horizons. I get bored easily and as much as I may seem to, I don't like sitting still, that is, unless my mind has a place to go. And maybe I'm back home now, in my natural mindset I used to have as I was little and a lot more worry-free. I am more into life and feel more alive. They say religion is a tool to control the ignorant masses, maybe it was proposed for that. I've heard and debated about all the major anti-religion arguments and perhaps I was right on my side, that I was being true to what I know, the way I see it, and what I have experienced, but I didn't have the full story. But hopefully now, I can live at least another good half of my life a way I'm comfortable with."

I hope you enjoy reading it. I know there's been some thread here where people have talked about how they feel after giving up religion but if you don't mind, tell me how you felt. To me, it's almost like a weight was lifted off of my shoulders and now I can get back to doing my job of living life. If there is a God who would send me to Hell for not being religious, then to hell I go. But I know better. I have tried so much to find Him but to realize it's all an illusion in which man possibly didn't have the knowledge to understand the world around him at the time and so God seemed a likely solution and to keep the ignorant and rebellious somewhat at bay. Like I said before, I am for the truth. Seek and ye shall find. And I have found it. And I am at peace.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that you never really got right with God and never got saved at all. You were at a level of searching for God to try to get closer to salvation, and then you turned around and went into error by renouncing all religion. Now you will live in sin and rebellion against God and call yourself free. You are deceiving yourself.
The creator has rules of what to do and what not to do. They can be found in the King James version New Testament and the parts of the Old testament that still apply today.
What not to do is called sin. Deliberate sinners, who are not repented and not trying to stop sinning, will be thrown in hell.
Your idea about the unforgiveable sin is also wrong. It is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit that is the unforgiveable sin and saying it with your mouth and really meaning it, is necessary to actually commit it. You probably never did that. Don't do that. Thoughts in your mind don't count, unless you go along with them and speak them or act upon them. Because your mind acts like a radio receiver and it receives tempting and evil thoughts telepathically from devils. Not every thought that you hear in your mind, is your thought.
Satan tries to deceive people into thinking that they commited the unforgiveable sin, so that they will give up trying to get right with God, and end up in hell.
[Note: Satan and his devils are disembodied evil spirits that live in a spirit dimension occupying the same space as our world and the air. They have telepathic contact to minds of men. God is allowing them to test men to see if they will do good or evil, to see which men are worthy to become angels of God and be happy, and which men are not worthy and will be thrown in hell to suffer punishment. It is a test, and so far you are failing it.]
Believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and saviour, and start trying to not sin (repent) and read the King James New Testament to find out what your creator wants you to do, so you can go to heaven and not go to hell.
[Note: The market is full of fake bibles that have the words changed. The King James bible is the real bible, translated from the unaltered texts.]
 
Last edited:
*************
M*W: USP, this one's for you, brother

"Another One Bites the Dust" by Queen (my main man Freddie Mercury)

Steve walks warily down the street,
With the brim pulled way down low
Ain't no sound but the sound of his feet,
Machine guns ready to go
Are you ready, Are you ready for this
Are you hanging on the edge of your seat
Out of the doorway the bullets rip
To the sound of the beat

CHORUS:
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone, and another one gone
Another one bites the dust
Hey, I'm gonna get you too
Another one bites the dust

How do you think I'm going to get along,
without you, when you're gone
You took me for everything that I had,
and kicked me out on my own

Are you happy, are you satisfied
How long can you stand the heat
Out of the doorway the bullets rip
To the sound of the beat

CHORUS

Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust

There are plenty of ways you can hurt a man
And bring him to the ground
You can beat him
You can cheat him
you can treat him bad and leave him
When he's down
But I'm ready, yes I'm ready for you
I'm standing on my own two feet
Out of the doorway the bullets rip
Repeating the sound of the beat

Christianity bows down low.
 
ghost7584 said:
The creator has rules of what to do and what not to do. They can be found in the King James version New Testament and the parts of the Old testament that still apply today.
Click to expand...

Of course that statement is based on believing the Old and New Testament are the inspired words of God. Which of course there is absolutely no proof of.
More like the inspired words of ignorant,unscrupulous men who used the spectre of a harsh domineering God to control their populations.
 
ghost7584 said:
The King James bible is the real bible, translated from the unaltered texts.]
Click to expand...

Unaltered texts??
You have got to be kidding! :D
 
nova900 said:
Unaltered texts??
You have got to be kidding! :D
Click to expand...


Unaltered: Copied Word for Word everytime the parchiaments got too old and handed down to the next generation.

Textus receptus (the received text) New Testament
The King James version text

The manuscripts from which the textus receptus was taken are the majority of the Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. The King James was translated from these manuscripts. There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% accounts for the differences between the King James and the modern versions. The textus receptus, King James, does not include the vaticanus and sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandrian Egypt; these are the corrupted manuscripts in question. Manuscripts from which the modern versions are translated includes the textus receptus plus the vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. The modern versions had to use the textus receptus since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that when the textus receptus disagreed with the vaticanus or sainaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the textus receptus. That accounts for the 5% corruption in the modern versions. Where the textus receptus and the vaticanus and sinaiticus do not agree, it is because Marcion, 120 - 160 AD or Origin 184 - 254 AD [or whoever] corrupted those two manuscripts. (The vaticanus and sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone.)
The vast majority of the Greek manuscripts agree together. They have been passed down through the centuries by true Bible believing Christians. In 1516 Erasmus compiled and printed the Greek (textus receptus) the received text, from these manuscripts. This is the text that the protestants of the reformation knew to be the Word of God, from which the King James Bible was translated.

John Burgon, who spent years studying the texts wrote:
Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable. On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or whole sentences are frequently written twice over or begun and immediately cancelled. A whole clause omitted, because it happens to end in the words of the clause preceeding happens 115 times in the New Testament.
The above is excerpts from the book:
Lets Weigh the Evidence: Which Bible is the Real Word of God? By Barry Burton. Find it here:
http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0184.asp

There have been several editions, but no revisions, of the King James bible.
Go to Scourby.com and click on why the King James version is the best. There is a lengthy and detailed study of why the later EDITIONS of the (AV 1611) King James bible are all the same as the original. The English usage of words was just updated.
http://www.scourby.com/whykjv.htm

Masoretic text, King James version Old Testament

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA Masoretic text
(from Hebrew masoreth, "tradition"), traditional Hebrew text of the Jewish
Bible, meticulously assembled and codified, and supplied with diacritical
marks to enable correct pronunciation. This monumental work was begun around
the 6th century AD and completed in the 10th by scholars at Talmudic academies
in Babylonia and Palestine, in an effort to reproduce, as far as possible, the
original text of the Hebrew Old Testament. Their intention was not to
interpret the meaning of the Scriptures but to transmit to future generations
the authentic Word of God. To this end they gathered manuscripts and whatever
oral traditions were available to them.

The Masoretic text that resulted from their work shows that every word and
every letter was checked with care. In Hebrew or Aramaic, they called
attention to strange spellings and unusual grammar and noted discrepancies in
various texts. Since texts traditionally omitted vowels in writing, the
Masoretes introduced vowel signs to guarantee correct pronunciation. Among the
various systems of vocalization that were invented, the one fashioned in the
city of Tiberias, Galilee, eventually gained ascendancy. In addition, signs
for stress and pause were added to the text to facilitate public reading of
the Scriptures in the synagogue.

When the final codification of each section was complete, the Masoretes not
only counted and noted down the total number of verses, words, and letters in
the text but further indicated which verse, which word, and which letter
marked the centre of the text. In this way any future emendation could be
detected. The rigorous care given the Masoretic text in its preparation is
credited for the remarkable consistency found in Old Testament Hebrew texts
since that time. The Masoretic work enjoyed an absolute monopoly for 600
years, and experts have been astonished at the fidelity of the earliest
printed version (late 15th century) to the earliest surviving codices (late
9th century). The Masoretic text is universally accepted as the authentic
Hebrew Bible.
 
The one noticable difference is that Christianity starts out with its "universal truth", it's premise - namely Christ
Click to expand...

And Krishna, Apollo, and about thousand of gods througout human history

click

jesus is just another demigod on a list of thousands of other demigods before it! ;)

USPatriot

Well you made a choice now just live with it, wether it's a right choice, it's apparently up to you! and no one else. Only you can deside what is best for you. Obviously most atheist's, agnostics, humanists, secularist's "Bright's" have all come to the same choice, and conclusion of what is true for them.

Godless
 
ghost you're just wrong. One example was the mistranslation of the hebrew alma (young girl) into the greek word for virgin. The various books of the Bible don't even agree with each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top