Welcome to Gaia! ::

cool.. maybe i should join? lol..

too far away for me to go anyways..

I have to disagree with you upon the validity of the bible.

Firstly your point about translation of the ancient greek, firstly the gospels would have been recorded in arameic a language that so far was we know was much like medieval English in that spelling was freestyle and it changed greatly from place to place. Also the bible was translated from the Greek into Latin and so many translations always lead to errors, no matter what precautions you take. Secondly there is the fact that the old testament is mostly stories that were passed down by word of mouth from generation to generation, and in the process got severely twisted. The old testament was compiled after the new testament and heavily edited to fit the christian message which was at that time highly political. Just as we are critical of any peice of political literature we should be more wary of the bible. It was edited in the 4th Century by a council of Bishops from all over the meditarranean and beyond meeting in Rome to decide what the message of christianity should be. We know how corrupt the Roman political culture was, and even when it became christian, the bishops would have brought their way into the church and would be looking for a good political message behind the book. But the most political part of the bible, which In my opinion fundementally changed christianity from it's original course are the writings of Paul. Now considering that the old testament was only there in the form of the Torah (the first five books) we can see how much Paul in his letters derives from Dueteronomy, the Jewish set of Laws, and how these guide his writings as much as the teachings of Jesus do. What Paul was essentially trying to do was to make christianity a politically acceptable religion which could spread and flourish within the world of the time. So he changed it, he added the Jewish laws and removed any connection with liberalism and equality of rights. All literature about the place of women in christianity stems from that point. Then again the dead sea scrolls point out some very interesting additions to the bible that were left out, such as 'the gospel of Mary Magdelene' it may shock some of you to know that this book was written by a Mary Magdelene who says that she is Jesus' first disciple. Now the church would have you believe that she was a reformed prostitute, and this is a lovely little message of the inferiority of women and Jesus' redeeming power, However there is no connection between the prostitute called Mary who he rescues and the Mary Magdelene who wept while he was crucified. There is also the wisdom scrolls which point to a being other than the trinity (another Pauline idea) who is wisdom, the best way of explaining her is as a direct line to God, through wisdom you can begin to understand the nature of the relationship between God and man (try replacing the word 'word' with the word 'wisdom' and see what happens at the beginning of Mark's gospel). The Gospels, four thoroughly different accounts of Jesus' life by different people who all knew him, NOT the direct words of God but just for different biographies with slightly different interpretations.

These are some of the main reasons that I doubt the bible as a true source of Christianity, and that the bible should be read but not seen as the account of the beginning of the world or as the direct word of God (only a few books claim this Job being the most interesting one). This is not to say that the Bible is useless in christianity, it contains some of the essential messages of the faith within it, and the Gospels while not being scientifically accurate do portray the acts of Goodness and mercy with which Jesus acted during his life. However it must be read with caution, and with an effort to get behind the edits made to the true point of christianity. The pauline view has been cemented into the church by St. Thomas Aquinas in his book 'Summa Theologicae' but even before him St. Augustine, though more liberal was writing in his book 'Confessions' in this very right wing way, though amazingly this book is much more open to the true christian message of love than any other of the time (Augustine was not a virgin, and preached on the equality in spirit of men and women which made him a 'dangerous radical' in the eyes of his contemperaries).

So to conclude: Read the bible, it contains some interesting messages behind christianity, but don't be fooled into thinking it entirely the direct word of God, because if it was, he would have said so and the book of genesis is definately not the direct word of God, but creation theories put forward by Two different scholars on Judaism who rival each other throughout the book. There are parts of the bible which are the direct word of God and the Gospels do contian some Jesus quotes but you must look at this historically, and if it is not completely historically accurate (as it isn't) then why should it be completely theologically accurate as well?

We don't argue here. If you're looking for a fight, go to Fire Fall. I found your opinion to be silly, however, it seems fairly well researched. Even though, I severely question your resources. But wanting an argument, that makes me sick.