family issue, and personal philosophy
 

Ok, so this post is in two main parts, the first about issues with my family, and my religion, the second about my personal philosophy. For the first, I am seeking advice, and for both, general discussion. Also, I'd like to know if there's a name for the personal philosophy I attempt to describe.

Part I:

My mother, father, and my brother are devout Methodist Christians. I was until around the age of 13, though I had been harboring disagreements with what I was being told in church for years before that. I refused to be confirmed at whatever age that was supposed to happen. My parents were fine with this. However they made me go to church every week still. I soon rejected Christianity(I think around the age of 15). I need to backtrack a little, as it is extremely relevant. In eighth grade, I developed a medical condition, which has since been properly diagnosed as Myoclonic Dystonia, but was misdiagnosed at the time, and I thus had a bone removed from my foot, which did not fix the problem. I am now 18. Ever since, I have been in near constant pain, and aggravated by tics from the myoclonus part of the dystonia. Both necessitating me to take heavy medication. Initially, my rejection of Christianity stemmed from my disagreements with things preached by the Bible and those who embraced the Bible, and my resentment against God for giving me this ailment. With the Bible stuff I just mentioned, I did not believe in a discriminatory God, who punished homosexuals for embracing their sexuality, and I did not believe that there was only one 'correct' religion. In the last quarter of my freshman year, I was home schooled, due to medical issues, and one of my tutors was a nice Catholic woman, who went to church every day. She taught me bio. I would talk to her a lot about religion, and the stuff that was happening to me, and I asked her why God would do this to me, or allow this to happen to me, and much worse things to other people, and she insinuated that God may be using me as an example. This pissed me off. I floated around religiously, for about two years, between (none of this is a joke) wicca, rastafarianism, atheism, and agnosticism, then back to atheism. About two years ago, I had been wallowing in depression, and suicidal thoughts, and a suicide attempt, I bounced back momentarily, but then started falling back into the same mind state, when by chance I came upon a simple phrase, a teaching of Buddhism, that attachment is the cause of all suffering. This was the truest thing I had ever read, and helped me start to let go of the things that were causing me intense grief. I now consider myself for the most part, a devout Buddhist. I say 'for the most part' because my take on Buddhism is that it is a tool to help people find their own road to enlightenment, and the end of suffering. I am open with my family about this. My father and I had a great relationship(it's still good, but decaying), and he told me, with sincerity, that his greatest fear is that I will never be saved. It hurts him to know that I am not a Christian, but I think deep down he also thinks that I am either striving for attention, or lying, trying to be defiant, neither of which is the case. It hurts me to be forced by him to attend church services weekly. His contention is that I owe it to him because he pays for my college. Now granted, it is $42,000 a year. So I comply, but let him know my angst. I want to be able to maintain a healthy relationship with my father, without our religions having an impact on it.

Part II:

My personal philosophy, is above all, to come to peace, end suffering, fade away, etc, in enlightenment. However, I don't deny that God exists in any form that is perpetuated by modern religions, or otherwise. I do not worship God, though. I feel that I have no obligation to do so, that if I was created, it was knowing I had the potential for complete independent thought, so I should not be punished for it. I could ramble on, but basically, I believe that even if there is a God, I should not serve him/her. Is there a name for this?

Thanks

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a name for this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, a moral and rational position. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

I mean no disrespect, but what I get from your post is that you're someone who NEEDS to believe in something. I suspect it's the result of your early religious upbringing that perhaps taught you life is meaningless without religious belief. You have since sought out many beliefs and bounced back and forth until you finally found something you can believe in and feel good about. If this is the only way to find meaning in your life then go with it.

Personally, I think the problem is your NEED to find a religious belief as the only thing which will give your life meaning, but it's people like you why religion is a $$billion a year global business! I don't think it hurts to believe in whatever makes you happy.

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

Buddhism isn't a religion, it's just a popular philosophy of life. You may call it a non-teist religion, but it really defeats the point. There is no real separation from Buddhism to philosophy other than the fact that there are many people who agree on the same thing (on each branch of
Buddhism).

Buddhism is not a business, and even if it is somewhere in the world it's not by enforcing donations on ignorant believiers like most religions do.

Yes, Ben Young needs a philosophy and he found one. Whats wrong with that?

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

<font color="blue"> Yes, Ben Young needs a philosophy and he found one. Whats wrong with that? </font>

Not a thing. In fact I'm glad, since I just learned something about Buddihism. Thanks.

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

[ QUOTE ]
attachment is the cause of all suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you feel attachment to all those you love?, or do you think personal fulfillment is more important?

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

Hi Ben,

I think you know from my postings here what I believe, i.e. catholic christianity. And I think you have a wrong view of christianity, partially due no doubt to being raised christian, but not really being formed as a christian and understanding the basis for its beliefs. But the core concept is that we all are children of God, and that as great as His justice is, His Divine Mercy is even greater, and that we were not created for this life primarily, but for the one to come after. Part of what you are discussing involves the problem of evil and suffering that I discuss some in the other thread. It mainly as I said there involves free will. And like that tutor told you, christians do see redemptive and spiritual value in patient suffering, though that seems just a platitude to most. And I have said that I believe that whatever is good and true in another religion, which doesn't possess the full truth, must nonetheless come from God. Thus the Buddhist teaching on suffering actually has resonance with christian teachings on being attached to either material possessions or persons or habits, rather than mainly to God.

And since we view this life as a gateway to the afterlife, then the subject of death has a lot of meaning, not only for being the doorway, but also for how we should live this life. Again Buddhism has many parallels, and a true gem for its view of death and its implications for this life is Warrior of Zen: The Diamond Hard Widsom Mind of Suzuki Shosan. I have always had an interest in philosphical Buddhism and Taoism, and recommend that book highly to you.

You also speak of being turned off by christianity because of its teachings on homosexuality and divine punishment. But God does not condemn a person for an attraction, but only for acts that are prohibited where there is no contrition or minimal attempts to not to repeat same in the future. And all this is part of a larger package and can't be separated out. I don't think you really understand what christianity is about, and if you would like to, then let Jesus speak to you directly by reading the gospels.

But if you want to remain a Buddhist, then be a good Buddhist, and not someone who just picks some convenient parts of that belief system (there are of course several different sects of Buddhism). One is not a Buddhist or a Christian by either subscribing to certain beliefs or merely professing to be same, but by living a Buddhist or a Christian life. And living that life doesn't mean living it perfectly, but just striving for that perfection and having a dertermination to begin again when one falters.

I hope that you are able to come to believe that this life is worth living both for itself, and for the future one to come (or Nirvana).

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
attachment is the cause of all suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you feel attachment to all those you love?, or do you think personal fulfillment is more important?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you feel attachment to those you love. And yes that can lead to suffering. What Buddhism teaches is that suffering is derived from attachment. As in, when you're attached, you're vulnerable and can be hurt depending on the situation. When you let go of things nothing can hurt you anymore. Basically, if you don't care, you won't suffer.

Buddhism is IMO a philosophy about becoming pretty much a "worker ant" (only much more intellectually capable). The basic idea is to lose purpose in life, bit by bit, while mantaining general rules of ethics, just for the sake of good convivence.

The final goal of all Buddhists, though, is to get to a constant state of Nirvana, which is basically losing your individuality, letting your mind wander without caring if you're still breathing or not. Needless to say, this theoretical state will lead to death very quickly. Most people who are into this usually reach Nirvana from time to time, but their basic instincts sooner or later kick in.

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

[ QUOTE ]
The final goal of all Buddhists, though, is to get to a constant state of Nirvana, which is basically losing your individuality, letting your mind wander without caring if you're still breathing or not. Needless to say, this theoretical state will lead to death very quickly. Most people who are into this usually reach Nirvana from time to time, but their basic instincts sooner or later kick in.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYI, the canonical final goal of Buddhism is the eradication ("pulling out by the root", and therefore no possibility of growth back) of greed, hate and ignorance within one's psychology. BTW, those three terms have very specific and larger meaning than attributed in the common english use of language.

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
attachment is the cause of all suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you feel attachment to all those you love?, or do you think personal fulfillment is more important?

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel attachment to those I love yes, and I don't value personal fulfillment, or at least, I try not to. Attachment is the cause of suffering, but suffering is not the only thing that results from attachment. Also, I don't think love and attachment need to interweave nearly as deeply and directly as suffering and attachment do.

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

I understand the whole thing about not being punished for homosexual attraction, yet being punished for homosexual sex, and such acts. I disagree with a God who punishes this. Also, I have read very deeply into the gospels. I believe they can be a great tool for many people, they just aren't for me. Thanks for your excellent reply.

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

[ QUOTE ]
FYI, the canonical final goal of Buddhism is the eradication ("pulling out by the root", and therefore no possibility of growth back) of greed, hate and ignorance within one's psychology.

[/ QUOTE ]

AFAIK, that is correct yet incomplete, the idea is to get rid of all mundane interests, both good and bad. So that'd include love, joy and even mercy (though most of buddhism has a contradiction here, since it suggests you do good for others)

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FYI, the canonical final goal of Buddhism is the eradication ("pulling out by the root", and therefore no possibility of growth back) of greed, hate and ignorance within one's psychology.

[/ QUOTE ]

AFAIK, that is correct yet incomplete, the idea is to get rid of all mundane interests, both good and bad. So that'd include love, joy and even mercy (though most of buddhism has a contradiction here, since it suggests you do good for others)

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with that, do you have a source?

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FYI, the canonical final goal of Buddhism is the eradication ("pulling out by the root", and therefore no possibility of growth back) of greed, hate and ignorance within one's psychology.

[/ QUOTE ]

AFAIK, that is correct yet incomplete, the idea is to get rid of all mundane interests, both good and bad. So that'd include love, joy and even mercy (though most of buddhism has a contradiction here, since it suggests you do good for others)

[/ QUOTE ]

It is complete. You are adding things to it. There may be a small sect or some new-age group that may have added to it in this way, nevertheless, the canonical gaol is exactly as stated. In fact this is not quite the shortest way to express the goal of buddhism. Canonically, you can also say, that the final goal is the end of suffering, the actual saying rendered in English is a quote from the Buddha: "I only teach "dukkha" (suffering) and the end of "dukkha" (suffering)". That is the shortest possible way to summarize Buddhism in its entirity. I have use the original Pali term "dukkha" as the translation of it as suffering is a remnant of the early translation efforts by Annie Besant (of Theosophy fame) and her associates. The term dukkha has a much broader meaning than that of suffering as normally understood in English.

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

Buddha is right we he says that attachment leads to suffering. The thing that most strikes me about your post is what you say about being dragged to church. It sounds like it brings you suffering, which makes me think you are attached to your angst and your issues with Christianity. I think if you let go of that, it will bring you less suffering, bring your father less suffering, and bring the two of you closer together.

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

[ QUOTE ]
Buddha is right we he says that attachment leads to suffering. The thing that most strikes me about your post is what you say about being dragged to church. It sounds like it brings you suffering, which makes me think you are attached to your angst and your issues with Christianity. I think if you let go of that, it will bring you less suffering, bring your father less suffering, and bring the two of you closer together.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. This is my goal as well. Not that I'm attached to that goal, of course. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
My personal philosophy, is above all, to come to peace, end suffering, fade away, etc, in enlightenment. However, I don't deny that God exists in any form that is perpetuated by modern religions, or otherwise. I do not worship God, though. I feel that I have no obligation to do so, that if I was created, it was knowing I had the potential for complete independent thought, so I should not be punished for it. I could ramble on, but basically, I believe that even if there is a God, I should not serve him/her. Is there a name for this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd call it rational agnosticism.

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

If you were God how would you build a world where people could know joy? Without passing through sorrow how would one know joy? The greater the sorrow the greater the potential for joy.

Life is not about self. The thing you are most attached to is self. Loose yourself in the service of others and you will find yourself. You are God in the making as surely as you are your earthly father's son.

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you were God how would you build a world where people could know joy? Without passing through sorrow how would one know joy? The greater the sorrow the greater the potential for joy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah? Care to prove it, or even just back it up? Because everything we know suggests otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
Life is not about self. The thing you are most attached to is self. Loose yourself in the service of others and you will find yourself. You are God in the making as surely as you are your earthly father's son.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, and given paternity results these days...

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

Bluffthis made a very nice post Ben.

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John go right to the heart of the matter, but here's a pearl of wisdom I want to share with you.

If you read the bible from front to back the verse at the very center of the bible is Psalm 118 verse 8. I believe the fact that this message is dead center in the bible is no mere coincidence.

Psalm 118
1 Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good;
his love endures forever.

2 Let Israel say:
"His love endures forever."

3 Let the house of Aaron say:
"His love endures forever."

4 Let those who fear the LORD say:
"His love endures forever."

5 In my anguish I cried to the LORD,
and he answered by setting me free.

6 The LORD is with me; I will not be afraid.
What can man do to me?

7 The LORD is with me; he is my helper.
I will look in triumph on my enemies.

8 It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man.

9 It is better to take refuge in the LORD
than to trust in princes.

10 All the nations surrounded me,
but in the name of the LORD I cut them off.

11 They surrounded me on every side,
but in the name of the LORD I cut them off.

12 They swarmed around me like bees,
but they died out as quickly as burning thorns;
in the name of the LORD I cut them off.

13 I was pushed back and about to fall,
but the LORD helped me.

14 The LORD is my strength and my song;
he has become my salvation.

15 Shouts of joy and victory
resound in the tents of the righteous:
"The LORD's right hand has done mighty things!

16 The LORD's right hand is lifted high;
the LORD's right hand has done mighty things!"

17 I will not die but live,
and will proclaim what the LORD has done.

18 The LORD has chastened me severely,
but he has not given me over to death.

19 Open for me the gates of righteousness;
I will enter and give thanks to the LORD.

20 This is the gate of the LORD
through which the righteous may enter.

21 I will give you thanks, for you answered me;
you have become my salvation.

22 The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone;

23 the LORD has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes.

24 This is the day the LORD has made;
let us rejoice and be glad in it.

25 O LORD, save us;
O LORD, grant us success.

26 Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD.
From the house of the LORD we bless you.

27 The LORD is God,
and he has made his light shine upon us.
With boughs in hand, join in the festal procession
up to the horns of the altar.

28 You are my God, and I will give you thanks;
you are my God, and I will exalt you.

29 Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good;
his love endures forever.

This is one of my favorite psalms right up there with the 23rd. I guess what always gets me is the "his love endures forever" part.

Here's a link to a song expresses the heart of the Gospel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDCdGPJQ-hM

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

wouldn't different versions/translations have different messages in the exact center?

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

I highly doubt that the verse numbers change. Just the phrasing and word choices within sentences of different translations change. The Message version of the bible has "his love endure forever" as "his love never quits" but the verse number doesn't change.

There's probably a translator's rule never to mix up the verses that would seem logical in view of the hyper sensitivity with which most translators approach translating the bible, but at this time without directly researching that topic I can't prove it. Not to mention locating anything to quote scripture would become a practical nightmare for ministers/evangelists/religious scholars and anyone else trying to compare bible passages.

There are bibles out there that I think they are called parallel bibles. You can have the New King James Version on the right side of the page and The Message version on the left side to compare readings. Some bible experts actually advise you to read the whole bible then get different versions and compare passages. Then again you have some people that prefer certain versions over others.

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the fact that this message is dead center in the bible is no mere coincidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

so I can check the ones around here, do you mean dead center by page number, verse count, word count or letter count? oh, and do I count illustration pages in any of those?

luckyme

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe the fact that this message is dead center in the bible is no mere coincidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

so I can check the ones around here, do you mean dead center by page number, verse count, word count or letter count? oh, and do I count illustration pages in any of those?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]


I came across this information about it being the central verse about 3 or 4 years ago and then I think I saw it again in the concordance margins of a friend that had the King James Version.

I just found this link on the web explaining a little more:
http://www.snopes.com/religion/center.asp

There's also another site on the web with a little slide show but I'd have to do some digging to see if I can find it again.

Edit: Here's the link to the slideshow. Enjoy!
http://www.tedmontgomery.com/Psalm118/index.html

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe the fact that this message is dead center in the bible is no mere coincidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

so I can check the ones around here, do you mean dead center by page number, verse count, word count or letter count? oh, and do I count illustration pages in any of those?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]


I came across this information about it being the central verse about 3 or 4 years ago and then I think I saw it again in the concordance margins of a friend that had the King James Version.



[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so it's an english translation ( all of them or just KJV)?. Or does it work in all languages and formats ( I'm thinking larger book headings may push around a page or two, for example).

luckyme

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

the Snopes link you posted shows nicely why its not that extraordinary. If you use different versions, which include more or less passages, then the center verse changes.

Also- Some versions of the Bible contained entirely different books. Included some that are not included.

Its hard to see significance in what version one particular Bible has as the center verse (also depends on how you define the center) when there are many other versions of the Bible with completely different centers.

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

[ QUOTE ]
I just found this link on the web explaining a little more:
http://www.snopes.com/religion/center.asp

[/ QUOTE ]

You've gotta love it when people post a link to Snopes that refutes their point - in order to support their point.

Ugh, talk about a pet peeve. I once made a bet with someone over a myth, and she pointed out the Snopes article declaring it false and said that because the article said it was "very unlikely" to be true, there was still a chance it was true and therefore she didn't have to pay up.

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

See you guys are all interested in making things impossible while I'm interested in the possible.

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

[ QUOTE ]
See you guys are all interested in making things impossible while I'm interested in the possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a matter of perspective. I would argue that you want to make the ordinary seem extraordinary and find the Holy in everything you read. (confirmation bias)

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

Looking for information isn't the same as "making things impossible." If I believe I can fly by flapping my arms, then I flap my arms and fail to fly, I'm exploring the possibilities. It just so happens that flapping my arms and flying isn't a possibility (except in my dreams, where it happens rather often).

Similarly, since the verses were added to the Bible centuries after it was written, the authors can't have intended any given verse to be the central verse.

But let's not dissemble. You have an agenda, and you are pushing that agenda. In general I won't bother to refute you because I still think you might be a troll. But even if you aren't, you toss out claims because you think they may possibly be relevant, and you don't do your research to find out whether they actually are - leaving us to do the homework and discover that there's nothing to them. This is just plain rude, particularly when you're pushing that agenda.

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

Quote: "Similarly, since the verses were added to the Bible centuries after it was written, the authors can't have intended any given verse to be the central verse."

If you think about it that's exactly why its remarkable. They numbered everything after the pages were written and find it in the center. It seems to indicate an inherent order in the book. I didn't know til today that the numbers were added hundreds of years later, but the fact that they were doesn't detract one whit.

Why not just skip my threads? If you disagree with everything I say then why waste your time reading it? I won't take offense and I'll make a pact to stay out of posts that you initiate. Pact?

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

No, because the threads sometimes go somewhere interesting. And this isn't one of yours, anyhow. I avoid responding to your proselytism.

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

but you're still missing why its not that interesting... that is, since the Bible has hundreds (or is it thousands) of versions, it has had books and verses added and taken away throughout time, it has different translations, etc. The fact that one particular verse is in the middle doesn't mean much because there are a multitude of versions which would have different verses in the center.

You can't put significance on that verse because its in the center of ONE version of the Bible when a different verse would be the middle verse in different versions.

On a related note- I feel pretty confident that there are 100s if not thousands of lines in that Bible that, were they the middle verse, you would find it significant. Which shows the more relevent information is your readiness to find significance and meaning in rathar unextraordinary things.

If one looked at a composite of your posts, one might easily conclude that you find interesting ANYTHING you read that you can interpret to reinforce your beliefs. It is also clear that you don't really analyze whether what you're posting is significant or logical... you just get excited by the idea that it may possibly support your beliefs. But you really give no critical analysis to anything you read so long as it suggests something Holy.

Can you see this?

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

[ QUOTE ]
If one looked at a composite of your posts, one might easily conclude that you find interesting ANYTHING you read that you can interpret to reinforce your beliefs. It is also clear that you don't really analyze whether what you're posting is significant or logical... you just get excited by the idea that it may possibly support your beliefs. But you really give no critical analysis to anything you read so long as it suggests something Holy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, don't waste any compilation, they are an excellent source for examples of selection biases of various types unless you find they're too extreme to be credible for a class. iow, would a class say, "hey, nobody is that blatant about it." and not get the value out of them.

luckyme

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

Psalm 118:8 (New American Standard Bible)

8It is (A)better to take refuge in the LORD
Than to trust in man.


Psalm 118:8 (New International Version)
8 It is better to take refuge in the LORD
than to trust in man.

Psalm 118:8 (Amplified Bible)
Amplified Bible (AMP)

8It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man.

Psalm 118:8 (New Living Translation)
New Living Translation (NLT)

8 It is better to take refuge in the Lord
than to trust in people.

Psalm 118:8 (King James Version)

8It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
Psalm 118:8 (English Standard Version)
English Standard Version (ESV)

8(A) It is better to take refuge in the LORD
(B) than to trust in man.

Psalm 118:8 (Contemporary English Version)

8It is better to trust the LORD

for protection

than to trust anyone else,

Psalm 118:8 (New King James Version)

8 It is better to trust in the LORD
Than to put confidence in man.

Psalm 118:8 (New Century Version)
New Century Version (NCV)

8 It is better to trust the Lord
than to trust people.

Psalm 118:8 (21st Century King James Version)
21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
Copyright © 1994 by Deuel Enterprises, Inc.



8It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

Psalm 118:8 (American Standard Version)

8 It is better to take refuge in Jehovah Than to put confidence in man.

Psalm 118:8 (Young's Literal Translation)

8Better to take refuge in Jehovah than to trust in man,

Psalm 118:8 (Darby Translation)
Darby Translation (DARBY)
Public Domain

8It is better to trust in Jehovah than to put confidence in man;

Psalm 118:8 (New Life Version)
New Life Version (NLV)
Copyright © 1969 by Christian Literature International
Psalm 118:8 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003 by Holman Bible Publishers, Nashville Tennessee. All rights reserved.


8 It is better to take refuge in the LORD
than to trust in man. (A)



8 It is better to trust in the Lord than to trust in man.

Psalm 118:8 (New International Reader's Version)

8 It is better to go to the Lord for safety
than to trust in mere men.
Psalm 118:8 (New International Version - UK)
New International Version - UK (NIVUK)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society



8It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man.

An excerpt from http://everystudent.com/features/bible.h...WID=3466921512:

Has the Bible Changed and Been Corrupted Over Time?

Some people have the idea that the New Testament has been translated "so many times" that it has become corrupted through stages of translating. If the translations were being made from other translations, they would have a case. But translations are actually made directly from original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic source texts based on thousands of ancient manuscripts.

For instance, we know the New Testament we have today is true to its original form because:
1. We have such a huge number of manuscript copies--over 24,000.
2. Those copies agree with each other, word for word, 99.5% of the time.
3. The dates of these manuscripts are very close to the dates of their originals (see link at end of this section).

When one compares the text of one manuscript with another, the match is amazing. Sometimes the spelling may vary, or words may be transposed, but that is of little consequence. Concerning word order, Bruce M. Metzger, professor emeritus at Princeton Theological Seminary, explains: "It makes a whale of a difference in English if you say, 'Dog bites man' or 'Man bites dog'--sequence matters in English. But in Greek it doesn't. One word functions as the subject of the sentence regardless of where it stands in the sequence."5

Dr. Ravi Zacharias, a visiting professor at Oxford University, also comments: "In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the documents, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity."6

The New Testament is humanity's most reliable ancient document. Its textual integrity is more certain than that of Plato's writings or Homer's Iliad. For a comparison of the New Testament to other ancient writings, click here.

The Old Testament has also been remarkably well preserved. Our modern translations are confirmed by a huge number of ancient manuscripts in both Hebrew and Greek, including the mid-20th century discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls hold the oldest existing fragments of almost all of the Old Testament books, dating from 150 B.C. The similarity of the Dead Sea manuscripts to hand copies made even 1,000 years later is proof of the care the ancient Hebrew scribes took in copying their scriptures.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

Ummm you are simply posting the same verse over and over. The question is NOT what is Psalm 118:8... the question is what verse is the 'middle' of the Bible. You aren't showing that they are the middle verse. Nor is showing how 'middle verse is defined.' Is it page number? Is it number of words before and after?

Are you including versions of the Bible that include added text?

Your posting doesn't indicate anything about "the middle verse."


REGARDING the changes in the Bible - try this recent book by Biblical Scholar Bart Ehrman:

Misquoting Jesus

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

[ QUOTE ]
The New Testament is humanity's most reliable ancient document. Its textual integrity is more certain than that of Plato's writings or Homer's Iliad. For a comparison of the New Testament to other ancient writings, click here.

The Old Testament has also been remarkably well preserved. Our modern translations are confirmed by a huge number of ancient manuscripts in both Hebrew and Greek, including the mid-20th century discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls hold the oldest existing fragments of almost all of the Old Testament books, dating from 150 B.C. The similarity of the Dead Sea manuscripts to hand copies made even 1,000 years later is proof of the care the ancient Hebrew scribes took in copying their scriptures.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's all well and good, but just because something was translated with consistency does not make it more valid than logical statements.

Should the lessons of Plato and Homer be given less weight simply because they may not have been as successfully translated word for word?

Without the Rosetta stone and linguists working on incomplete information, hieroglyphs would still be pretty gibberish. I do not think when a complete translation of lost languages and possibly undiscovered manuscripts are made you should suddenly find an emergence of new/old religions.

It's good that ancient works are preserved through translation, but to lean too heavily on the knowledge that is centuries or millennia old to give a logical explanation of why things are the way they are?

How did a 21 month old thread get bumped anyway? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

Your question was answered and now you're raising a different argument.

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

btw, Splendour... the link you provided proves what I said earlier... you suffer from massive confirmation bias. You never seem to look critically at anything you post because you WANT to believe it.

This link "An excerpt from http://everystudent.com/features/bib...ID=3466921512:
1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1196292867&amp;sr=1-1" is really poor.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. The Bible is not a book of fables. Unlike other spiritual books, it does not demand blind faith. Multiple categories of evidence support the historical accuracy of the Bible as well as its claim to divine authorship.



[/ QUOTE ]

First off, many Christian Biblical Scholars contend that much of the Bible is in fact fables and not to be taken literally. So not even all Christians, I'm not sure even the MAJORITY of Christians believe much of it isn't fables.

Furthermore...
[ QUOTE ]
Ancient history supports the Bible's accuracy as a historical record.


[/ QUOTE ] Some of it does. But most of the 'magical parts' and nearly everything about Jesus is NOT supported. For instance, history directly contradicts in massive amounts of evidence that the Earth is only a few thousand years old... or that the entire earth was flooded... or that the jews had a mass exodus from Egypt, etc.

This is fallacious. Yet you link to it as proof.... because you want to believe it. Have you verified this with any critical research? I sincerely doubt it.

[ QUOTE ]
The Gospels provide multiple reliable accounts of Jesus' life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm... First off, Many Biblical Scholars believe that the 3 later gospels were BASED on the first Gospel. That is... they are not independent accounts, they are merely retellings. The later 3 relied on the first Gospel. Second... how are they reliable? Outside of the Bible, there is little to no corroborative evidence. Period.

Once again... you take it for granted that this is correct. Yet even within the Christian Academic community, Biblical scholars believe that the Gospels are NOT separate accounts. (see the book link I posted for you earlier)

[ QUOTE ]
Archaeology backs up the Biblical account.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again... it does not. It backs up things like... certain cities may have existed. But it does not back up much of it.

Because the Bible references real cities and such is not proof of anything. Anymore then the fact that Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom had Nazis in it... who were real, therefore Indiana Jones was real and he really found the Ark of the Covenant.

[ QUOTE ]
Textual scholarship confirms that the books of the Bible have not changed since they were first written.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is the worst of all. There are plenty of books documenting the changes in the Bible. I posted one for you.

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

quote: It's good that ancient works are preserved through translation, but to lean too heavily on the knowledge that is centuries or millennia old to give a logical explanation of why things are the way they are?


Something being old doesn't negate it. If anything it underpins things. God is eternal so his texts should be old. Just because the truths in the book seem "old fashioned" is deceiving. They are tried and true and there's a lot of insight into the character of man.

Re: family issue, and personal philosophy
 

What is your problem Kurto? I made my original post for Ben in answer to his post not for you to argue over. Its not an argument. Its a fact. Its Psalm 118:8 in all bible versions.

I'm not arguing every contrary opinion you have. Start a post if you want input from the forum on every aspect of the bible, but I doubt I'll be answering it.