The Daily Static
  The Daily Static
UF Archives
Register
UF Membership
Ad Free Site
Postcards
Community
Geekfinder
UFie Gear
Advertise on UF
Forum Rules
& FAQ

Username

Password


Create a New Account

  
 

Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
Question of the Day! by kickstart2006-11-19 12:26:49
  Prolly the fact that... by breezeblock2003-07-11 01:21:08
    umm ... by graeme2003-07-11 01:32:43
      Interestingly enough... by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 02:55:38
        Small question by catharsis 2003-07-11 05:40:59
Without delving deeper into the logic of the Bible, I wonder about the logic of that last statement:

<And even these I wouldn't claim to be perfect, except for the exact first written words. Those are perfect, exactly what God intended, letter for letter. Unfortunately those are lost. But because it is no longer letter-perfect is no reason to completely discount its validity.>

AFAIK, the Bible is a collection of many different books written down by many different "historians", decades or even a century after the described events. That's also why we have several (slightly differing) accounts of certain events. Which of these do you take to be the "perfect" copy?

Also, if God's intention was to creat a perfect instance of the Bible to bring his word to the people unchanged, why has it been lost? If he inspired those first authors to write everything in the perfect words, why not also inspire the translators to do the same?

Oh, let me guess. God's ways are unfathomable.


-- Catharsis
[ Reply ]
          Ah, but you see ... by Beorn2003-07-11 06:35:16
            Hrm. by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 08:44:06
              You did it first. by Beorn2003-07-11 08:52:49
                But I stated that I was generalizing by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 09:10:00
                  Generalizing WHAT? by Naruki2003-07-11 10:22:46
                  You also said "you". by Beorn2003-07-11 10:46:49
                    My apologies by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 12:41:50
          I shall attempt ... by graeme2003-07-11 06:55:51
          Let me see if I can make an analogy by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 07:36:51
            How can you be sure? by Control2003-07-11 07:44:43
              Why shouldn't I be sure? by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 07:58:20
                Circular argumentation by Control2003-07-11 09:17:46
                  But they don't by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 09:21:58
                    My response to that is to be found ... by Beorn2006-11-19 12:55:59
                      Different questions by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 12:38:33
                        depends by mirage2003-07-11 13:08:52
                          Key phrase, as I see it by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 13:20:00
                            If they by mirage2003-07-11 13:27:51
                            Well, I know there is definitive proof. by Beorn2003-07-11 15:05:53
                              An even better argument... by catharsis2003-07-11 15:22:33
                                umm ... by graeme2003-07-11 22:06:43
                                This by mirage2006-11-19 12:55:59
                                ... by graeme2003-07-11 23:46:58
                              HAhahahaha by Ston2003-07-11 15:36:38
                                Yes, I have faith in science. by Beorn2003-07-11 18:23:03
                              just for fun... by niwikki2003-07-11 16:41:16
                                nah by mirage2003-07-11 19:00:36
                                Why am I even bothering to refute that nonsense? by Beorn2003-07-11 19:47:58
                                so ... by graeme2003-07-11 22:12:23
                                No answer by mirage2003-07-11 23:19:25
                                Exactly (n/t) by graeme2003-07-11 23:49:15
                                However, by mirage2003-07-11 23:56:02
                        But you seem to believe ... by Beorn2003-07-11 14:51:57
                          Archaeologists? by graeme2003-07-11 22:21:23
                            archaeology vs anthropology by niwikki2003-07-11 23:03:01
                              Actually ... by graeme2003-07-11 23:40:26
                                No, because by mirage2003-07-11 23:46:24
                                Actually ... by graeme2003-07-11 23:58:29
                    You are wrong, there. by Naruki2003-07-11 12:39:30
                      Still by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 12:45:49
                        I haven't satisfactorily had Baron Munchausen by Naruki2003-07-11 14:41:18
            But God is RESPONSIBLE for the confusion! by Naruki2003-07-11 10:30:42
              Warning: infinite recursive loop! (n/t) by NOLAWitch2003-07-11 10:43:07
            if men are flawed by niwikki2003-07-11 12:02:58
              I agree with part of that by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 12:33:32

 

[Todays Cartoon Discussion] [News Index]

Come get yer ARS (Account Registration System) Source Code here!
All images, characters, content and text are copyrighted and trademarks of J.D. Frazer except where other ownership applies. Don't do bad things, we have lawyers.
UserFriendly.Org and its operators are not liable for comments or content posted by its visitors, and will cheerfully assist the lawful authorities in hunting down script-kiddies, spammers and other net scum. And if you're really bad, we'll call your mom. (We're not kidding, we've done it before.)