Is the Bible true or an altered book?

VIEW:590 DATA:2021-09-01

#Bible #DeusExiste #Biblical Translation #God #Negationism #Universe #Human Will #Truth #Denying the Bible #BuscadaVerdade #ReformadoresdaSaúde
Would the Bible be true or an altered book?
When a person reads the Bible, they may come across bibles with different ways of writing. That's because there are several versions, for example:
King James Version, is a translation of the Bible written into English, NIV, new international version, which is another translation, generated by many biblical analysts. But translations can vary, but they are translations.
For example a woman writes a book in English, and let's say that book is translated into Portuguese. The translator's idea is contained in the translation, even if it is little. To actually read the author's book, I would have to read it in English.
The Bible was written in two languages, Hebrew, which constituted the Old Testament, and the New Testament, written in Greek.
And so the texts are the same, as they have not gone through a translator. But does the translator change what is written a lot?
There are several groups of biblical researchers who do not allow the translation of the Bible to be altered. Thus, only churches that create their own translations have the ability to make big changes, to the point that the Bible they wrote does not match what is written.
Out of these churches, groups like the one that generated the NVI are looking for the best translation.
But if a modern word didn't exist in the Bible. First you have to have if the action linked to that word did not exist.
For example: Would the bible talk about a machinist? No, because there was no train for an engineer. But a car driver would exist in the Bible.
For example, using a new term. If I say, the Philistines had a Rave at harvest time. Rave is a closed party where only special people are invited, and with great freedom in the party. Now, these parties existed, groups of nobles entered the temples and they were closed, most of them, and there dances and all kinds of festivals took place. So, it's not because the word Rave came up in 1980 that such a thing didn't happen more than 4000 years ago.
But can we say that men changed the Bible back in the beginning, so what is following is a lie? How to know if they changed or not.
A truth exists when we see the same thing in different places and in different ways. For example, if we study the laws of Moses, we can see that there are terms contained in the code of Hammurabi. The code of Hammurabi are laws defined in Mesopotamia that managed the population. So we have two distant peoples with the same rule of law.
When we read about the flood, we can travel to different regions of the planet, and hear the same story about the flood. Written on clay or stone tablets. Again, distant peoples talking about the same thing.
An analysis of all ancient peoples and we can see that they all believed in one god. Which makes you have a concept that it's human nature that needs a god. So, putting all these factors together, what we have is that a being placed this need in man. For there was no atheist people in antiquity.
In this way, we can observe different texts and arrive at the truest one. And when you make this search, you cannot deny the truth of the Bible.
The problem is in the human will. If an individual's pleasure is prohibited by the Bible, then the person seeks to deny the Scriptures merely to justify his action. But he does not make a careful analysis, on the Scriptures and the historical and physical facts, to define whether the prohibition is in fact real or not. The use of doubt rather than analysis is the foundation of these groups. But how is this?
An individual says in 1970 that the greenhouse effect does not exist. Several scientists at the time say it exists and show data, but how difficult is it to detect and simulate in practice? So the denialist denies it! A denialist denies something, not because he knows, but because he doesn't know. When not knowing is the answer to something, it is just the search to justify your will. In fact, for years, global warming was denied, because they wanted to make profits by destroying nature.
With the concept of the Bible and any truth it is the same thing. If a person denies something because he doesn't know, then he has already started from the error. Thus, one must deny something for knowing.
For example, an individual denies the Bible because he has read several translations and the words are different. Another tries to find out why this is so. The first one who denied it is running away because he wants to run away from something. The second is looking for the truth.
Thus, the seeker of the truth found that there is a source of text that does not vary, and that it has been written for thousands of years.
And the most interesting thing is that when you can prove that the source of the text is unique, the one who was running away won't accept it, because what he was doing is just finding an excuse to do what he wants. This excuse, being unmasked, does not make the individual stop doing what he wants, unless something frightens him.
The first point to know whether the Bible is correct or not is to base what is most immutable. And what is most immutable are the physical laws. The law of gravity, motions, laws of impact and others.
Thus, following physical laws, and if we imagined evolution as true, man would never be able to destroy nature, as he would be evolved, in the evolution system, to be extremely symbiotic with nature, and not become a devastator of nature.
But if he has become a devastator, then there has to be something that generates it. And therein lies a biblical foundation. It takes a force that alters the normal action so that it is abnormal. For man to be destructive the very nature that arose is abnormal. In this way, the fruit of the science of good and evil explains a fact. Just like if I throw a screwdriver into the machinery of a machine it breaks.
Deep down every individual who wants to generate doubts about the bible has a definite pleasure in his mind, which the bible forbids, and he does not want to be prohibited. And it plays the doubt as an answer to deny the prohibition. Every time the question is asked for an answer, that is a denial. Doubt can never be an answer, but research, detailed and in-depth.
In fact, the most renowned scientists have the concept of divine existence as an existing factor, but determined norms try to evade it. For example, how does the universe control conscious entities without that universe being conscious? This is rationally impossible. For what controls must be more than what is controlled. Thus, the universe can only accept conscious beings if the universe itself is more conscious than the most conscious being that exists in that universe. Thus, the proof of the existence of God is at the heart of science, but this issue is avoided. Thus, the physical sciences are isolated from the human sciences, as the union of the two generates the law that the universe is conscious.
And a good analysis in the Bible and you see the existence of only one God, and such without physical and timeless form. In fact in science, the universe would only accept one conscious entity, the universe itself. Which makes all other god ideas rationally false. What makes the acceptance of the Bible, while not extremely perfect, is the extremely better model than any other ideology.
So justifying an error by doubting the Bible is only possible for people who do not wish to seek the truth.
 

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores