Getting a feel for what religions the Viets of AF believe in. I'm more curious as to how you were raised, not so much what you truly believe in. For example, my family is Catholic and I was raised Catholic; but my personal belief is agnosticism, but I would vote Christian in the poll anyway. Am I missing any other major religions that Viets typically believe in? Let me know and I'll add it in there.

You might want to add đạo Cao Đài to the list.

Buddhism!

Ugh...I forgot you can't edit polls. Or is there a way I don't know about?

I can edit it for you xD

Buddhism.

Could you do that for me then? And add "Other" too? Thanks, Hy.

Buddhism

A mix of buddhism and ancestral worship in my family but i'm a athiest. Not that I've come out and told my family

I'm a buddhist/Ancestral/Agnostic.

Hahaha, i have my doubts, but just in case, i have buddhism, and just because i'm Viet, i respect my ancestors by remembering them.

Buddhism just makes the most sense to me, i remember when i was smaller i actually went to Church more than Temples, because i was small and had nothing to do i actually tagged along when my friends who went to Church. As i grew, and learn more about Buddhism, it makes more sense. I go to a Catholic school too. LOL They still have yet to move me.

same here im buddhist and i also go to churches with friends sometimes, just to see how it is, i don't understand whats their point most of the time, all times i go they just teach u whats bad and like how u should be and what is a sin etc, and tell stories about it. It's like u sit there and listen to them teach u what to do because its good, and the LORD etc is this and that. I mean they go to church every weekend or so, and thats all they do? it just sounds like a way to keep u stuck to a religion then actually believing in it. I mean its ok, but like everytime i go its like they are getting brainwashed, like everyone saying hail hitler, but its like lord lord.. Thats just how i feel when im there, but its good to socialize and stuff with everyone who goes.

You forgot to put atheist.......

What about catholic??

to all those catholics, whats the difference b\n Catholic and Christianity?

Atheist

@ Rei: Christianity=catholic+orthodox+protestant

thanks, i thought christianity was a beleif and not a religion

I choose Buddhism

Is this poll for Viets only? Just curious.

It's for everyone

^ I thought Nero wanted to know about Viet... if not it wouldn't belong in this section...
Anyway, I was raised with ancestral worship. My dad's side is buddhism, my mom is just ancestral worship. I believe in almost everything though, like recarnation, hell, heaven, spirits.. I also believe we share this earth along with the universe with other beings too.
I dislike Christianity, because when my buddy and I was walking in downtown, there are 2 women talked to me about Jesus, and give me a book on it? , then there are 3 people who came different times to my house and wanted to convert us.. I told them that I'm buddhist, and they're like just listen ?? Anyway, they're just my bad experiences. I have been to a church for a wedding and I don't dislike you if you're Christian, just don't force your beliefs on me.

When it comes to religion, I am very open. In fact, I like to believe I believe in all religions. Sort of like a shot-gun formation. If in case judgement day comes, if Jesus wouldn't show up at least Buddha or someone is gonna be there right? I am covered in any case. Sort of like buying the comprehensive/premium insurance policy J/K

Nam mô a di đà phật

:genius: i was born in đạo Cao Đài but i dont know any of it study. But i do know that they respect other people religion alot, almost as much as their own

That's because they worship just about anything and any forms. Just like my joke above

^ I believe in almost all of them too.. maybe I should be in Dao Cao Dai =|

Atheïsm.

*DELETE*

Sorry Hy, you can only allow to vote once! ....wait a minute, you're a mod while you are at it......can you uh..




Salut Johanjs,
comment t'allez vous ?
I apologize for what I am about to say....I know,,,can't help it when I read the poem above....I read the poem and I am thinking,,,,man, I am in the toilet and doing number# 2 or at least trying. One word come to mind "constipation" excusé moi Johanjs
Anyway, sorry for the crude joke. I forgot you're Frenchie. Do you know a poem about the swan ... I remember one from back in high school...it's goes something like....

Un cyne advancé sur l'eau
tout 'en tourer de lui même ..
come un certaine instance
que n'êtes quelque....

(something like that....sorry for the spelling...I can't remember the poet but it's about the swan gliding on the surface of the lake) ...the theme of the poem is pretty much like your poem but take the form of the swan. I think!

I am a Daoist

I used to be a Buddhist.

hi lthv22, OK, I'll put it back here.



With the time shift it was 20h00 by you, but 05h00 by me, so I cut it there and left.
Click here.

But you're right, the poem was not really one. I wrote lyrics for a yet-to-be song! As for the French part of it, it was also a joke on a very French existentialist debate going on here for years, "avoir ou être!?" (to have or to be!?), to which was added "paraître" (to show). I said, haha, none of it! because the de facto choice is always "disparaître" (to die)!

Anyway, it says what it says: at times, one needs to believe in something (why not someone), transcendental or not, but in the end, there's regrets always on what one didn't fulfill... Time out. To be? To have? behave...

It all depends on you, that a poem be sad, contemplative, or hilarious!

***
Un Cygne / A Swan

Un cygne avance sur l'eau / A swan advances over the water
tout entouré de lui-même / all wrapped up in itself
comme un glissant tableau; / like a gliding tableau.

ainsi à certains instants / Thus at certain moments
un être que l'on aime / a being that one loves
est tout un espace mouvant. / seems just like a moving space.

Il se rapproche doublé / He draws near, doubled
comme ce cygne qui nage / like that swan who swims
sur notre âme troublée... / across our troubled soul,

qui à cet être ajoute / who adds to this being
la tremblante image / the trembling image
de bonheur et de doute / of happiness and of doubt.

Ah thanks Johanjs!!
I know something was not quite correct about my French
I'll stick to English then....
Maybe we can discuss about this poem in the poetry thread....

What are you now?


I wonder who else is a poet here.


I don't know, sometime if you believe in something you'll see it.

For those who voted "Other," be sure to specify what exactly.

Buddhist

haha

came back online and just noticed ngo.ngochy and cuong are mods - congrats

This is a very interesting topic and I have enjoyed reading it, but I do want to point out a few things:

-For those people that basically said they follow or believe 'all' religions (to cover their all their bases. hahaha!), I would say that is impossible. Christianity is completely exclusive. "Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." In this verse, Jesus makes it very clear that the Father loved us so much that He provided ONE, clear way to salvation. So you cannot accept Christianity AND (name other religion here). It is either/or where Christianity is concerned. I know, however, that one can mix and match beliefs where Buddhism and Taoism and such are concerned though.

-Somebody asked what the difference is between Christianity and Catholicism. The Catholic 'system' grew out of the original Christian church as written about in the Biblical book of ACTS. Over time, desires for centralization of power and authority (as well as organization) transformed the Christian church of the book of ACTS into a splinter system that grew into the Catholic church as we see it today. There are HUGE differences between the two but the main ones are:

--Catholics believe in praying to saints, Mary and revere the pope as infallible in judgement. Christians believe that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), but that once you are saved you become "heirs with Christ", "sons of God", "a royal priesthood" and "a holy nation". In otherwords, the 'saints' are the 'saved'.

--The Catholic system is patterned after the Old Testament Levitical priesthood with the necessity of a mediator between God and man (priests). Without them, there is no remission or absolution for sin. In Christianity, Jesus himself is the only and eternal mediator between God and man and He paid the price already (through his sacrifice and death on the cross) so that all our sins are forgiven. Individuals can now come directly to God themselves (a personal relationship) and find forgiveness and strength without needing a human 'middleman'.

Those are the first two BIG things that came to mind and I certainly didn't intend for this to be a lecture on comparative religion. hahaha!! I DO think it is pretty interesting to note that anytime Christianity has been brought to Asia (the early Jesuits in Japan and China and Vietnam for instance), it has taken root and grown very quickly until it became a regarded as a 'threat to the government' and then repressed. This is very interesting to me because, historically, this seems to indicate that there is something(s) found in Christianity that is not in the other beliefs prevalent in Asia. I mean, currently, the largest Christian congregation in the world is in Seoul, Korea!! Also (according to what I have read), prior to Christianity, there was no equivalent word for 'hope' in Japanese. It is good to see (and remember) that so many people in Asian nations do not blindly see Christianity as a forced import from the West, but have discovered its relevance to their own lives. After all, Christ died for ALL ...and He wasn't from 'the West' anyway, but from the Middle East which I think is symbolic (not West OR East).

rage

I just wanted to add this link that seems to indicate a strong connection between the ancient Hebrew worship of God and the Old Testament story in Genesis with ancient worship of (the same?) God by the Chinese emperor in the Border Sacrifice.

Interesting.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...v20n3_china.asp


and another cool one:

http://across.co.nz/GENESIS-China.htm

rage

budhism for me

hehe, thanks
Good to see you back! =]

Nam mo a di da phat.

Why is it "impossible" to believe in all religions ?

I know this topic can be sensitive to certain. Since you brought it up, then let's look at it liberally ... I don't meant to offend anyone...just talk...

First, let's understand why we have religion in the first place.
IN MY OPINION: religions are the creation of man. Who wrote the bible? men!
(through the words of god? is that a blind faith or how do you/we know?)
Wait! I am not saying that there is NOT a god or there is one (or perhaps) there are many...it could be one god and we all (all religions) call by different name? *shrug*
From the early days since men roam the face of this earth, we are perhaps a savaged creature, untamed, vulnerable (spiritually), directionless, etc...religions came about to give people the spiritual comfort, something to tame the salvagery of men, something as a guideline to a more fruitful and better life.
The do's and the donts in life. What is moral and what is not. What is hope and what is fulfillment...reward and punishment,,,etc..
Religion is a vehicle (guidelines and principles) in order to help one get from one end to the other (salvation/enlightenment/whatever your religion term or belief).
There is no one way to get there. Since different people yield differences, everyone think and believe differently. We don't operate at the same mode.
Different religions give different perspective so that everyone can be accomodate or perceive easily. That is NOT to say if you are an atheist, then you won't get there. If you are an atheist and you live your life abiding to those principles without having to believe in a god, then you will still get there.

I believe that any kind of writing is subjective (PERIOD!). Why must we take someone's specific interpretation to taken as the truth? is that a question of blind faith follower or is that a question of a knowedgeable faithful follower?

Not only faith is important in religion, but also perception.
I think; therefore, I am. That is a fundamental concept of individualism.
Why do you think we go to school all our life? not just to be taught that 2+2=4 or the sun is rise on the east and set on the west but to THINK for ourselves.

Now, having said that, let's go back to the question:

Why is it "impossible" to believe in all religions ?
and Why is there only ONE "Religion" to get there ?

Ithv22,

Your concept of 'religion' is completely based in HUMAN will and the concept of the individual. Therefore, there is no need for faith in any 'god' at all becuase your 'god' is, ultimately, yourself (or Mankind). You may choose a faith for social or philosophical reasons, but it is still YOU who decides what is right and wrong. YOU = 'god'. No faith required. In this you are right that 'religions' are man-made.

Christianity (to use my previous example) is about what God did to reach out to Man (Jesus), redeem him and transform him. It is a living, active 'relationship' with God as opposed to a man-made set of social/ethical teachings. This takes Faith. I am no longer the one who decides what is right and wrong, but believe and follow what God says is right and wrong in His Word (the Bible).

As for the Bible being just something written by men, there is PLENTY of archaeological, scientific, historical and physical evidence that the Bible is accurate and TRUE as the Word of God.

TRUTH now becomes the focus. If the Bible is absolutely true (which I believe) then I believe it is true when it says that there is only ONE path to salvation and that is through Jesus Christ (John 14:6). THAT is why it is impossible to believe in 'all religions'. If you call yourself a Christian, by definition you can ONLY believe in salvation through Christ. If you try to believe in 'all religions' you have to exclude Christianity because it says that all other religions are false. Simple.

rage


p.s.

Here are couple articles of interest showing the Divine hand of God in the writing of the Bible:

http://khouse.org/articles/technical/19960201-44.html This is amazing because a bunch of ancient Jewish rabbis would NEVER have written this.

http://www.pytlik.com/observe/deliverus/word-03.html A VERY short acheological primer. The Wadi Sidri stuff is worth following up on!! Completely fascinating!!

-plus the two links I posted previously relative to China.

Of course there is LOTS more. This kind of stuff is only introductory to a good solid study.

All Catholics are Christians.

Catholic is a sect of Christianity like Lutheran, or Episcopal etc.

Catholic in its literal term means "universal"

So all Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholic.

I was raised Catholic, but I was also raised Buddhist. Buddhism can be a religion or it can be a philosophy on life.
I suppose I fall somewhere in the "other" category lol.

Not really. There is a clear division between the Catholic church and the Protestant churches (Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.) dating all the way back to the Protestant Reformation. The Protestant (generally considered the 'Christian') churches believe in salvation through faith only, while the Catholics believe in salvation through works, the sacraments and the priesthood. This is overly simplistic, but underscores a HUGE difference between the two. Though there certainly CAN be Christians in the Catholic church, many would not consider the Catholic church itself to be 'Christian'.

rage

rage,

I just want to clear up one thing: I don't have a 'god' complex. In fact, I am a Buddhist myself. I can tell by your response that you are a devoted Christian yourself. Your belief has already indoctrinated deeply in your mind since the first day you attending church. So each of us, our preconceived notion already established. There is no point of a discussion if we are to NOT look at it from a neutral standpoint. To discuss in a manner that is indifferently and liberally as if from a third person point of view. I certainly don't have a problem with someone's religion belief, but I do find it troubling to know someone claim that one religion is regarded as the ONLY valid and only WAY to achieve enlightenment/salvation/etc...over the others.

If we are to discuss by citing what we hold is our belief, then our discussion would NOT be as fruitful as we would come to understand each other. So I have one recommedation: let's discuss by asking questions...like we are looking into the unknown world with curiousity. Something that you would probably never have question if you are in church.

You brought up two notions in religion. Let us step one by one with questions:

FAITH:

From (John's) Bible or Words of God as you mentioned, there are two concept in Christianity. (a) If god endowed upon us the ability to REASON and
(b) bestowed on us 'FREE WILL' to choose and to make decision using on our 'REASON'ing. Now with that said, how does that make John then? is that a question of hypocrisy or heresy ? what 'bout Jesus or God ? does that violate the integrity of one of God's characteristics or of Jesus' ?
I smelled contradiction!

If we are to believe blindly without questioning and
reasoning, how do you explain to those 900+ people in
Jonestown in 1978 and how do you explain to those who perished in the
Davidian compound in Waco Texas ?

If they could reason instead of resort to blind faith, would you be interested to hear what they have to say today ?

Reality check!
Blind 'faith' ? how faithful are you?
You are 30,000 feet above sea level, would you jump out of an airplane with a parachute or would you jump out of an airplane with a Bible ? How faithful are you? would you wish to have the ability to decide what is right and what is wrong?
Please do not offended as a form of sarcasm. I just want to illustrate the point.

TRUTH:

Again, god is NOT a worldly creature which is blood and flesh. God is a conceptual higher being. How does archaeological and physical evidence materialize ?
science? not a chance. Historical? perhaps it does cited the history of Jews and Palestinians (middle easterners).
Again, would you believe in dragon or would you believe in dragonfly ?
Which one is more real ?


I'll give you an example of the real world scenario.
How many ways can your body get vitamin C from your diet ?
You are eating an apple.
I am eating an orange. Does that make me think that you
are mal-nutricient from vitamin C ?
A lady who sold me those oranges might say that eating orange is the ONLY and ONE way to get vitamin C.
Should I take her words and my faith to the heart? or should I question her credibility of judgement or reasoning ?

So anyway, just something to think about. I know that would not change your mind. But I would hope you understand that just because one believe in one's religion does NOT mean that one can undermine other people's religion.

Ithv22,

Everything I have mentioned thus far is simply setting the BASIC groundwork for a reasoned discussion about religious beliefs. Maybe there should be a seperate thread for this? A 'Comparative Religions' thread, maybe? We cannot honestly discuss religious beliefs unless it is clear what framework we are using. For instance, it is not possible to involve Christianity in this discussion unless we are very clear as to WHAT Christianity IS and what it IS NOT. There are a great many misconceptions about Christianity purported by people who either are not Christians or haven't really studied to understand it. I just wanted to try and clear some of those up. YES, Christianity and the Bible clearly assert that there is only one way to be saved and enter Heaven. This is not said to undermine any other belief. It is fine for you to believe whatever you wish; you just honestly cannot make a claim to Christianity.

You bring up a number of excellent questions and I have several to ask of you myself. To address all of yours at one time will make this post extremely long. Shall we start with one question each and move on from there? Where would you like to begin?


rage

Ummm, YES really.
Catholicism is the original Christian church before it was divided into Orthodox sects and then into Protestantism.
Catholics ARE ALL Christians. They accept Jesus as their savior, and they believe in the word of the Bible.
ALL Christian churches have different interpretations of things in the Bible.
And to set the record straight, Catholics do not worship or pray to Saints.
Catholics ask Saints to pray for them, just as you would ask a human to pray for you.
I have family members that are nuns, and one is a Priest, and I've studied this my entire life (God help me), and while my beliefs may no longer take root in Catholicism, I know everything there is to know about it.
Many Christians would like to believe that Catholics aren't, but it is those Christians that don't understand Catholicism that believe that.

Well, I hate to be one of those that feels the need to drag out a pedigree of some kind to justify themselves, but I am definitely not one of "those Christians that don't understand Catholicism". I was raised in the Catholic church and used to serve in their services. I also have aunts who are nuns. I am no longer a Catholic though since I got saved and became a Christian. Is there more I have to list? Does my full house beat your two pair? hahahaha!!

For what it's worth Catholicism cannot be the 'original' Christian church (not that it matters much in this discussion) because THOSE were (per various New Testament books) house churches established by people like Paul in places like Antioch and Corinth and Smyrna, vv. Quite a number of them seem to be peopled by those who formerly worshipped in the Jewish synogauges. If you read anything about the form, doctrine or services of these original Christian house churches (very much like those all across China and Vietnam) you will notice that they bear virtually no resemblence to the Catholic church of ANY age. Even priests and nuns in the Catholic church will point to this Biblical time as the church from which their church sprang. Their system, with its hierarchical web of priests, bishops, cardinals etc and its emphasis on pennance/sacrifice is modeled almost directly from the Levitical format described in the Old Testament.

As you said "They (Catholics) accept Jesus as their savior, and they believe in the word of the Bible. " That is GREAT to hear!! I am glad that people are being moved by the Spirit in the Catholic church! As I said, there certainly can be Christians in the Catholic church, so we certainly agree there (and I'm glad for it!). But to say that "all" Catholics are Christian is no more correct than to say that "all" Baptists or "all" Methodists are Christians. One is NOT automatically made Christian by attending a certain type of church. There are plenty of non-Christians in all these churches. The only way to become a Christian is, as you said, "accept Jesus as their savior, and they believe in the word of the Bible". Not 'all' Catholics (or all Baptists, vv) have done this. For many their religion is simply a social exercise or a duty - not a spiritual thing.

Anyway, my comment about many people not considering the Catholic church as Christian is aimed at that church system and not the congregation. Take, for example, the Catholic idea of trans-substantiation (the idea the communion bread and wine actually becomes the Body and Blood of Christ when consumed). This is the equivalent of sacrificing Christ over and over again every week. The Bible clearly stated that Christ died once for all so that all might be saved. And about not praying to saints, well, there IS the famous "Hail Mary" prayer and the Catholic doctrine that she was without sin (even though the Bible clearly states that Christ was the only sinless one and therefore the ONLY one who could be sacrificed as the spotless lamb (Old Testament symbolism) for all people. You and I may just be looking at this church from two different levels: the official doctrinal level and the level of the individual person who attends.

Either way, it seems we agree on the core of what it means to be saved and that there are Christians who attend Catholic services.

rage

Okay well, I also served in mass so :P lol.
I'm not trying to start a holy war, I'm just trying to understand your point. I do understand now you're talking from a different perspective than I originally thought you were. And yes, there are several people that attend many different types of Christian churches that are not necessarily "Christians." My only point is that since the dogma of Catholicism includes Christ as its Savior, and the Bible is to be the law of the land, that the Catholic Church does fall under the Christian Church. But no, you're right it doesn't make every Catholic a Christian.
As for the Hail Mary, that is actually asking Mary to pray for us, much like the Saints. It reveals that in the line, "Holy Mary mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death." The term Hail Mary, doesn't mean bow down to Mary, its like saying, Dear Mary. Translated into laymans terms it means,
Hail Mary,
(Dear Mary)
Full of Grace
(you are so Graceful),
The Lord is with you.
(We know that you've got connections with God. )
Blessed are you among women.
(We women look up to you because you're what all women should strive to be like, and we want to serve God like you)
And Blessed is the fruit of your womb Jesus.
(and its pretty cool that you got to give birth to our savior)
Holy Mary
(You are truly touched by God Mary)
Mother of God
(Jesus' mommy)
Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of death
(Please pray for us, we know we're not perfect but to know someone so touched by God as you is praying for our souls would really kind of help us along both now and when we meet our maker)

As for the Catholic being the first church, I meant simply it was the first Organized Christian church of recognized proportion.

As for Mary being sinless, that refers to the Immaculate Conception. The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary's conception, not Jesus' a common misconception (no pun intended lol). I believe the belief behind that stems from Mary being conceived sinless, in other words, without the Original Sin, like we all are which is addressed in Baptism.
"Oh Mary conceived without sin pray for us who have recourse to thee."
The belief behind that is that Mary had to be conceived without sin because if she wasn not she would not be totally pure, and the Son of God could not be conceived of a woman that was not pure. If Jesus had been conceived of a woman that had been conceived with sin, then he would not be sinless.

Now thats what I was taught, I'm not sure what it says in the Bible word for word about it but I know there's something in there that address' it . I think thats all left up to interpretation.

Thats the biggest thing, all of Christianity is left up to perception and interpretation. You've got several different versions of the same book and depending what you read you could interpret something completely different. There is no such thing as a literal interpretation of the Bible, because no one has the original copies.
Also mind you, the fact that there are several books and Gospels that were left out of the book. The bible is only a select group of books that were written. The books were chosen by Constantine I believe back in the day. Also you have the fact that the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were all written at different times and the earliest of them was written several years after Jesus had been crucified. There is also much historical evidence that Mary Magdalene was Jesus's wife which would make perfect sense. Jesus was a Jew, and in the Jewish faith and unmarried man is only considered half a man, and therefore would not be listened to. He never would have been allowed the status of Prophet if he were unmarried or at the very least not parading around like he were.
There is a lot of historical fact that contradicts the bible, and there are a lot of books and translations that have gotten lost in the mix so this has caused quite a terrible controversey in the world of the church.
But fact is fact, and even if you choose to interpret the Bible literally ignoring all scientific fact, evolution, the historical journals of others at the time, forgetting the fact that there are other books to the bible. Even if you ignore all of that and say you'll take the Bible at its word, which one will you be reading? Because there are several versions of the Bible as it is.

In essence, its all quite complicated and religion is all in the eye of the beholder.

Im Catholic...

rage,

From your post:
...and the likes from your previous posts/
rage, rage, I can tell you that in a debating world, it is NOT a groundwork for a reasoned discussion. You made a proposition of which you claimed that it is true without any substancial grounds or significant warrants. You basically come up with a proposition and made a conclusion in one breath. This is a logic fallacy. But what more amused me is that not only it violated one fallacy rule but a couple. How could that be a groundwork for a reasoned discussion ? more like literallism!
A reasoned discussion is the one that has both ends indiscriminately opened for discussion. Hence, discussion.

Another note, I don't believe there is such thing as religion comparative. Just like comparing orange and apple. Even within a same ('origin' of) religion, there are different perception and interpretation. Same go for Buddhism as well. Yes, I do know there are variations of its interpretation of Christianity. That is why in my previous posts I noted that there is a concept of individualism. How different people think differently. Why would I mentioned that concept in a discussion in the first place. It is a framework for a discussion (indifference from either standpoint).


I pretend that you actually didn't write this down. If not, an example of eating an apple vs an orange for vitamin C should illustrate the point.


I think you're missing my point. The questions from the previous post were not intented for me. There are questions for your self-reflection and introspection.
As I mentioned before, different people think and perceive differently. I cannot impose my view onto you nor yours onto mine. It is those questions that we need to search within ourselves and reach deep inside us in order to find the answers for ourselves.

jenny2004,

Great post!! I especially liked your 'translation' of the "Hail Mary" prayer! Very cool! It seems that we are certainly on the same page in a lot of respects and you had me with you through most of your post. You lost me when you started talking about different versions of the Bible. That started walking the line of subjectivity with regard to the Word of God. History and science are proving the OPPOSITE true everyday - that the literal Word of God is True. Yes, there are various 'versions' of the Scriptures to allow them to be more readable and more accessible to various people. Those 'versions' (in truth) don't vary by much, but most people when they encounter Biblical questions go back to the Hebrew and Greek documents. www.blueletterbible.org is a great tool for this! Linking original languages to finds in history, the Dead Sea Scrolls cannot be denied: "Among the thousands of scrolls and fragments, every single book of the Old Testament is represented, except the book of Esther. On display in Huntsville was a small fragment of Isaiah 26:19-21 that reads as follows: “Your dead shall live again, and their bodies shall rise, shall awake…My people, enter your chambers and shut your doors…to punish the iniquity of the inhabitants of the earth….” The text of this fragment is virtually identical to the text of Isaiah that we have had since A.D. 980. In fact, when the Scrolls were compared to the text we possess, all of the texts are virtually identical, with only a few minor alterations (primarily involving the spelling of names). http://www.apologeticspress.org/inthenews/...04-03.htm" The Dead Sea Scrolls put to rest any question of radical changes between modern versions of the Bible and the earliest documents. There are none. God has truly protected and ensured the transmission of His Word over time. WE just have to study to find these things out instead of giving in to ideas of subjectivity. Another GREAT proof regarding Biblical accuracy and literalism - check out the link I posted about the writings at WADI SIDRI. That is just chilling (and FAR older than the Dead Sea Scrolls)!! Hold on....I think I have some of the translation here....ok, yeah:

"THE SINAI INSCRIPTIONS TRANSLATED

On one of the natural routes that the Hebrews would have chosen
when entering the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt there were found
six ancient inscriptions on different cliffs in the Wadi Sidri.
(A. P. Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, [London: John Murray, 1905],
p. 70). Another writer, Golius, translated the word Sidri as
"a way that leads up from the water, as at a landing place".
These inscriptions, listed below, are numbered as they were in
Rev. Forster's book, Sinai Photographed.

#1 The wind blowing, the sea dividing into parts, they pass over.
#4 The Hebrews flee through the sea; the sea is turned into dry land.
#5 The waters permitted and dismissed to flow, burst rushing
unawares upon the astonished men, congregated from all quarters
banded together to slay treacherously being lifted up with pride.
#10 The leader divides asunder the sea, its waves roaring.
The people enter, and pass through the midst of the waters.
#41 Moses causes the people to haste like a fleet-winged she-ostrich
crying aloud; the cloud shining bright, a mighty army propelled into
the Red sea is gathered into one; they go jumping and skipping.
Journeying through the open channel,
taking flight from the face of the enemy.
The surge of the sea is divided.
#23 The people flee, the tribes descend into the deep,The people
enter the waters. The people enter and penetrate through the
midst.The people are filled with stupor and perturbation. Jehovah
is their keeper and companion.
#8 Their enemies weep for the dead, the virgins are wailing. The sea
flowing down overwhelmed them. The waters were let loose to flow
again.
#21 The people depart fugitive. A mighty army is submerged in the
deep sea, the only way of escape for the congregated people.

Again, the context of the inscriptions is not that of Christians or
Hebrews quoting the scriptures but rather of eyewitness account.
And there are other inscriptions:
The Hebrews Murmur Against Moses / God Provides Water Miraculously.

Miriam's Rebellion
#48 Miriam, Prophetess of lying lips an ddecietful tongue.
She causes the tribes to conspire against the pillar and prince of the
people.Convoked for tumult, perverted, full of strife,the people
revile the meek and generous man.They lead with reproaches the
blessed one of God.
The Plague of Fiery Serpents
#47 Bitten and destroyed by fiery, hissing serpents,the Hebrews are
wounded for their crimes.Jehovah makes a stream flow from the stony
rock.

Despite the overwhelming confirmation of the Old
Testament scriptures in these inscriptions (or, perhaps, because of it)
critics continued to reject the validity of the translations of Rev. Charles
Forster. Finally, in a last attempt to discredit his work, they simply stated
that they could not be convinced of the accuracy and authenticity of his
translations unless a bilingual transcription could be produced. In other
words, they demanded an inscription such as that of the Rosetta Stone,
which allowed the translation and confirmation of the Egyptian
hieroglyphics. Needless to say, this was an impossible demand as anyone
familiar with the Rosetta Stone, and the great unlikelihood of it's
discovery, will agree.And yet, surprisingly, another Sinai explorer named
Pierce Butler discovered, in 1860, a trilingual inscription in a cave in the
Djebel Maghara mountain. This inscription described the same event in
three languages - including that of the Sinai Incriptions. Translations from
this set of inscriptions have proven Rev. Charles Forster's work to be
completely accurate and reliable."


What it comes down to is a matter of diligence. For one who chooses to take the time, there are an abundance of resources out there attesting the the absolute accuracy of the Bible using historical, linguistic and YES scientific evidence (especially recent finds in physics relative to the speed of light slowing down and such). If one is REALLY searching for Truth, is a little study and inquiry out of the question?

Just in case anyone is interested, here are some great resources:

www.khouse.org (Click on "ARTICLES" on the left side)

http://www.grantjeffrey.com/intfra.htm (Especially the Signature of God part! GREAT book!)

http://www.ldolphin.org/asstbib.shtml#anchor288679 (Go to Topics of Science and the Bible and explore!)

rage

jenny2004,

I begged the differ: I am not aware of your definition.
The term Hail Mary is "free for all guys to grab in a desperate situation"....................of course I am talking about football



Oh now I understand. I watched a movie awhile back Jerry Maguire played by Tom Cruise. He told Dorothy (Renee Zellweger) "you completed me".
Is that what the implication ?