How do atheists cope with the thought of nothingness when you die?

1. That is a false representation of literalists views. They are basing their arguments on the premise that it is God's inerrant word that is being presented in the text. If you accept that premise, then they can know that it is a correct reading. The liberalists are throwing on the innerancy of the Word and using some imaginary metric they themselves invented with no way of proving if it is accurate or not.

2. I used Oxford English Dictionary; the entry dealing with "one's word", the possessive form. That is the established norm for what constitutes "the word". Now, you're more than welcome to throw around your own definitions, but keep in mind I have no reason to listen to your definitions. If God was to use such languages he would be apt to create the most correct, authentic, and recognized version of such word. Not a barbarous form invented by Teenaged on Gamespot forums. Vandalvideo

1. Literalist doesnt only mean one who believes the Bible in its entirety is valid but one who also believes there are no allegories. Does it say in the Bible that there are no allegories? Or that everything is literal?

It doesnt. Therefore the literalists dont know for sure that everyhting is literal.

2. I think you misunderstood me. My wording was weird.

I said earlier:

"But the use of the word "Word" (which you interpreted btw using what? oh thats right, literary analysis) is one made by the authors."

I didnt mean that the authors made the word. I meant to say that they made the choice to use it. Just because they described it as "the word of God" doesnt mean the connotations of the word "word" in the phrase have any correspondence to what the Bible really is.

I can go ahead and publish a book typing what I had heard my father say and then claim that within this book lies "the word of M.". The connotation of my wording doesnt necessarily have any bearing on reality; on whether or not my work is indeed his unaltered word.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]1. The same applies to literalists. They cannot know they got it right when they decided it should be literal. Both sides have no certainty in their approach so I fail to see where your problem is.Hewkii

Of course we don't have the original autographs. There are over 25,000 New Testament manuscripts or manuscript fragments and over 5,000 thousand Old Testament manuscript and fragments. There are many existent early Bible versions as well. There are over 85,000 lectionaires and writings of the early Church fathers. In fact, the entire New Testament, minus a couple of dozen verses, can be reconstructed from the writings of the early Church fathers alone.

blackregiment

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]Here is one you might like better.http://www.carm.org/manuscript-evidenceVandalvideo

Here is a chart that compare the Bible manuscript evidence to other ancient writings.

They still assume.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]Of course we don't have the original autographs. There are over 25,000 New Testament manuscripts or manuscript fragments and over 5,000 thousand Old Testament manuscript and fragments. There are many existent early Bible versions as well. There are over 85,000 lectionaires and writings of the early Church fathers. In fact, the entire New Testament, minus a couple of dozen verses, can be reconstructed from the writings of the early Church fathers alone.

foxhound_fox

Oh it does transcend time. Throughout history there have been numerous attempts to extinguish the Word of God, yet it has been perserved.

1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth forever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.

Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]Of course we don't have the original autographs. There are over 25,000 New Testament manuscripts or manuscript fragments and over 5,000 thousand Old Testament manuscript and fragments. There are many existent early Bible versions as well. There are over 85,000 lectionaires and writings of the early Church fathers. In fact, the entire New Testament, minus a couple of dozen verses, can be reconstructed from the writings of the early Church fathers alone.

blackregiment

Oh it does transcend time. Throughout history there have been numerous attempts to extinguish the Word of God, yet it has been perserved.

1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth forever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.

Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

ok first off , justbecause theres a god,

doesnt mean you gonnacome back to life ,only your spirit would rise or go down

so in reality , you die you die theres no turningback

They still assume.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
I don't think God would ever let his word be fragmented so frivolously. If it were "perfect", it would be able to transcend time and translation... which it clearly does not.

alexside1

Oh it does transcend time. Throughout history there have been numerous attempts to extinguish the Word of God, yet it has been perserved.

1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth forever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.

Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Not circular at all. God said He would preserve His Word and He did. The Bible is the number one selling book in ll of history.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

They still assume.

Hewkii

Also you seem to miss one characteristic of being a literalist: you do not believe there allegories/symbols etc. Its not only about truthful or non-truthful parts.

That a text that describes supernatural phenomena uses no such literary devices is veeeeeeeeery doubtful.

The way to tell with some level of substanciation is literary analysis. Not ranting about literalists. Nice try though.

Speaking of which, what dose Vandalvideo believe in anyway?alexside1

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="sintygypsy"]

Makes infinitely more sense that God always existed and created everything, than the universe having always existed or popping into existence and allowing for such a vast methodical placement of anything, any structure at all is absolutel proof. Atomic structure, elements being universal where the universe began and its the same where the universe is expanding.

linkthewindow

God is supposed to be the most superior entity there is. If there was something that created him then he wouldn't really be God anymore because something more superior than God created God. And you'd have to apply that logic to the Creator of the God, and thus it would become circular and invalid.

So nothing created God.

1. Literalist doesnt only mean one who believes the Bible in its entirety is valid but one who also believes there are no allegories. Does it say in the Bible that there are no allegories? Or that everything is literal? It doesnt. Therefore the literalists dont know for sure that everyhting is literal. 2. The Oxford Dictionary will define a phrase based on how it is used now. Can it speak for how it could be used back then? If you want to use a dictionary about what the phrase is supposed to mean, I suggest you use one of Koine Greek or whatever language the Old Testament was written in. Those are the languages they were originally written. The Oxford Dictionary is about modern English; not all languages. Each language has its own subtle connotations when it comes to specific cases. Learn to use your sources. 3. (RED) Says you. Are you in God's mind or something? You also miss the point that just because the authors claim to have preserved the god of word and also believe that they have done so, doesnt mean that they indeed have preserved it with no alterations. Alterations dont only occur willingly.Teenaged

Here is a chart that compare the Bible manuscript evidence to other ancient writings.blackregiment

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]1. Literalist doesnt only mean one who believes the Bible in its entirety is valid but one who also believes there are no allegories. Does it say in the Bible that there are no allegories? Or that everything is literal? It doesnt. Therefore the literalists dont know for sure that everyhting is literal. 2. The Oxford Dictionary will define a phrase based on how it is used now. Can it speak for how it could be used back then? If you want to use a dictionary about what the phrase is supposed to mean, I suggest you use one of Koine Greek or whatever language the Old Testament was written in. Those are the languages they were originally written. The Oxford Dictionary is about modern English; not all languages. Each language has its own subtle connotations when it comes to specific cases. Learn to use your sources. 3. (RED) Says you. Are you in God's mind or something? You also miss the point that just because the authors claim to have preserved the god of word and also believe that they have done so, doesnt mean that they indeed have preserved it with no alterations. Alterations dont only occur willingly.Vandalvideo

1. Show me where believing there is no allegories is a necessary condition of being a literalist.

2. Fine, if you want to combat the Oxford English Dictionary supply me with the direct Koine language definition. If it is contrary, I will slightly revise my stance. If not, point stands.

3. Then explain why God wouldn't want to use the most apt definition? For it would otherwise create a redundancy if the purpose was to guide and be understood.

Unless a literalist is one who just favours literalism over allegory in his interpretation. If that is so, then a literalist cant escape a level of interpretation either, no?

Points 2 and 3: I made a massive edit. Please see it.

1. What does a literalist mean? Isnt it the person who for a given text believes that everything in it literal? Is allegory a literal literary device? It isnt. It is an allegorical one. Literalism =/= allegory. Now if you ask me to prove that allegory is not the same thing as literalism then excuse me, I will be ROFLing over there. Unless a literalist is one who just favours literalism over allegory in his interpretation. If that is so, then a literalist cant escape a level of interpretation either, no?Points 2 and 3: I made a massive edit. Please see itTeenaged

I didnt mean that the authors made the word. I meant to say that they made the choice to use it. Just because they described it as "the word of God" doesnt mean the connotations of the word "word" in the phrase have any correspondence to what the Bible really is. I can go ahead and publish a book typing what I had heard my father say and then claim that within this book lies "the word of M.". The connotation of my wording doesnt necessarily have any bearing on reality; on whether or not my work is indeed his unaltered word.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]1. What does a literalist mean? Isnt it the person who for a given text believes that everything in it literal? Is allegory a literal literary device? It isnt. It is an allegorical one. Literalism =/= allegory. Now if you ask me to prove that allegory is not the same thing as literalism then excuse me, I will be ROFLing over there. Unless a literalist is one who just favours literalism over allegory in his interpretation. If that is so, then a literalist cant escape a level of interpretation either, no?Points 2 and 3: I made a massive edit. Please see itVandalvideo

Literal interpretation does place emphasis upon the referential aspect of the words or terms in the text. It does not, however, mean a complete denial of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor).

So I guess it is what I guessed later in my post: a literalist simply emphasises on literalism but doesnt deny the existence of some allegorical devices in the text.

That means that literalists also interpret to some degree.

Now if you dont like the definition derived from wikipedia's article, go ahead and provide one. Although if I get stuck I might shed doubt that you actually possess the Oxford Dictionary; unless there is an online version of it for all to see.

Remember, this is supposedly the word of God though, not the word of men. Vandalvideo

That means that literalists also interpret to some degree.Teenaged

The word of god transmitted by men.Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]That means that literalists also interpret to some degree.Vandalvideo

Where the hell did I even say or imply any of the things you are trying to refute? :|

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]The word of god transmitted by men.Vandalvideo

I dont get what you mean.

Um ok....Where the hell did I even say or imply any of the things you are trying to refute? :|Teenaged

You mean "not necessarily"? I dont get what you mean.Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]That means that literalists also interpret to some degree.Vandalvideo

When an emphasis is mentioned in contrast to another element then the element which is emphasised is presented as more important than the other.

In literary analysis there is a clear dichotomy (in the sense that the two elements are just two and are contrasted one to the other - not that the line between them is 100% clear) between literalism and non-literalism.

If in your analysis you put emphasis on one element then you favour it. In the sense that you believe that it is the most likely scenario for what you read; that it is literal.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Um ok....Where the hell did I even say or imply any of the things you are trying to refute? :|Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]You mean "not necessarily"? I dont get what you mean.Vandalvideo

Anyway I have to go to sleep. Bye.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]1. The same applies to literalists. They cannot know they got it right when they decided it should be literal. Both sides have no certainty in their approach so I fail to see where your problem is.Hewkii

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]Of course we don't have the original autographs. There are over 25,000 New Testament manuscripts or manuscript fragments and over 5,000 thousand Old Testament manuscript and fragments. There are many existent early Bible versions as well. There are over 85,000 lectionaires and writings of the early Church fathers. In fact, the entire New Testament, minus a couple of dozen verses, can be reconstructed from the writings of the early Church fathers alone.

foxhound_fox