What do you think about the Bible? [Archive]

Alex18

Sep 16, 2007, 03:45

What I think of the Bible? I find it is a mixture of myths, rantings of zealots and very biased history. It is worth reading, if only to gain an insight on how Christianity and Judasim work. It also helps on seeing how it influenced the Koran and Islam, but remember that it is a translation of a translation of a translation. Many things that people assume is inncorrect because of translation errors, or from people who were not fully aware of how the original text should be read. The best example is the name Jehovah. A combination of YHWH with vowel points added and combined with Adonai overtime. Then translated into German, changing the Y to a J fro German pronunciation, and then into English leaving the J still there, but with English pronunciation.
The best person I know of on this site about translation problems within the Bible is Mars Man.
Incidently, these types of threads have caused problems in the past. Try to keep it nice and no preaching, otherwise it will be locked.

Hey everyone!

It was interesting to read the opinions of people about the bible, but I just want to make a few comments since there are here a few inaccuracies.
First of all, the manuscripts of the bible have been copied on from another throughout the generation, but not translated. The translations were made when people wanted to make the bible available for reading in different languages.
We do have a good evidence for the preserving of the bible as accurate, and besides, the occasions that are recorded there have been authenticated as trustworthy according to history. Whoever wants can make a research of his own.
If I could, I would have posted here a few good links about this.

Now, about the name of God, namely, YHWH, is not an issue at all, since it doesn't matter in what form you pronounce this name. It doesn't influence the accuracy of the story or the facts.

One last thing that I want to say is that the bible is a book where God reveals to us the true way and meaning of life.. I mean, guys, you maybe say that it's all not for you, but if being honest... so many people in the world have saved their life thanks to it...
The main message to all is this: Whoever of us did not commit a sin? Who is so honest with himself? Our life is so short, then it is worthy of thinking for a few minutes about our fate.
Each of us told a lie, stole something, had lust, disobeyed his parents etc...
If God needed to judge each of us according to his holy standard of his Law- we all needed to finish our destiny in punishment in hell. However, nobody wants to go there, nobody!!! Not even the worst man in the world.. and that's why he sent us Jesus to die on the cross, to take all our sins upon himself, to suffer for us and pay for us for all the evil things we've done.

Is that so bad? Is it so bad to hear the good news of God's salvation to every person in the world?

I only hope that this message will not be deleted, but everyone would think deeply for himself about what he read.

Thank you for reading, and best wishes to everyone here...

nice gaijin

Sep 16, 2007, 05:02

the Bible is full of parables, not facts.

In my opinion, I'd rather be a good person for the sake of having a good and fulfilling life, not because I'm afraid of judgment and punishment. The ancient religions have a lot going for them, but this argument is perhaps the most repulsive thing about Christianity today.

SushiShin

Sep 16, 2007, 05:10

i agree again that Mars Man is the man to reply on this.

Alex18

Sep 16, 2007, 05:26

nice gaijin

Sep 16, 2007, 05:41

circular logic. This discussion will go nowhere.

SushiShin

Sep 16, 2007, 05:42

thanks alex but please stop, this site is for everyone, and we don't like if people come here to advertise their religion, i'm (神道, shintō). i have my own religion and im happy that you are katholic, christian, protestant, orthodox... i also respect God in a sort of way, but please make a poll about religions instead of making propaganda for those who are non-christians. Because i know they won't turn over to another religion.

Pavel123

Sep 16, 2007, 05:45

Alex, no need to be so rough... Bro, take it a bit easy ok? :-) Bro, i am here with you......It is all about being a nice man, but, man, R - E - L - A - X!!!!

SushiShin

Sep 16, 2007, 05:50

Minnasan, please let it rest and stop with making a huge discussion. let it rest, forget it, axel is allmost on the edge to be banned.

Stop because everyone has his own faith please respect each others religion!

pugtm

Sep 16, 2007, 05:58

Pavel i understand that you want to explore your faith and whatnot and as a Jew i respect that. But don't you think that doing this is just a little bit anti productive? There are many religious websites were you can do that or maybe in your synagogue(i'm assuming you are a yid:wave:) but doing it here causes a chilul hashem and makes us all look bad. This is a Japanese forum lets stick to Shinto and Bhudda here for the most part and if you cant get anyone else to argue with you send me a pm ill be most happy to discuss it with you.

And alex please stop with the radical Christian missionary stuff some of us really find it offensive.
A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. - Winston Churchill.

SushiShin

Sep 16, 2007, 06:07

i have nothing against other religions, but i hate when they want to make us believe in other religions then those were we have believed in our whole life!

pugtm

Sep 16, 2007, 06:12

i agree herbal shin in fact my favorite religions(beside my own) are Hindu and Buddhist just because they are so tolerant. I live in Texas so i have missionary's banging at the gates constantly.
i love it when they tell me i am going to hell because i as a Jew don't believe in hell.

Alex18

Sep 16, 2007, 15:09

You know, when I read your messages, I feel like a criminal.
So how many years will you give me in jail?:blush:

Mycernius

Sep 16, 2007, 17:49

Look at the book of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles- these are books of facts.. other books do contain parables, like the book of Proverbs, Job etc...
People, who of you knows enough to determine X,Y,Z?
God simply commanded us to repent and leave our evil way, and put our trust in Jesus as saviour...
Who of you has the wisdom to know everything?? Let him then confidently say that he is right, and I am wrong...
Come on guys, give it a chance, just pray, and God will reveal himself to those who seek him truly, read, study, check and see yourself that the evidence of God's truth is there...
Let every man be blessed from now and forever more...
Alex this is not a site for expanding your religious views. Many members are christians, but an equal measure are not. There are even those of us who are atheists, myself included, and so by saying the Bible is Gods word is not going to impress many people. The bible is not more holy than any other book of religious text. It holds no more value than the Koran, Talmud, Vedic texts etc.

Mars Man

Sep 16, 2007, 18:14

Well. . . I'll be a monkey's uncle !! And somehow I didn't even catch this one yesterday.

I'd like to join in here, and I'd hope to be able to expound on things in as detailed and objective a manner as possible. Those who wish to follow along, join in, or discuss/debate with me, are fully welcomed !!

Alex18 san, you are in no way a criminal !! AND you are in no way unwelcomed here at JREF !! This particular forum is the Chit Chat and Misc. fora, so non-Japanese matters are quite OK !! It is true, however, that preaching should not be undertaken. I, for one, however. see some of your statements as simply a presentation of your understanding, and to that degree, for that amount, do not take it as preaching. You are new here, and I give you the benefit of the doubt. . . you know more now than yesterday, so enough of that.

Here, and I ask that we take our time with this, there is always one problem when the word 'Bible' is thrown around. Just what is it we are talking about? Mycernius was correct, from the more obvious perspective that he had been looking from, when he said the Bible was a translation of a translation of a translation. That is because we can take it that he had been looking at the King James Version, which is primarily English on the Latin from the Vulgate, which, in turn, was on the Greek of the LXX. The Jewish writings which made up the LXX were in Greek--although they evidently have Hebrew sources/translations as well.

I'll send this much for now. Let's first get a definition for the term, 'BIBLE.'

(dinner time calls...sorry.) MM

Mars Man

Sep 16, 2007, 20:19

Well, now with a full stomach, I'd like to offer one definition of the word 'Bible' for the purpose of our discussion.

How about if we hold the term 'Bible' to be any collection of religious writings considered to be authoritative by any relatively major group within Judaism and Christianity up to the first council of Nicene in 325 CE?

This means that within the perimeter of our definition we could include works such as Wisdom (that of Jesus son of Sirach), 1 & 2 Enoch, To the Corinthians 1 (the valid letter by Clement of Rome to the Corinthians in the latter decades of the first century), or Baranabas, etc.

It would mean that in some quarters we could consider works such as Judas, the Gospel of the Hebrews, and the likes of the unknown gospel to have been, and thus be part of the 'Bible.'

Are there any objections to this definition? If so, please do elaborate. Thanks !! MM

Mycernius

Sep 16, 2007, 21:39

I have a feeling that Pavel and Alex are most likely be refering to reformation Bibles, but I see nothing wrong in the text laid out by the council of Nicene that went on to be the Catholic Bible. I am not sure whether any texts that were left out would be considered 'biblical' by most modern Christians, Catholic and non-catholic alike, especailly evangelist preachers, who like to think they are God (bad experience with one on another forum. Utter nutter:okashii:). They would most likely regard them as non-canonical or heretical, such as the Gnostic texts, but their inclusion in a discussion would help give insight into the modern Bible.

Mars Man

Sep 16, 2007, 23:02

You may very well be correct about what might they had had in mind, Mycernius. My tendency is to see the 'reformation Bibles' as being too narrow in scope because then one couldn't easily include the Greek Orthodox Church and or the Roman Catholic Church--as far as Christian groups go.

I think you are also correct in your judgment about most Christians today not taking a number of texts which, as is now understood by the major players in Biblical Literature circles to be more accurate than not, were common enough among written codexes in the first century CE to be considered having been authoritative to those groups. Three good examples are, actually, the letter of Clement of Rome, Baranabas, and The Shepherd of Hermas; and there is enough evidence in other finds to support others--such as the Apocalypse of Peter.

I am yet of the persuasion that those who attempt to argue for the exclusion of other documents being includable in our Bible of today, other than what's there in the two most common formats, have failed to overcome some very material counter points--thus not having conclusively enough proven their case.

The second century Christian living in Egypt around the year 150 or so, even, very likely had never heard of the gospel according to Mark, for example, but more obviously had used that of an possibly unknown gospel right along with some version of Matthew or Luke.

The primary reason why I like that definition I purposed, is because it will bring agreement from those scholars in the Biblical Literature areas--including both those of a more religious nature, and those who are not so.

I hope others will agree to this definition too.

Alex18

Sep 17, 2007, 00:42

There are a few points that were raised:
1) The bible is a collection of books, ant not sacred.
To this I answer that for you it's not holy, ok I agree.
2) The canon of bible was determined by people, not by God.
Well, if you believe that God exists, then you should believe that He has the power to preserve his words through the prophets and other people, just as he promised. He uses anyone he wants for that.
About the gnostic gospels, they simply contradict the main message of the biblical books, and were in use later than the canonized books of the New Testament.
That would be nice to continue this coversation.. have a nice day everybody..

Dutch Baka

Sep 17, 2007, 01:10

I haven't read the bible, and neither am I thinking of starting reading it in the upcoming years.

I don't have a strong opinion about it, because I don't know what to believe. I just know that I do not believe in books, or religions that tell me what I should do and shouldn't do. What's the purpose in life when you can't try what you want because a book/religion tells you too.

I also heard that the bible has been changed and things where putting in and taken out to make it look better.

As I have said before, I do not have a strong opinion and have not read it yet.

I also just want to say that you guys are allowed to discuss this topic, but please have respect to other members and their views/opinions.

Mycernius

Sep 17, 2007, 01:13

About the gnostic gospels, they simply contradict the main message of the biblical books, and were in use later than the canonized books of the New Testament.
That would be nice to continue this coversation.. have a nice day everybody..
The problem with the Gnostics and the Catholics was that the Gnostics saw the texts as allegorical, not pure fact. The Catholics, and ultimately the dominant Christian sect, saw the Bible as literal. Anything that went against the dominant sect were removed and were destroyed, hence the virtual extermination of the Gnostic sect. As for saying that the Gnostic texts contradict the books in the Bible is a bit like the kettle calling the pot black, as there are enough contradictions within authorised biblical text without the Gnostic texts.

w1ngzer0

Sep 17, 2007, 01:29

I own one, i use it for reference and nothing more.

SushiShin

Sep 17, 2007, 01:43

Everyone has his own toughts, religion is always a hard discussion, thats why i ask to let it rest, because people starting to have fights just because for the sake of something called 'religion'. What i've seen after all things and moments lead me to the way of God's purpose, but i can't deny i can't live without a God protecting me and blessing my family, its up to you what you believe or not, i believe other people not.

I believe there is life ather death, some don't. Some see life as a payment for whay they did in their previous life, some see life as an aspect of the universe, but what i think,

We are all looking for that small measure of peace, that everyone is searching for but few of us ever find.

pugtm

Sep 17, 2007, 05:13

Well. . . I'll be a monkey's uncle !! And somehow I didn't even catch this one yesterday.
I'd like to join in here, and I'd hope to be able to expound on things in as detailed and objective a manner as possible. Those who wish to follow along, join in, or discuss/debate with me, are fully welcomed !!
Alex18 san, you are in no way a criminal !! AND you are in no way unwelcomed here at JREF !! This particular forum is the Chit Chat and Misc. fora, so non-Japanese matters are quite OK !! It is true, however, that preaching should not be undertaken. I, for one, however. see some of your statements as simply a presentation of your understanding, and to that degree, for that amount, do not take it as preaching. You are new here, and I give you the benefit of the doubt. . . you know more now than yesterday, so enough of that.
My issue is that he was throwing around jesus and trying to make us feel guilty for his crucifiction. I as a jew see things somewhat differently. according to jewish law what jesus claimed was heresy(a man cant be god) so we don't feel he was at all a savior.

Also as a jew i see intereligious debate as pointless. According to Judaism you aren't allowed to change any part of Judaism or take away from it so no matter what you say its pointless. No matter what i say would you stop believing? I doubt it quite honestly.

Alex18

Sep 17, 2007, 05:27

The problem with the Gnostics and the Catholics was that the Gnostics saw the texts as allegorical, not pure fact. The Catholics, and ultimately the dominant Christian sect, saw the Bible as literal. Anything that went against the dominant sect were removed and were destroyed, hence the virtual extermination of the Gnostic sect. As for saying that the Gnostic texts contradict the books in the Bible is a bit like the kettle calling the pot black, as there are enough contradictions within authorised biblical text without the Gnostic texts.

Dear Mycernius,

A few points to you also:

The gnostic gospels are not just allegorical interpretation of the bible, but also REAL differences exist between Fundamental Christians, such as:
The gnostics deny the physical resurrection of Jesus.
However, if this is so, it contradicts the real existence of Jesus as a person, something that really happened.
Also, if Jesus didn't exist, why would the apostles believe in him?

The gnostics don't believe Jesus has risen from the dead, they don't believe him to be crucified and other things.. these are not about allegorical or literal interpretation, it's about elementary Christian basic beliefs.

Alex18

Sep 17, 2007, 05:36

My issue is that he was throwing around jesus and trying to make us feel guilty for his crucifiction. I as a jew see things somewhat differently. according to jewish law what jesus claimed was heresy(a man cant be god) so we don't feel he was at all a savior.
Also as a jew i see intereligious debate as pointless. According to Judaism you aren't allowed to change any part of Judaism or take away from it so no matter what you say its pointless. No matter what i say would you stop believing? I doubt it quite honestly.

Hi pugtm!

Well, I am glad that there are Jews here who can understand me :-)..
You say that Jesus wasn't God, but you forget to explain the biblical passages which tell us that the angel of God was also called YHWH, and that's enough to show us his godly nature, just as the Father's.
Jesus didn't come against the Judaism, but the rabbis said he did so.
Who says that the rabbis are right? Maybe these are the Karaites who interpret everything literally? Read the Talmud, and you can see how they add different laws which are not written in the Torah, or some of them even contradict the Torah itself...
Read Isaiah 53, and see how God's servant is suffering for us... those who feel hurt by what I say, sorry, but I guess that it's the word of God which is like a two edged sword that enters into the heart...

So I have a question to you: Who can say what's the true Judaism?

Mars Man

Sep 17, 2007, 10:04

First of all, I see some kind of problem with your profile related area, Alex18 san, I'll check into that and see what it might be. Your post count still sits at '1' but you have more than one post, for sure.

Thanks for all the comments people, I truly appreciate the participation. I understand your experience, Shin san, and thus your desire to not have a large 'free-for-all' fight here--as does often happen when discussing this subject. There is a way to keep this from happening, but everyone involved in the discussion will have to agree to it. . . then, and only then, can a very productive discussion take place.

If I may, with the consent of all who have thus far taken part in this thread, set up a few guidelines, and ask that all agree to follow these:

1. There is no need to convince another of a matter's being true, beyond the point achieved by laying out an argument in full, beyond which no further evidence or logical discursiveness can be added. In short, to present your arguments in full, and as intact as possible, and with as much 'hard evidence' as possible is the objective. . . not to force agreement from an opponent in debate. Conclusions as to accuracy, truthfulness, and validity of evidence is for third party observation and judgment.

2. Challenges on a point, a piece of evidence, or a conclusive statement reached discursively are always fair, but should be free of emotional tone and wording--as much as possible. Also, all parties participating should make every effort to attempt to answer to a challenge, or to state not having knowledge of the claim, fact, or statement that had been earlier made. In short, you can challenge others, as you can be challenged, on a matter, and you should answer to all challenges, even if that means stating that you have no objective knowledge of the validity of the statement made, but had just made it.

3. All who join in should keep in mind the fact that just as there are, indeed, different qualities of intelligence, there are also different degrees of logical perception. It is very important to be free of finger pointing in this area. Each mind is as it is, and there is no need whatsoever to attempt to place value judgments on anyone's ability and or potential to concieve and percieve. This means no belittling, no insinuations as to a person's intelligence, etc.

I, for one, would like to discuss this. . .as I still have hopes for the return of the Serious Discussion fora, to which--if, in fact, it does happen--this very thread may well be moved. I hope to keep this thread alive--as long as anyone else does too. SO. . . let's please adhere to the above guidelines !!!

Please read the above very carefully. . . and keep in mind, there is NO NEED TO RUSH !!

pugtm

Sep 17, 2007, 10:07

So I have a question to you: Who can say what's the true Judaism?
easy for me as an ashkenazi jew it is the talmud bavli and the tanach.

Mike Cash

Sep 17, 2007, 10:09

Mars Man

Sep 17, 2007, 10:49

Alex18 san, thank you for your comments.

I would firstly like to let you know the investigation process that I am using. It is a 'bottom up' process. This process starts at the beginning and works upward to get a whole understanding, or picture. This process is the more chronologically correct process, in that time (as far as we can percieve) is a uni-directional process--that is, it goes in one direction only. This, then, means that as far as any concern of human activity goes, we will find a starting point for that activity.

Regarding any writings produced by humans--and please don't try to argue against this point here, it's too early--there is a point in time when that writing would have, without mistake, been written. This fact holds true for any writing, be it of a religious nature or not.

Therefore, to evaluate the condition and quality of the communication, the purpose, the source and audience of any writing, it is far more accurate to start from the circumstances at the time of the writing--to the best of our abilities. This is the essence of the 'bottom to top' mode of investigation. It is tied in closely with the 'Historical Method.'

The results of the initial investigation will lead us to the more correct (1) first step conclusion that, for example, in the early second century CE, there were a good number of written works used by the several groups of Christians spread throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. All these works were held in equal esteem by the churches. At that point, they were all equally held to be sacred.

At this point, therefore, we cannot yet determine whether a document had anything behind it other than the human mind. We would have to study, compare, and co-relate further to be able to reach any type of secure conclusion on that understanding.

The starting point would have to be way back in the 3rd century BCE, however.

For this reason, Alex18 san, it is premature, in our research so far, to make any conclusive claims--we are forced to hold judgment until further information can come in. If we start from where we are now, with any understanding that we have now, we are forcing subjective, predetermined worldviews on a situation or act that we have no valid knowledge of. This method of argumentation is of the type that would not hold up in court.

THEREFORE, we cannot claim that it is known to have been historically true that supernatural superintendence had been responsible, in whatever degree and or way, for any of the writings that had been in circulation among Christians in the early second century--much less first century CE--until we have thoroughly investigated all circumstances, states, formats, and content of each and every writing to the fullest of our abilities.

Believing in a god-model at the present moment will have no bearing on the investigation. The reason for that is that we are investigating the source information which prescribes that god-model. Whatever our presently adhered to religious-belief system may be, or may teach, should be put on hold for the purpose of this investigation. To not make an effort, at least, to do so, would cause a faulty and bias investigation.

That would be nice to continue this coversation.. have a nice day everybody..

Yes. . . let's keep this discussion going. Let's go about it by guidelines. Let's take it slow and easy, fully covering one point at a time. And now, that is still the definition for the word 'Bible.' I take you have agreed, Alex18 to that working definition. MM

(1) It is important to take note of degrees of qualification, for example, going up: by far the least likely, less likely, somewhat likely, likely, more likely, most likely, by far the most likely. To say that a matter is more likely does not deny other possibilites, but simply shows that the evidence leans more so in favor of this conclusion.

source material in general: Journal of Biblical Literature issues; Society of Biblical Literature publications--several issues; scholarship at large--John P. Meir (Notre Dame University), Martin Hengel (retired), Bart D. Ehrman, William O. Walker, Bruce M. Metzger, Graham Stanton, Eldon J. Epp (retired, but former president of SBL), Robert W. Funk, William Peterson, Joanna Dewey, and so on. . .

dark_secrester

Sep 17, 2007, 17:09

My personal belief is that the Bible is worthless. I was christained when I was young, was given a baptism present which was a bible. I burnt it last year.

Mycernius

Sep 18, 2007, 01:14

However, if this is so, it contradicts the real existence of Jesus as a person, something that really happened.
Also, if Jesus didn't exist, why would the apostles believe in him?
The gnostics don't believe Jesus has risen from the dead, they don't believe him to be crucified and other things.. these are not about allegorical or literal interpretation, it's about elementary Christian basic beliefs.
Neither do Muslims or Jews. Both accept his existance and, as Putgm pointed out, he did teach heretical ideas. Islam even agrees on the virgin birth, but do not assign him divine status, only as a prophet. Only Christians believe in the resurrection. I am not about to debate whether Jesus existed or not. Although there is very little evidence that such a man existed, except in the Gospels, which are not reliable, but I do think a preacher or many preachers of his type did exist, but none were divine. Much of the story of Jesus can be found in myths that pre-date the Jesus myth by almost a thousand years. What the Gospels appear to be is an amalgamation of other God/man myths into Jesus.
So I have a question to you: Who can say what's the true Judaism?
Who can say is the true Christianity? I believe there are over a thousand different denominations at the moment.

dark_secrester

Sep 18, 2007, 04:57

That is correct... There are over a thousand denominations. Even people who don't set up an organisation are their own denomination; they have their own ideas and beliefs on what different sections and passages of the bible mean.
'Do not spray your seed on infertile ground'. Dunno if that is exact, but it has a multitude of meanings, some sexual, some agricultural as in actual seed, and it could even mean exactly the same as words falling on deaf ears. The point is, is that everyone has their own ideals. My dad is christian, yet he does not believe Jesus was the son of god, he thinks it was just a very intelligent and righteous jew.

Therefore, there is no true judaism, no true christianity and no true religion; religion is what you make it.

pugtm

Sep 18, 2007, 06:29

Therefore, there is no true judaism, no true Christianity and no true religion; religion is what you make it.

there is a true judaism because there was no prophet that made it up. We know and remember we received a revelation directly through god(3 million jews all at once so we know it wasn't just some guy on hashish). in fact judaism is different in that there is no prophet that introduced it to us. god did directly, through him we received the books and from them we got judges and prophets. A prophet cannot go against anything already spoken by another prophet or god or he automatically disqualified and is a heretic. so there is a true judaism. No matter what there are the basic commandments that any sect of judaism has to follow no matter what. Only traditions are different. If they don't follow these they aren't jewish. I wanted to make that clear that most people dont even have the slightest conceptual understanding of judaism that someone born to it does. It is so different from any other religion that have been explained to me that its not even funny.

dark_secrester

Sep 18, 2007, 07:26

pugtm

Sep 18, 2007, 07:30

All I'm saying is that some people would have interpereted it differently from the back of the crowd. You still haven't beaten my point down; I said no true judaism because everyone has their own principles; they still follow the same rules: thou shalt not kill is self explanatory. However, certain people (who are still true Jewish people) will interperet this as 'thou shalt not kill unless I command thee to do so' or 'unless for revenge' etc. No, I don't know the bible back to front. But there is no true religions. Its like communism: Super brill idea but it open gates for corruption, (I know there is corruption in capitalism too....). There are two paths: the path laid out and the one next to it that goes to the same place, but is 8 inches away from the 'true' one.
I didn't mean to rile y'all up mind. I approach this from atheist point of view. Be glad I'm not going from my religion: Satanism. That really would annoy you.
and that is exactly what i meant when i said you don't understand. Do you know that we were given instructions on how to learn and interpret the bible. The rules for learning from it or for argumentation. That anything agreed upon by an older generation IS NOT OPEN FOR DISCUSSION or that any new bibles scribed copied or written CANNOT BE 1 LETTER DIFFERENT OR YOU ARE REQUIRED TO ENTIRELY SCRAP THEM AND START FROM SCRATCH.

Mars Man

Sep 18, 2007, 13:55

I believe that posts in the chit chat section do not advance one's post count.

If my memory serves me right, that is true. . . and it should have come to mind, but did not. Thanks for that reminder !!

And now, gentlemen. . .if I may, I would like to suggest one more reading of the guidelines which I had suggested. I know that I laid those out on my own, yet based on experience in this field, have found them to the most suitable for such discussions. If any feels that something could added, please feel free to do so.

Simply throwing claims across the table at each other will lead to nowhere execpt perhaps a closed thread--which I, and Alex18 (at least) hope will not happen.

There are a number of statements made by both pugtm san and Alex18 san that I will challenge, but now is not the right moment--still too early !!!!! I REPEAT, IT'S STILL TOO EARLY !!!

We have to agree on the terms of the OP. . . as well as stay as closely on topic as possible for the far greater portion of the time.

Now, I say that the table is only, I repeat, ONLY open for the discussion needed to confirm the meaning and perimeter for the term 'Bible.' I have given my proposition for that based on the greater fairness and chronological order of natural events over the course of time as best understood by the far greater bulk of the major players among the scholarship in the field.

I am prepared to defend that definition I have provided as being the best one there is.

This should be the discussion now. Other points later, please !!! ONEGAISHIMASU !!

dark_secrester

Sep 18, 2007, 20:57

You said bible. Therefore, am I allowed to talk about 'the satanic bible'? I don't think it fits here though, so I want. Sorry pugtm, I don't mean to offend you. I have no problem with Judaism. If I angered you I am sorry. And also please refrain from using large amount of capital letters in your replies, it is hard on the eyes, and shows that you have an inability to express yourself through vocabulary rather than shouting, and also shows signs of immaturity (not childishness). It is good that you have a view that you can stick to so strongly.

I will leave this topic now, I don't want to cause any arguments.
dewa mata.

Anohito

Sep 19, 2007, 00:24

What we are seeing here is, I would say, an example of my observation that all religious supremacism is intrinsically and necessarily bigoted. People who believe that their religion is the True Religion cannot, by definition, actually respect other religious beliefs. From many years of observation, I would further state that it is nearly impossible for them even to respect the right of other people to have a differing religion (1).

(1) Here is an example: “Catholics may not promote this erroneous opinion which is also disastrous to the salvation of souls . . . , namely thatfreedom of conscience and worship is a right which each person possesses, a right which may be laid down and affirmed by law in every properly constituted State;
and that citizens possess the right in all freedom - a freedom not to be limited by any ecclesial or civil authority, of openly and publicly manifesting and proclaiming their ideas either by word of mouth, or in written text or in any other way.”
Pius IX Quanta Cura (1864 AD), Denz. 1690.

ArmandV

Sep 19, 2007, 00:36

Q: What do you think about the bible?

A: Which one?

Mycernius

Sep 19, 2007, 01:07

I didn't mean to rile y'all up mind. I approach this from atheist point of view. Be glad I'm not going from my religion: Satanism. That really would annoy you.
Just to be picky, but the term Satanism can be applied to any non-Abrahamic religion. So Hinduism, Shinto and Buddhism are all types of Satanism. It has nothing to do with Satan and all his little devils, but it is assocciated, normally by fundi Christians, with dark mass and all that rubbish.
I take it DS that you are refering to LeVey Satanism?

As for the original intention of the thread I think a look at each book within the Bible is a good way to go, as well as those not included, as each reveals on how Judasim, and then Christianity evolved into their current practices.

Skullcrushergurl

Sep 19, 2007, 02:50

Spending time in the Bible and praying is a great way to learn your faith. Don't you think? :souka:
Yes. I am very religious, though I don't read my bible enough....:blush:

pugtm

Sep 19, 2007, 07:07

ah i would kill for a serious discussion forum.

Just to be picky, but the term Satanism can be applied to any non-Abrahamic religion. So Hinduism, Shinto and Buddhism are all types of Satanism. It has nothing to do with Satan and all his little devils, but it is assocciated, normally by fundi Christians, with dark mass and all that rubbish.
I take it DS that you are refering to LeVey Satanism?
As for the original intention of the thread I think a look at each book within the Bible is a good way to go, as well as those not included, as each reveals on how Judasim, and then Christianity evolved into their current practices.
well Jews dont really believe in Satan in the conventional way we don't even believe in hell...

You said bible. Therefore, am I allowed to talk about 'the satanic bible'? I don't think it fits here though, so I want. Sorry pugtm, I don't mean to offend you. I have no problem with Judaism. If I angered you I am sorry. And also please refrain from using large amount of capital letters in your replies, it is hard on the eyes, and shows that you have an inability to express yourself through vocabulary rather than shouting, and also shows signs of immaturity (not childishness). It is good that you have a view that you can stick to so strongly.

im sorry it was missinterpreted as yelling but really i was just trying to stress those points. Yelling at no time entered my mind when i was writing.

What we are seeing here is, I would say, an example of my observation that all religious supremacism is intrinsically and necessarily bigoted. People who believe that their religion is the True Religion cannot, by definition, actually respect other religious beliefs. From many years of observation, I would further state that it is nearly impossible for them even to respect the right of other people to have a differing religion
on whose part did you observe this?

If my memory serves me right, that is true. . . and it should have come to mind, but did not. Thanks for that reminder !!
And now, gentlemen. . .if I may, I would like to suggest one more reading of the guidelines which I had suggested. I know that I laid those out on my own, yet based on experience in this field, have found them to the most suitable for such discussions. If any feels that something could added, please feel free to do so.
Simply throwing claims across the table at each other will lead to nowhere execpt perhaps a closed thread--which I, and Alex18 (at least) hope will not happen.
There are a number of statements made by both pugtm san and Alex18 san that I will challenge, but now is not the right moment--still too early !!!!! I REPEAT, IT'S STILL TOO EARLY !!!
We have to agree on the terms of the OP. . . as well as stay as closely on topic as possible for the far greater portion of the time.
Now, I say that the table is only, I repeat, ONLY open for the discussion needed to confirm the meaning and perimeter for the term 'Bible.' I have given my proposition for that based on the greater fairness and chronological order of natural events over the course of time as best understood by the far greater bulk of the major players among the scholarship in the field.
I am prepared to defend that definition I have provided as being the best one there is.

if we are going to argue we should pick a bible or area or even just start a new thread called religious discussion but the bible should only be one that we all share in common. for good or ill that would only be what you call the old testament. Really otherwise there is no arguement since i dont believe in the new and you dont beleive in the other jewish writings all the points drawn from those are automatically null since we need common ground for discussion. Now if this is a christain only arguement then you could use new testament and i will be happy to leave while you settle that and check back later. otherwise i forsee something like this:
alex: but here in mathews it says....
pug: but i dont beleive in mathews so it doesn't matter what it says there but also in the talmud....
alex:but i dont read the talmud so its not important...

and so on and so forth. The only real arguement can be made on common ground.

w1ngzer0

Sep 19, 2007, 07:21

Yes. I am very religious, though I don't read my bible enough....:blush:

Same here. If i want to read about Jesus, i open it. But, i do not force my beliefs onto others with a book.

Mars Man

Sep 19, 2007, 12:06

ah i would kill for a serious discussion forum.

I hear you !! And I really, really hope that is is coming !!!

well Jews dont really believe in Satan in the conventional way we don't even believe in hell...

A good point--though a bit premature, I do believe. As far as can be determined by scholarship, the earliest thoughts of first temple Judaism did not stress the adversary in any way beyond simple a messenger of YHWH in the heavenly court, and there was not conception of any neo-platonic dualism either. Actually, in early Christian thought, that latter point more so appears to not have changed much at all.

NOW, on your point about the perimeters for the term Bible that we are using in the OP, I am glad that you have come to see the importance for fixing that term in order to have any discussion at all. I would argue that within the context of the OP topic, there would be extremely little need to be concerned about anyone's extending any validity to any statements contained within any of the writings that we eventually agree upon as being our referent for the word 'Bible.'

This is primarily because, we have to start at zero for the purpose of discussion. If one were to claim that 'Bible' should have the Tanakh as the referent, and we all agree, then that would be our 'Bible.' Although, then we would have to further decide on whether that should be made up of the Palestinian Canon, the Samarian Canon, the Alexandrian Canon, or the Babylonian Canon. We would then have to provide evidence for any conclusion on which text variants to use--for example those of Daniel, those of Pre-Second Temple Judaism (or early Post Exilic Judasim) and those compiled (and more obviously correct, altered some by hands after Nehemiah--or even by him on his second return from Persia) {Evidences for this can be found in several places, one being Flavius Josephus's works.}

Also, in that the Jewish religious leaders did not really decide on any set canon until the council in Jenavh, around 90 CE, and had earlier used the LXX quite widespread and with much sacredness attached to it, the different readings between the various scrolls of that group (LXX) and the Hebrew texts, would have to be decided on too.

The easier thing to do, and I am quite ready to further argue the efficiency of this being the better course, pugtm san, is to take the whole lot as being part of the referent for the word 'Bible.' Please think about it very carefully and logically--as we are intent on entering an academic-like discussion.

Then, to same degree, and along the same lines of reasoning, we will soon find that it would be far more realistic historically and textually to include writings from both Jewish and Christian sources at least up until, and not after that fourth century CE date--because at that point, a clear delimiting was done. Believe me, if we take any other configuration, we will be automatically setting a bias in our study from the very beginning--making it faulty.

I hope all who wish to discuss, think about this very, very carefully-it is not with a matter of belief attached to any particular writing, that we enter this discussion, rather from a neutral standpoint of all writings possibly having whatever degree of validity, historical reliability, truthfulness, etc.

Therefore, it is of the utmost truthfulness, ' real argument can only be made on common grounds,' and so the question 'which Bible' must be firstly decided. This is what I have proposed in my posts numbers 18 and 19 on page two.

dark_secrester

Sep 20, 2007, 00:42

That was correct, I was talking of Levey Satanism. He says himself satanism isn't about devils. Are you a Satanist Mycernius? (When I say satanist or satanism I always talk of Leveys.)

w1ngzer0

Sep 20, 2007, 01:22

I hear you !! And I really, really hope that is is coming !!!

serious discussions usually end in debate then end up in arguing.

Mycernius

Sep 20, 2007, 01:46

That was correct, I was talking of Levey Satanism. He says himself satanism isn't about devils. Are you a Satanist Mycernius? (When I say satanist or satanism I always talk of Leveys.)
No, I'm an atheist.

Pugtm. I am also hoping for a serious discussion forum to re-appear. Hopefully it will happen.
From what I have read about the Jewish idea of Satan is that is more a state of mind rather than an actually malevolent spirit. I do know that Jews do not believe in hell, something I find quite amusing whenever I see a evangelical site saying all Jews will go to hell. They don't like it when you mention that Jews don't believe in it and it is very much a Christian invention, with pagan origins.

Alex18

Sep 21, 2007, 06:14

Hey everyone!
I am sorry for not being here for a while, I was a bit busy.
Let me please reply to some of you here:
To Mycernius,
Neither do Muslims or Jews. Both accept his existance and, as Putgm pointed out, he did teach heretical ideas.
These teachings are profound, deep, explaining the very meaning of God's Law and justice, his love and mercy to people. Again, whoever reads the biblical passages about the Plural Nature of God will see that nothing here is heretical.

Islam even agrees on the virgin birth, but do not assign him divine status, only as a prophet. Only Christians believe in the resurrection.
It's true, but can you disprove Jesus' resurrection? Can you explain the source of the disciples' belief in a mythical Jesus who wasn't even a man, and didn't rise from the dead?
I am not about to debate whether Jesus existed or not. Although there is very little evidence that such a man existed, except in the Gospels, which are not reliable, but I do think a preacher or many preachers of his type did exist, but none were divine.
Josephus, Tacitus, Plinny the Younger and others had testimony about Jesus' existence and his disciples who followed 'Christ'.
What is unreliable in the gospels? Their inner contradictions? Everything has a solution, just look at Christian apologetic sites, don't be stubborn and you'll see that it's not hard to explain all the difficulties.
Much of the story of Jesus can be found in myths that pre-date the Jesus myth by almost a thousand years. What the Gospels appear to be is an amalgamation of other God/man myths into Jesus.
That's not true, since the story of creation, birth of Moses, story of Noah and the flood etc. have also similar pagan stories.
Jesus virgin birth is not similar to others. While a god and a woman had sexual relationship and someone was born, Jesus was born out of God himself, by the holy spirit, without any sexual intercourse between gods and people.
Who can say is the true Christianity? I believe there are over a thousand different denominations at the moment.
The true Christianity is the one which has no contradiction with the biblical teaching. There can be tradition, differences, but they must not contradict the bible in anything. This is the true Christianity.

That is correct... There are over a thousand denominations. Even people who don't set up an organisation are their own denomination; they have their own ideas and beliefs on what different sections and passages of the bible mean.
'Do not spray your seed on infertile ground'. Dunno if that is exact, but it has a multitude of meanings, some sexual, some agricultural as in actual seed, and it could even mean exactly the same as words falling on deaf ears. The point is, is that everyone has their own ideals. My dad is christian, yet he does not believe Jesus was the son of god, he thinks it was just a very intelligent and righteous jew.
I think that I've mentioned this above, that there is true Judaism and Christianity.
Therefore, there is no true judaism, no true christianity and no true religion; religion is what you make it.

there is a true judaism because there was no prophet that made it up. We know and remember we received a revelation directly through god(3 million jews all at once so we know it wasn't just some guy on hashish). in fact judaism is different in that there is no prophet that introduced it to us.
According to Exodus, the Jews were afraid of speaking to God, so they asked of Moses to speak to them the godly commandments, and that's why Moses is considered to be the father of prophets. god did directly, through him we received the books and from them we got judges and prophets. A prophet cannot go against anything already spoken by another prophet or god or he automatically disqualified and is a heretic. so there is a true judaism. No matter what there are the basic commandments that any sect of judaism has to follow no matter what. Only traditions are different. If they don't follow these they aren't jewish. I wanted to make that clear that most people dont even have the slightest conceptual understanding of judaism that someone born to it does. It is so different from any other religion that have been explained to me that its not even funny.
Christianity is the teaching of God to many, showing miracles to many, and bringing the many to God's knowledge- something the Messiah was supposed to do. I have a question: How can an atheist be a Satanist? It's like to worship an idol.

Simply throwing claims across the table at each other will lead to nowhere execpt perhaps a closed thread--which I, and Alex18 (at least) hope will not happen.
I hope too.
There are a number of statements made by both pugtm san and Alex18 san that I will challenge, but now is not the right moment--still too early !!!!! I REPEAT, IT'S STILL TOO EARLY !!!
I've answered your challenges, at least I hope I have. What's next?

Those who say there is no hell, read Isaiah and Daniel, Psalm and find out that it exists. If heaven exists, where righteous go, then hell also. It's a biblical concept, not an invention.

~Dei~

Sep 21, 2007, 06:56

I think it's a badly written piece of fiction.

It's sort of strange that so many people think it's factual.

Maybe in 2000 years time there will be some sort of cult based around Lord of the Rings.

w1ngzer0

Sep 21, 2007, 07:00

I think it's a badly written piece of fiction.
It's sort of strange that so many people think it's factual.
Maybe in 2000 years time there will be some sort of cult based around Lord of the Rings.

I'm confused. I don't understand why people are down on others who like looking for something better then what this world has to offer.

No,i am not trying to convert anyone, i am just giving my view on it.

~Dei~

Sep 21, 2007, 07:06

I'm not "down" on anyone.

I just gave my opinion.

I still have that right, don't I?

I personally think that it is important to question everything and so blindly believing what a book written thousands of years ago says seems a little silly to me.

w1ngzer0

Sep 21, 2007, 07:12

oops sorry!!! i have a habbit of hitting the quote button >_<

Ma Cherie

Sep 21, 2007, 09:58

I generally don't have any negative feelings in the Bible or any other holy book for that matter. But I just view them as books, nothing more. Only pieces of literature that are open for interpretation. I don't believe that a holy book could possibly have all the answers for the reason of human existence. And I feel that if you do believe in God, that belief shouldn't be based on what a book says.

But that's just me. :bluush:

pugtm

Sep 21, 2007, 10:07

[B]Hey everyone!
I am sorry for not being here for a while, I was a bit busy.
Let me please reply to some of you here....
yes but can you please organize those quotes so we know were you are writing and what you are quoteing i cant make sense of it.

Mars Man

Sep 21, 2007, 14:13

I'll proceed in chronological order here, as best I can:

serious discussions usually end in debate then end up in arguing.

This can happen if the following basic modes of presentation are not generally met. (1) supply data in the way of evidence for a propositon made--even if that goes deeply into embedded predicates of a clause within the overall proposition. (2) argue so as to present your claims and thesises as sound as you can, with as much evidence you feel is needed to convince a neutral third party of the accuracy and validity of your claim or thesis, WITHOUT expecting or trying, even, to get agreement from an opponent.

Also, in this context, it would be best not to think of the terms 'argue' and 'bebate' in the sense of anything other than academic exercise--not the run-of-the-mill heated, emotional shouting matches that one may find in many places. A higher level of state of mind is necessary for this type of discussion and subject matter.

I've answered your challenges, at least I hope I have.

Actually no. In reading my words just above in this post, you'll see that supporting claims will end up being the decisive matters behind the neutral third party's vouching for a certain claim or thesis. Now whether you take even that much to be true or not, is beyond my control. . . but for those in the field--which you would soon find out about if you were to read any professional Journals from within this field--it is a given.

If you were to look over the posts from page two, you may notice that I am the only poster who has made any effort--though just scratching the surface at the moment--to provide evidence for my propositions and claims. A person can quote some verse from a written document, but that too will have to stand up to being tested, you see.

I hope to continue this discussion, but. . . let's see how it goes. Are you really willing to do so, Alex18, applying the working modes mentioned above for an academical discussion? I really hope you and others are !!!

The Bible...and, everybody, PLEASE note the definition I, at least, am using...has some fiction in it, yes, but it also has some non-fiction in it. It even has some parts which possibly evidence supernatural source--although that does not necessarily demand that the source be the god-model prescribe by the writers.

The title of this thread is a bit of a problem, because it is just asking what we think of the 'Bible'--without saying what that is. I have taken a referent for that, and am using that, so I hope all will be careful to note that when I use the word 'Bible' it is probably more than just the idea you have develop in your mind.

From this weekend, then, I will start my explanation and thesis on what the 'bible' is.

Yes, it is important to be careful about the usage of quotes...let's try to be as exact as we can.

Pavel123

Sep 21, 2007, 20:44

WOW! Simply: WOW! WOW!

Mycernius

Sep 22, 2007, 03:23

@ Alex18 - First thing first, could you please play with the quote function, as reading your posts is difficult to follow. Thank you:cool:
[B]
It's true, but can you disprove Jesus' resurrection? Can you explain the source of the disciples' belief in a mythical Jesus who wasn't even a man, and didn't rise from the dead?
It isn't up to me to dosprove the ressureaction. You made the statement, and so does christianity, that a man resurrected from the dead. To make a statement it must have proper evidence, not from a book of myths. The followers of Pythagoras thought he resurrected after he died. He was alos said to have turned water into wine. This is more likely from a practice found in the cult of Mithras, an older religion,. LINK (http://www.taivaansusi.net/historia/mithraism.html)
note this quote:
Mithraism had many similarities to Christianity. Mithras was born of a virgin, remained celibate, his worship involving baptism, the partaking of bread marked with a cross and wine as sacrificial blood, held Sundays sacred and Mithras was born on 25th of December. Mithraist called themselves 'brother' and were led by a priest called 'father' (Pater). The symbol of the father were a staff, a hooked sword, a ring and hat
The next paragraph shows that Christian apologists were making unfounded claims then as well as today, trying to circumnavigate problems and inconsistances by ignoring the problem or making more myths up.

What is unreliable in the gospels? Their inner contradictions? Everything has a solution, just look at Christian apologetic sites, don't be stubborn and you'll see that it's not hard to explain all the difficulties
Christian apologetic sites are not worth the time. It shows that these people cannot or don't want to see the real truth and do real research on history and pre-christian myths and how it influenced early christian faith. The Gospels are not realiable. John was written about 100 to 120 years after the events. Luke even mentions in the first 5 verses that it is hanede down by people who talked to eyewitnesses and servants of the word. In other words hearsay, chinese whispers and from the faithful who have only read other writings. hardly a realible peice of work. Then there is also the time it was written. Along with Mark, about 60 - 70 years after the events took place. Matthew is the oldest of the Gospels, but that is 40 years after the date. Mars Man is the more knowledgable on the Gospels, so he can correct where I might have gone wrong.

That's not true, since the story of creation, birth of Moses, story of Noah and the flood etc. have also similar pagan stories.
Yes they do, and they all pre-date the biblical versions

Jesus virgin birth is not similar to others. While a god and a woman had sexual relationship and someone was born, Jesus was born out of God himself, by the holy spirit, without any sexual intercourse between gods and people
Sidhartha was said to have been born from his mothers side.
In Kapilavastu, on the Indo-Nepalese border, his earthly mother, Queen Maya, experienced a vision in which she beheld the Buddha come down into her womb as a white elephant. This was interpreted as the birth of a world savior, and when the time came for Maya to give birth, she went to a grove, where the child was born, emerging from her right side without causing her the slightest pain Pre-dates Jesus by 500 years. Krishna was also from a virgin birth, as was Mithras. All pre-date Jesus and show it was not an original idea.

The true Christianity is the one which has no contradiction with the biblical teaching. There can be tradition, differences, but they must not contradict the bible in anything. This is the true Christianity.
That must be very difficult then, as the bible has quite a few contradictions within it.

How can an atheist be a Satanist? It's like to worship an idol
LaVeyan Satanism is more akin to a celebration of human nature with no Gods to intervene, Not a 100% sure, as it has been a while since a looked through the Satanic Bible. An atheist can be classe as a satanist by people of Abrahamic faiths as they are heathens in their eyes and not followers of God. People who do not follow God therefore must belong to Satan. Christian logic, go figure.

Those who say there is no hell, read Isaiah and Daniel, Psalm and find out that it exists. If heaven exists, where righteous go, then hell also. It's a biblical concept, not an invention
They didn't believe in hell, not as you know it. They are Jewish texts and Jews do not believe in hell. Therefore Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekial, Moses, Ester and all those people in the OT are Jewish and did not believe in hell. I think Pugtm san pointed that out, and seeing he is Jewish I think he is more qualified to speak on that matter than a christian.

pugtm

Sep 22, 2007, 04:31

Originally Posted by Alex18
The true Christianity is the one which has no contradiction with the biblical teaching. There can be tradition, differences, but they must not contradict the bible in anything. This is the true Christianity.
Christianity has many many contradictions starting with jesus "divine status" itself which was decided apon by the church hundreds of years after his birth.
Also hell in judaism does not exist. Not in any conventional christian sense of the concept. so long sotry short we dont beleive in hell. i will try to explain but not now i need to look some stuff up and yom kippur starts soon so i need to go prepare and im in school so i really should go back to working and stop slacking off.:p

w1ngzer0

Sep 22, 2007, 04:33

Christianity has many many contradictions starting with jesus "divine status" itself which was decided apon by the church hundreds of years after his birth.

Explane.Link. something.

pugtm

Sep 22, 2007, 07:03

i will but actually our holiest day of the year starts in about 2 hours so we need to get prepared.
So its a food and communication blackout for 25 hours. so i wont be on to explain or argue so please hold up a bit on the arguments until its over and wish me an easy fast(its really gonna suck) :mad::mad::auch::bawling:k):( no food or water for 25 hours straight. :mad::mad::auch::bawling:k):(and no electronics to take my mind off of it either. Oh well...

w1ngzer0

Sep 22, 2007, 07:05

You post @ Today, 19:31
Then post that huge smily face post @ Today, 22:03
Within that time you can't post one link?

You lazy bum!!

Just kidding. :wave:

pugtm

Sep 23, 2007, 10:56

hello everyone im back and still alive:cool::relief::-):wave::wave::D
sorry i was out for so long but yom kippur lasts 25 hours. :sorry:
But at least i can eat know god knows i missed food:bravo::lol::beer::gulp:!!!!
alright back to the arguement
Explane.Link. something.
alright Christians accept the old testament correct? For the sake of arguement lets say yes.
in Deuteronomy it says:
1 All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. {P}
2 If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams--and he give thee a sign or a wonder,
3 and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee--saying: 'Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them';
4 thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God putteth you to proof, to know whether ye do love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
5 After the LORD your God shall ye walk, and Him shall ye fear, and His commandments shall ye keep, and unto His voice shall ye hearken, and Him shall ye serve, and unto Him shall ye cleave.
6 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken perversion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of bondage, to draw thee aside out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee. {S}
7 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, that is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying: 'Let us go and serve other gods,' which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
8 of the gods of the peoples that are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 9 thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him;
10 but thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 11 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to draw thee away from the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage...
so kinda sounds like jesus no? proposes complete changes and claims to be a holy being that we did not know before and asks us to worship him... so he cannot be god since he contradicts something said earlier by god.
also claims to be the messiah and or king of jews are not true because the messiah has specific things that apply to him jesus fulfills none of the criterion

Mars Man

Sep 24, 2007, 00:36

Well I'm glad you survived Yom Kippur pugtm san !! Welcome back again.

I'm finding it a bit hard to start out on this. Hummm...well here goes.

In the year 100 BCE was there a Bible? Yes, there was, but it was not the one we have today! That, whether a person is emotionally inclined to clasp their hands over their ears and shut their eyes or not, is a fact. In what way can we so confidently claim that it was a fact? There were no gospel accounts, no letters written by any Christian religious leaders circulating--so, relative to our Bible of 66 individual works of today, there was no Bible in 100 BCE.

Was there a Bible in the year 500 BCE? Yes, there was, but it was not the same as what would have been considered 'the body of sacred writings' in the year 100 BCE. How is that so? There were quite plausibly some books within that group of sacred writings which had since been lost with the fall of Israel to Babylon. Also there were written documents added to that group later than 500 BCE. In fact, if a person goes back far enough, there will be no Bible in any shape, size, function, or content.

This fact must be kept in mind when dealing with this field of study !! There was a time, when there was not !! For this reason, we must work at verifying the claims made by those who adopted the written works which passed through time and hands, to reach us today--in whatever forms they may have taken along the way.

It is for that reason that I had put the cut off point for the referent for our term 'Bible' to be the first quarter of the fourth century--the 'Bible' from that point in time has not changed much at all.

POINT NUMBER ONE : The Bible was penned by human beings.

There is no contest against this understanding at all ! It is absolute fact that people wrote down on some medium, in some language of human design, the content that is to be found on the pages which make up the works that we include in our definition--Bible.

POINT NUMBER TWO : The Bible's content changed as people changed with the flow of time.

Now here is where we will start to get embedded--go into detail. I hope that all that are really interested, take the time to take it all in carefully. (of course I will not go into too much detail) I will start with the Jewish religious works, although starting with the Christian works is usually much easier due to much closer text forms to extrabiblical writings.

A. The Mishnah and Gemara (Talmud) are explanations of what had been considered the oral law, and are from the late second to early third centuries, and later third to sixth centuries, respectively. There is no written record of such oral tradition before that, so it has no room in the discussion. (1)

At first, the writings had been in the various stages of Hebrew, and had consisted of primarily the Torah. This basic work, however, more likely than not appears to have been built upon as time proceeded. (2) Also, we do have both the Judean Torah and the Samarian Torah which display some differences.

Then, in time the several Jewish documents went Greek. In his work Antiquites of the Jews, Joseph ben Matthias (Favious Josephus) written sometime around 93 or 94 CE, gives us the following:

II.13--Now when the law was transcribed, and the labour of the interpretation was over, which came to its conclusion in seventy-two days, Demetrius gathered all the Jews together to the place where the laws were translated, and where the interpreters were, and read them over. The multitude did also approve of those elders that were the interpreters of the law. Moreover they all, both the priests and the ancientest of the elders, and the principal men of their commonwealth, made it their request, that since the interpretation was happily finished, it might continue in the state it now was, and might not be altered. (3)

This work, the Septuagint (LXX) became the all-round sacred collection of writings for especially Jewish groups of the diaspora. This work, however, differs from the best recension of the line of texts in the Hebrew language. Also, there are a few variance of LXX textual exemplars that can be found.

I will go into those next, but the main point up to this point is that we can very clearly see that there had not been one single and invariably agreed on textual format for the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Kethuvim, among other texts that did not eventually make the standard group in 90 CE.

1. What the Great Religions Believe by Joseph Gaer; 1963, pp 107, 108; 2. The Yahwist: The Earliest Editor in the Pentatech by Christoph Levin; Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat, Munchen, Germany (Journal of Biblical Literature--HERE AFTER JBL--Vol. 126/2 '07, pp 209-230; 3. The Complete Works of Josephus by Wm. Whiston 27th printing; p250.

pugtm

Sep 24, 2007, 07:29

yes you are right except some things are not specifically incorrect just not 100%
the two interpretations of mishna(oral law) are the talmud bavli and yerushalmi) the talmud of babel and of jerusalem. one was created in israel and one in exile. For us ashkenazim we use the talmud bavli since it is the more developed and full version. as to your statement that there is no agreement as to the tanach it was finalized
also as to say that there was no tanach before 100 bce
"David A. deSilva writes: "Since the law is known as 'the book of Moses' or 'the law of Moses' (6:13; 7:11-13), the work must certainly postdate the fifth century, when the formation of the Pentateuch was nearly complete. It seems reasonable to set the earliest date of composition as sometime during the third century B.C.E."
so the canon was almost compiled and it certainly included and did not alter the original 5 books.
by the way does anyone know how to highlight words?

Mars Man

Sep 24, 2007, 21:41

Thanks for your comments, pugtm san.

I am aware of the Babylonian Talmud but did not even bother to mention it since the composition really appears to be 5th century CE. Please do take note: this is not to deny that it could mostly have been in some oral form, or even in some format of writing before that, but simply to point out that the recension that we have appears to have been compiled at that time.

In reading others posts, I would suggest care be taken. I cannot find where it could be taken that I claimed that there had been no tanakh before 100 BCE. If you were to look over that more carefully, you will find that what I am actually doing is showing the progression of development of what later had come to be total body of sacred writings which had been taken as authoritative by the several religious groups up until the fourth century, CE.

I wish I could look into your source material there to find out which particular recension that author had been speaking of. It might be good to verify those citations there (6:13; 7:11-13) because I can't find them. I find that the wording 'the book of Moses' never comes at any 6:13 in the present Tanakh. Could it have been Ezra 6:18? That does have it.

But one can find it also at Joshua 8:31 (khakhaw thoob beseepher thorat mosih) in almost the same form as at Ezra 6:18. The phrase, 'the law of Moses' can be found at Ezra 3:2 as well as in Daniel. (9:13; 9:11) {and of course other places too}

What you have quoted is saying that the particular recension or exemplar of a recension that that author is talking about had been composed, at the earlier feasible date, in the third century BCE. If you think about that very carefully--of course with some research and all, I'm sure you'll find that is not saying exactly what you seem (I could be wrong here) to think it is saying. That is because of the style of writing in this field. There are a number of witnesses, you see, for a single textual form, and what textual criticism does is try to get to an original text from the average of differences between the texts--no two witnesses are exactly alike in most cases--especially between distances and time.

If you were to go back, in case you missed it, there had been no real, agreed upon in any formal manner canon of sacred writings until 90 CE. Of course there were the scrolls of the Torah, and there were other scrolls too. Some added during the second temple period at the hands of Nehemiah. Remember, the Bible is broader than the Torah, broader than the Tanakh, even. . . could include the Jerusalem Talmud ( I hadn't considered that earlier, but we could put it in the definition). . . and is broader than the typical Bible of today that Christians use. Please do keep that in mind, as we go onward.

Your later point will be touched on again as we go further into POINT NUMBER TWO. To highlight, or bold, use the 'advance' style posting format, and click on the B then write the text you'd wish to make bold. After you have finished that, use the 'end' arrow to move out of that 'bold' space. OR...you can do this ' [ b ]' without the spaces, then write your text, then use it again with a '/ ' before the ' b '. (and of course without the single quotation marks.)

Faustianideals

Sep 24, 2007, 22:32

I remember the last time this topic was brought up. Oh what a joyous and interesting time..

Mars Man

Sep 24, 2007, 23:41

I remember the last time this topic was brought up. Oh what a joyous and interesting time..

Could you be a little more specific?

-Rudel-

Sep 25, 2007, 03:19

Can God create a rock he can not lift? The answer is in the bible :D

Faustianideals

Sep 25, 2007, 05:44

Could you be a little more specific?
Honestly? I don't feel like it, sorry.

pugtm

Sep 25, 2007, 07:01

Thanks for your comments, pugtm san.
I am aware of the Babylonian Talmud but did not even bother to mention it since the composition really appears to be 5th century CE. Please do take note: this is not to deny that it could mostly have been in some oral form, or even in some format of writing before that, but simply to point out that the recension that we have appears to have been compiled at that time.
In reading others posts, I would suggest care be taken. I cannot find where it could be taken that I claimed that there had been no tanakh before 100 BCE. If you were to look over that more carefully, you will find that what I am actually doing is showing the progression of development of what later had come to be total body of sacred writings which had been taken as authoritative by the several religious groups up until the fourth century, CE.
I wish I could look into your source material there to find out which particular recension that author had been speaking of. It might be good to verify those citations there (6:13; 7:11-13) because I can't find them. I find that the wording 'the book of Moses' never comes at any 6:13 in the present Tanakh. Could it have been Ezra 6:18? That does have it.
But one can find it also at Joshua 8:31 (khakhaw thoob beseepher thorat mosih) in almost the same form as at Ezra 6:18. The phrase, 'the law of Moses' can be found at Ezra 3:2 as well as in Daniel. (9:13; 9:11) {and of course other places too}
What you have quoted is saying that the particular recension or exemplar of a recension that that author is talking about had been composed, at the earlier feasible date, in the third century BCE. If you think about that very carefully--of course with some research and all, I'm sure you'll find that is not saying exactly what you seem (I could be wrong here) to think it is saying. That is because of the style of writing in this field. There are a number of witnesses, you see, for a single textual form, and what textual criticism does is try to get to an original text from the average of differences between the texts--no two witnesses are exactly alike in most cases--especially between distances and time.
If you were to go back, in case you missed it, there had been no real, agreed upon in any formal manner canon of sacred writings until 90 CE. Of course there were the scrolls of the Torah, and there were other scrolls too. Some added during the second temple period at the hands of Nehemiah. Remember, the Bible is broader than the Torah, broader than the Tanakh, even. . . could include the Jerusalem Talmud ( I hadn't considered that earlier, but we could put it in the definition). . . and is broader than the typical Bible of today that Christians use. Please do keep that in mind, as we go onward.
Your later point will be touched on again as we go further into POINT NUMBER TWO. To highlight, or bold, use the 'advance' style posting format, and click on the B then write the text you'd wish to make bold. After you have finished that, use the 'end' arrow to move out of that 'bold' space. OR...you can do this ' [ b ]' without the spaces, then write your text, then use it again with a '/ ' before the ' b '. (and of course without the single quotation marks.)
thanks for the info

now as to your point that the canon was not yet compiled it is true but the five books existed and were static and extremely important. also most of the books were agreed apon for the canon for quite a while the only controversial books finally included were song of songs and i think Ezekiel(need to go check).
also as to your suggestion we include the talmud yerushalmi don't bother its almost never used since the bavli is so much more comprehensive.
also no one has responded to my jesus post. do you guys know were alex-san went?

Mars Man

Sep 25, 2007, 22:55

Firstly to touch on some earlier matters. If it's ok, Mycernus, I'll get to the NT canon stuff a little latter--if it ever goes that far.

Faustianideals san, that's fine, no problem. I think you may be referring to the problem that had arose between strongvoicesforward san and sabro san. That fault far more clearly lay in strongvoicesforward's error. That type of thing will most surely never happen again...don't worry.

Ah, -Rudel- san! The old philosopher's puzzle. I'm afraid, however, that there is no answer to that from among the several god-models that humankind has come up with. Thinking outside the box does not seem to help either--at least not as far as I have studied or thought about it. (which isn't saying much, though)

Pugtm san, I suppose Alex18 will be around in time--and others too, may wish to say something--but I will admit that I didn't respond to the text of Deuteronomy 13:1~18 (the fuller contextual set {and it would be good to be careful with citations...please remember to give book, chapter, and verse} because it was basically off topic. The thread's topic, which all should make an effort to adhere to, is 'what we think about the Bible.'

If it is any appeasement, the proposition you had put forward there in that post, would run into a dead end. The reasons being that the assumptions upon which the reason for trying to make application of that particular passage in Deut., are misplaced. The fallacy lies in the premise.

Then, in continuation of points under my POINT NUMBER TWO, and the embedding there, I would like to clarify a few things. It is true that the far greater bulk of words, phrases, clauses, and passages of the general bulk of witnesses for the OT works is very much in agreement. I am not speaking in absolute terms when I say, for example, ' ... up to this point is that we can very clearly see that there had not been one single and invariably agreed on textual format for the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Kethuvim, among other texts that did not eventually make the standard group in 90 CE .' It is simply that there are differences in the textual witnesses which show us that the writing was a human effort.

We should be careful with our wording too. I would reason that it is less correct to say that 'the [OT] canon was not yet compiled,' but rather that it had not been delimited to just certain documents before 90 CE.

I'll take your suggestion on the Talmud matter, and not place it in my referent for 'Bible.' (of course the Babylonian Talmud is too late to consider)

I'll post this much for now, and will continue with POINT NUMBER TWO next, giving further evidence for the understanding that the biblical texts are of human origin to the far greater degree.

Mars Man

Sep 28, 2007, 12:13

2. A.

From Josephus' work Ant. of the Jews we can find many occasions where his parent text had probably been different for our present Masoretic text, or he had been very loosely interpreting. We can also deduce from several statements of his that he had not had all of the second temple texts which may have been in Nehemiah's library. As a sample space, we can find evidence for different texts at:

Antiquities of the Jews
II.XV.2-----215 years in Egypt (a groundless abrigement),
IV.VI.5-----two attempts by Balaam to curse Israel, rather than three,
IV.VI.6-----detail on the daughters of the Midianites,
IV.VIII.15--additional wording in the law regarding not recieving the testimony of women.
VII.IX.1----4 years had passed after Absalom's reconciliation with his father.
etc.

In Whiston's dessertaion IV, he argues well for the understanding--and it holds today--that Josephus texts were different from not only the Masoretic text we have today (Cairo Codex, c. 895 CE; Leningrad B19, 1008 CE) but also to a lesser degree even the LXX and the Samaritan texts. His argument is that Josephus had had an earlier textual form which while largely the same, had different wordings from place to place, and which had not included Ezra. (which at that day included our present Nehemiah as well)

In findings in Qumran cave four, an almost full collection of the present OT canon was found. Again here, differences were found which are from the same period of time that has been alloted to the composition of the Isaiah scroll found in cave one--which has been so over used to show the exactness in scribal consistency in order to argue that there has been extremely little textual change.

Of these findings we have copies, especially 1,2 Samuel, Jeremiah, and Exodus, which greatly differ from the present text of M. Put in the words of J.A. Fitzmyer, 'Such ancient recensional forms of Old Testament books bear witness to an unsuspected textual diversity that once existed;. . . Thus, the differences in the Sepuagint are no longer considered the result of a poor or endentious attempt to translate the Hebrew into the Greek; rather they testify to a diffferent pre-Christian form of the Hebrew text.'

Regarding textual studies which pointed in this direction even before the finds can be found in some works--such as Scribner's Dictionary of the Bible, VOL IV, p 449. Here we see regarding the LXX, 'But more important is the fact that already the Hebrew texts used by the translators differed in varying degrees from the Masoretic text.'

The finds in cave four were very close to the LXX text forms and were also dated to the second century BCE--putting them in the exact same time frame as that Isaiah scroll.

Some of the leading witnesses to the text of M (the Masoretic text) are:

B17; Cairo Codex; Codex Sinaiticus (Greek, 4th century CE); Aquila (GR, 2nd century CE); 1QIs2 ({Q=Qumran} 2nd century BCE); Targum Aramaic; Jerusalem Targum; Targum of Onkelos; Codex Ephraemi rescriptus (Gr. 5th century CE) and 4Q scrolls, among a few others.

In looking through the critical apparatus of BHS (Biblical Hebraica Stuttengart--based on B17) one can find many of the alternative readings. Of course many are in spelling differences, but there are a material enough of references to disimilar readings too.

I'll finish point 2 with section B in a later post, working towards the conclusion pointed out in that earlier post.

sabro

Sep 30, 2007, 02:38

Obviously Christians will have very different ideas for this thread. I shall however refrain from posting. I wouldn't want to be accused of prosletyzing or preaching (or the thread will be locked.)

Mycernius

Oct 2, 2007, 00:20

Obviously Christians will have very different ideas for this thread. I shall however refrain from posting. I wouldn't want to be accused of prosletyzing or preaching (or the thread will be locked.)
You were never one for preaching or prosletyzing in the past. In fact you listen and debate in a civilised way (unlike the person who caused the problems in the first place. 'Nuff said about him). In some ways this thread would avoid preaching, as the very object that is used for preaching (The bible) is under scrutiny. You always seemed to listen in the past without going off on one, unlike some evangelical preachers I have debated with elsewhere:okashii:, and was open to reason. Your input in the past was always constructive and helpful, even to heathens such as myself:-) and I would gladly like to see you back more often.

Faustianideals

Oct 2, 2007, 04:25

So guys, what do you think will happen if "Jesus" comes back for a second coming?

Mars Man

Oct 3, 2007, 00:16

First of all. . . I must say, 'now there's a cat I haven't seen 'round in a while !' The past being far behind us now, I don't think you have anything to be worried about...and I could not have worded it any better than Mycernius has. Please do join in, sabro san.

Now regarding the matter of Jesus' returning, I would firstly tend to think that that line of discussion would be off-topic too--in that this thread is surely to be more closely fitted along that of discussing or presenting what we think about the Bible.

But then, in giving that presentation and in taking part in that discussion, I would suppose that it could be said that it is possible to reason that since the writing of the NT came after the oral tradition, and was a human action, that something of the nature of that oral tradition built itself up when it went into textual format.

There are a couple of articles in the journal Oral Tradition which highlight that possible factor, but the gist of the conclusion reached is that it is as likely a scenario that the historical Yeshua had never held to such a teaching.

Then, in finishing up my line of thought with POINT NUMBER 2 B:

Of the various non-canonical works found among the Qumran finds, we have the likes of The Visions of Amram, 1~4 Baruch, The Testament of Job, The Testament of Adam, 1 Enoch, The Testament of Abraham, The Apocryphon of Ezekiel, Vision of Ezra, Jubilees, The War Scroll, the copper scroll...etc.

A number of these are also considered to be second century BCE works, just like that famous Isaiah scroll. There is other textual evidence to fairly support the proposition that the Qumran community had considered 1 Enoch (which the NT book of Jude also uses) and Jubilees to be inspired works. The
Vision of Amram is most certainly an outside work which the group had collected, thus making it very possible to have been in wider circulation.

The two theories are that the Qumran group was either Essenic or Sadducean. What the evidence of the state of the various works kept by the group, and the matter of the group's being a relatively major religious group within Judaism point to, is that there were various 'collections' of written works held to be sacred and/or inspired.

One group's holding a certain work, for example, to be sacred and of high value, while another group held that same work to not have (at least) that same degree of scaredness and value, most surely points to mere human opinion for at least one or the other, or, feasibly for both.

We find references to books in a number of places in the canonical Hebrew Scriptures. The first (this does not necessarily imply chronological order) is at Joshua 10:13 where the book of Yeshar is mentioned as being the source for the information on the sun's standing still. In Numbers (21:14) we are directed to the book of the wars of YHWH. And there are at least three books that had likely been used as source material throughout Kings and Samuel.

These books no longer exist, yet we do not have all the information that they had contained, and cannot even begin to prove that we have the correct information as to what they may have contained. It is fair to take the information given in MS as having been true to those earlier works, but this again tends to show that the writings had been a human effort.

With all these points taken, under POINT NUMBER TWO, it can be seen that far more likely than not, the collections of works held to be sacred changed with the times and flows of humanity through time, as well some degree of content within some of the individual works themselves, up until the time of that decision in 90CE regarding Jewish canon.

There is further reasoning leading to the conclusion that the works of OT are for the most part, of human origin, as well. That will be forthcoming.

bakaKanadajin

Oct 3, 2007, 03:04

Well I've read through this entire thread as best as one can do while ensuring one's responsibilities at work are not neglected. I see a few different things happening. I see, 1) a debate within the Jewish camp on modern Judaism's roots and the proper interpretations therein, 2) a discussion (mostly produced by Mars Man) on what our precise definition of the bible will be once the discussion actually gets going, and then I see 3) other individuals putting in their respective two cents on Christianity and religion in general, offered as an extension of their opinion on 'the bible'.

All of this is valid discussion but so far we've yet to breach the original topic of whether the bible is a worthy companinon in this day and age with regards to spiritual and intellectual guidance, as per the OP. I dare say, whatever our eventual definition, the OP is most likely speaking about the modern bible of Christianity, so ancilliary discussions on Judaism or other religions will perhaps become moot since other religions have their own separate books, teachings, houses of worship, etc. However as far as the origins of the bible are concerned, as discussed mainly by Mars Man, Judaism would indeed be a requisite tangent.

I possess no factual knowledge about the bible from a scholars point of view. My experience has been osmotic at best, as it would be for most individuals raised in the traditional Western-Christian tradition, where aside from ceremonial differences between the Protestants, Catholics, Baptists, and so on, Christianity is largely understood to be concerned with foundational and cross-applicable concepts such as the Trinity, heaven and hell, the birth, adoration, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, redemption, sin, and so on. Based on this admittedly simple but common experience, (and crassly ahead of any discussion on our definition of the bible, apologies to Mars Man,) l am limited to saying the following.

Although I have no personal research to back this up, through traditional sources such as books and documentaries I feel it has been widely accepted and not nearly as strongly refuted that Christianity incorporated into it X number of years ago several Pagan forms as a means to politically amalgamate various geopgraphical areas under the Roman empire. Here I refer to everything from mainstream works like Dan Brown's (possibly stolen) DaVinci code, which is something of a Michael Moore treatment of the fallacies of Christian doctrine, to various smaller articles which have since become popular reading material, that are more historical in nature and less concerned with religious doctrine. Insert disagreements here.

On top of this, I recently came across a documentary called Zeitgeist - a (popular and well done if I say so myself) internet based offering, which neatly and concisely lays out several similarities between the Judaeo-Christian theology and other religious belief systems. In short, across these religions, many of the symbols, numbers, and timelines coincide with one another, thereby creating a long list of similar Messiah and 'Christ' figure stories as well as all the concordant events surrounding their lives. Sources outside of the actual religions themselves are referenced largely from the same writers and poets already well-documented throughout history. The religions themselves, within discussions on religious personal (per-soh-nl) and chornological phonemena, can be taken at face value when investigatnig simple and quite evident similarities: this book says A, this other book also says A. To me the movie is a collection of pre-existing facts and does nothing more than present these ideas in a manner suggesting previously unobserved connections and similarities. If anyone has seen the movie and rejected it outright as mere conjecture they should read the above paragraph again - it's not opinion so much as an attempt to draw upon pre-existing similarities. To refute it, one would have to prove that all our collected modern historical understanding of ancient cultures and their belief systems is somehow inherently flawed.

The movie goes on to connect some pretty big dots between natural celestial events (astronomy) and the allegories of religious texts and belief systems throughout the ages.

So before I even engage in any discussions on the practicality of the bible, I must preface my thought process with the abovementioned information. All major and most minor religions share similarities that appear to stem from what is nothing more than common knowledge based on the stars, the crops, the tides, the sun most importantly, and the personification of these elements. This knowledge, transmitted orally and allegorically over the years through culturally relevant tradition and worship has formed the backbone of societal religion for much greater a time period than that which contains our beloved bible and Christianity. The bible to me is just the latest in a long line of incarnations of humanity's attempts to understand the natural world.

Whether or not one finds it relevant comes down to whether it speaks to them and empowers them to improve their life and the lives of others. If it does that, so be it, however a lot the true meanings and lessons are by this point so deeply steeped in parables, politics and cryptic reference that it has lost its ability to function as a textbook communicating the knowledge our ancestors possessed.

sabro

Oct 3, 2007, 13:07

Thanks Mike and Oliver... I have been lurking with little to say. This discussion seemed to be in my particular corner, but again... I really don't have much to add.

For bakaK:
I find the Bible relevant. It speaks to me and empowers me to improve my life and the lives of other. It deepens my appreciation of life, it gives me certainty, connection, significance, and purpose. It clarifies and defines my faith. My faith has been the best, strongest and most positive influence in my life. Although people may find these things elsewhere, it is where I found them.

Mars Man

Oct 5, 2007, 00:11

Starting off here, I'd first like to offer, as a means of encouragement, again, that as this particular thread plays on out, and as that much hoped for 'Serious Discussion' sub-fora comes so welcomedly into reality, the desire for your joining in, sabro san.

Then, bakaKanadajin san, your above post being the quality of what you do while in the midst of your work--where distraction and lack of being able to really get deep into thought is to be expected--I am eagerly awaiting, in awe, your posts done in the clarity and meditative mood of your private space !!

The last two paragraphs of your presentation perhaps hit at home more than the ones before, although there is much, I think, that I would like to discuss more; on threads that more closely fit those several subject matters.

If I may here, I'd like to again advance the need for a broader referent for our term 'Bible,' over and against that most obviously (as bakaKanadajin has surely correctly pointed out) intended by the OP. Without depending on any definitive conclusion for what is 'Christian,' we could take an overall view and then soon see that the contents of what is called 'Bible' is divided. In that case, which one, then, is actually 'Bible?' A neutral third party cannot decide on the arguments by the two sides alone.

When we add the Jewish element, we again get a different member. We are again at a cross-roads which gives no clear answer--based on the particular arguments alone. It will happen again when we open the 'Gnostic' sphere, the 'Arian' sphere, the 'Coptic' sphere...and so on and so on.

For that reason--and perhaps that reason alone...for now--it is optimal to include all possible Judeo-Christian works into a single collection (which is what any 'Bible' is anyway, actually and historically; a collection of writings) up to 325 CE because that is clearly a terminus ad quem for additions to the most likely original Torah.

I will post some more in the direction I had mentioned earlier, a bit later...it is a little too early in the morning here now.....MM

Seon-a Kim

Oct 5, 2007, 01:02

Mars Man, you once send a PM to ask me something related to this topic...I'll soon answer it, though it's been some time ago and the exact things I dunno anymore in detail though. But there where many doubts.

bakaKanadajin

Oct 5, 2007, 01:04

Mars Man's suggestion that, for now, we begin with the bible as a collection of works whose definition and completeness terminates in the year 325, seems logical to me, especially as someone with little more than a layman's understanding of the bible. This would, as he points out, alleviate much discussion on lost, missing and unincluded books for the time being, as well as produce for us layman a broader starting point and gateway for definition as we approach those very books which are in question.

Mars Man

Oct 5, 2007, 16:00

Mars Man, you once send a PM to ask me something related to this topic...

I have no recollection of this at all. Of course it would not have been regarding this thread, in that you have only posted here for the first time with #84, and my PM 'sent' box does not have a PM to you in it...and this thread had been started in the middle of September...so...?? Please do let me know what's on your mind. Please do keep in mind the thread's topic, though.

Thanks for you input there bakaKanadajin san. I would like to think now, that that matter can be considered relatively settled for the moment, so that we can move forward.

Don't worry, please, pugtm san, your voice has been of course heard. I hope that you will see and trust the understanding that for now we have to go with this broader definition. One reason is because it is a fact that when you open your English translation of Exodus, for example, (or even the Hebrew text BHS itself) you are not reading within the text (apparatus on the side) what it is known a person could have been reading when they had read that scroll in the year 500 BCE. Much is the same, but not all, and that goes for those scrolls available shortly after that which eventual came to make up the decided on Jewish Palestinian canon in the first century CE.

In checking the SBL forum just the day before yesterday, I noticed a timely presentation by A.J. Hauser of Appalachian State University entitled, Sources of the Pentateuch: So Many Theories, So Little Consensus. It is a review and critique of 'Source Criticism.'

His main argument was to offer approval of the adjustment of method in source-critical methodology by giving oral tradition studies more influence. In discussing the sources that are known, however, he also brought up the earlier reference materials used in composing parts of Tanakh--the books of Jasher, (as he spelled it) and Acts of Solomon, and Wars of the Lord (sic). Of course there could be others too.

While the details are quite involved, there is one thing that is clear: The Torah was not a single handed work, composed at a single point in time, and then handed down in a preserved manner without alteration--both interpolative and spurious. I will present a few examples in my next post, afterwhich I will make some challenges to some earlier claims.

SBL Article, Oct '07 A. J. Hauser; Oral Tradition and Biblical Studies by R. C. Culley, Oral Tradition 1/1 '86 pp 30-65; An Empirical Basis for the Documentary Hypothesis by J. H. Tigay, JBL 94/3, '75, pp 329-342; Primative Christianity and Judaism: A Symposium-a problem of things new and old in the beginnings of christianity by F. C. Porter, JBL 48/1-2 '29, pp 1-23

Seon-a Kim

Oct 5, 2007, 18:50

From my PM box from you:

Hello from the Alps of Japan, the roof of Honshu !!
I hope that the spring there has broken in just right, and that all the greenery is coming out brightly. All the folks out here in the country today, were out doing their rice fields. It was a nice today, and I was very busy.
I notice your post #35 (I think it was) in the thread on 'What's your religion' and was interested by it. Of the several religious groups that I have associated with over the past 35 years or more, the Jehovah's Witnesses (Watchtower Society) was one.
I noticed that you mentioned that you believed 95% ( I think it was) of their teachings, and I was just curious--if you'd be interested in sharing--which ones you do not believe.
From my studies--and I am still continuing that as a member of the Society of Biblical Literature--I have come to reason that the primary basis for their take on many of the essential scriptural tenets is in fallacy. For that reason, I would posit that more of what the Watchtower Society teaches is not sound.
Anyway, I'd like to hear your understanding, and if you were interested, explain mine. This is not to attempt to convince you or de-convert you, but simply to share from my experiences and studies.
I hope you have a good week ! Talk to you later. Oli :wave:

Mars Man

Oct 5, 2007, 22:48

With that, Ayu-youkou san, I remember. It was before the split up of the forums--so to speak--thus was in the old 'Serious Discussions' area; if my memory serves me well here.

I would still be very interested in discussing the many matters that the PM would have in store. Many of them could, actually spring from this very thread in a way, because we are here discussing what we 'think about the Bible,' (as per thread title, over first post) but would have to delt with in other threads. That will need to wait until we can have a new 'Serious Discussions' sub-fora again.

As I intend to further support, our thread's 'Bible' evidences little need nor room for supernatural superintendence--be it in the work Genesis, 1 Enoch, Daniel, according to Mark, 2 Peter, to the Corinthians (Clem. of Rome), Judas, or gospel of the Hebrews. (and I will go on to that...as stated above--but it's a bit late to start now...I just wanted to answer to this firstly)

Tokis-Phoenix

Oct 5, 2007, 23:54

I've read the bible many a time in the past even though i am not christian.
I think it is an interesting read, and has quote a few good messages and lessons to teach in it, however i think the main problem with the bible is that so many of its teachings can be interparated in very different ways, and this has caused many wars and deaths over its history, which has stained the religions image i think (which is a shame).

Personally, i don't feel i need the bible in my life, i have nothing against it in particular nor against those that avidly follow its teachings.
I am more interested in the words of buddhism, i find buddhism to be more specific about its messages/teachings and more relevant to the world i live in today.

IMHO All religions have a common goal in mind- they are all about a path of reaching spiritual enlightenment and inner peace. I think we need to remember, that one religion may not be as good as another for a particular individual when it comes to these goals, and because all religions have these goals in common with each other, shouldn't we show the tolerance and compassion to other religious followers that we show to our own as we are all walking the same path though using different methods/religions to reach our goals?

Mars Man

Oct 7, 2007, 00:23

As has been very well investigated and reasoned on in The Ascension of Authorship--attribution and canon formation in Jewish, Hellenistic, and Christian Traditions, by J. Wyrick, the general Jewish religious leaders of the Second Temple era, as evidenced through Josephus' works, didn't concern themselves so much, if at all, about human oralization, but rather about scribal transmission. Evidence of this can be found in the baraita (remainder) of the Tannaitic period, followed by commentary (gemara) derived from the Amoraic period (the second oldest stratum of rabbinic literature) and a little afterwards: Baba Bathra 14a-15b.

What this line of thought signifies is that somewhere way back it time, it was completely without question that the oralization had been by the god-model prescribed by later Judaism at large, via the person of source. (later being held to be 560 BCE onwards) And that from then (the time held to have been when Moses lived) it had only been a matter of proper textual transmission. It is from this tendency that the concept of 'inspired' was given birth to.

This, in turn, leads to a point where today, testing of such a claim can be made in the attitude of 'scientific method.' The point of transmission has already been shown to be, most evidently, solely a human effort. The next testing would then be the content against the 'known-to-be-true-through-the-passage-of-time-and-greater-body-of-knowledge' understanding at present.

POINT NUMBER 3 : The content of the Torah evidences mere human work.

A. Genesis starts out with what some have described as a type of poetic style. In this presentation, verses (here after vs.) 1:1~3 match vs. 1:14~18, vs. 1:6~8 match vs. 1:20~21, and vs. 1:9~12 match vs. 1:24~26. This view takes it all as being symbolic in nature as well, to the larger degree, and thus holds that there is no need to understand conflict with our better knowledge today.

The position in oppostition to that is that of what had been evidenced by the understanding of the religious leaders of old. Did they take it as being poetic in nature, or as being a literally described, and real flow of events? The key to that lies both in the seven count period, and in other texts. I will take the seven count period here.

1.The count of time periods is a straight flow, therefore the concept that takes precedence is a single block of events occuring in a linear fashion. This, in turn, shows a lack of knowledge of reality.
In verse 1:3 we have light (ohr) being brought into existence (at least as far as an observer on this planet would take it {for now}) and that it was said to distinguish 'day' (y'om) from 'night' (le'lah).

specifically, this is claiming that the 'known-to-be-so' intent by YHWH was that there were a day and a night relative to a viewer on the planet earth, from verse 5. This fact, in light of vs. 1:14~18, goes against our present knowledge, in that relative to a viewer on earth, the only light is that of the sun--the moon is not a direct source of light--and then, by the end of a third period without the sun, vs. 11, 12 are false.

One key verb here is 'put' (vs. 17a=ethen) which follows suit with usages at 1 Sam 10:4; 2 Ki 22:6; Deut 24:1,3; Gen 41:42 (which almost equals som) etc. This is because of the 'dome,' or the 'firmament,' the 'solid' structure that will be touched on next.

Mars Man

Oct 7, 2007, 23:33

3.A.1. continued. . .

In verse 6, we have the first occurence of the word firmament or expanse. M (as always, Masoretic Text) gives us raqiya which has the image of an extended solid surface. ① (cf. {=compare} Ezekiel 1:22, 23) and LXX (as always, Septuagint) renders that as stereoma.

In following the usage of that word, we can see that the understanding most likely being presented is that of a surface which divides two bodies of water,one above, and one below, and to hold the two illuminaries, the sun and the moon. This is backed up by 7:11; 8:2 with the concept of 'flood gates' of the heavens.

The creation of the firmament was said to have been in the second time period, with the gathering of the waters below the dome in the third. The creation of water nephesh (beings/creatures) was said to have made the fifth time period.

Again, to see these two as having been intended to be matching sequences of a single time-period event, the count of time periods becomes meaningless. Most likely, therefore, the intent had been to show that linear flow of individual events, in the blocks of the six creative periods.

1. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by F. Brown, S.R. Driver, and C.A. Briggs, p956; Notes On the Greek Text of Genesis--Septuagint and Cognate Studies 35 by J.W. Wevers, pp 3, 4;

Mars Man

Oct 10, 2007, 18:09

3. A. 1. continued. . .

The Greek for the Hebrew word raqiya is, recapping, steretoma and means 'a solid body; foundation,' or, as given by Thayer, 'the arch of the sky which in early times was thought to be solid.' ① As mentioned above, this understanding is backed up by the presented idea of the 'floodgates of heaven', but also by Amos 9:6. In M there we find:

we'egudatho al'erets yisaddah

Here, egudatho basically means a vault as fitted together. ② The LXX has given a very different text there, viz:

kai tin epangelian autou epi tes ges themelion

This means something to the tune of,' and the promise (of his) is on the foundation of the earth.' Here are some English translations of the relevant clause at Amos 9:6--

founded his troop in the earth (KJV)
founded his vault upon the earth (AS)
founded his vaulted done over the earth (NAS)
founds his vault upon the earth (NRSV)
over the earth he puts his dome of the sky (TEV)
and his structure over the earth that he founded (NWT) ③

Other texts which lead to the formation of the image that the early Hebrews had are at Isa. 34:4; Ps 102:25,26--see Hebrews 1:10~12.

Now here, I'd like to add some detail about vs 1: 16,17. There are some who argue that because the verb used here (iyas form of asah) is different from that of vs 1, 21, 27, and 2:3 (a form of bara) there is a difference in the meaning, so that even by having 6 linear, chronological time periods, there is no contradiction between 1:3~5 and 1: 14~19.

That argument fails on two points, usage and translation. First usage. Although the verb bara has at all times only the divine subject--YHWH, Elohim, El, etc.--the verb asah can have the divine subject too. Usage of the verb root asah (used at 1:16) can be found twice in verse 7, and 2:2, and once in verses 25, 26, 31, 2:4, 18, 3:1, 5:1 (here after bara), 6:6, 7, (after bara) Exodus 20:11; Isa 45:12; Jer 27:5, 32:17; Ps 136:5, 7...etc. thus showing it to be easily interchangeable with bara.

The Greek translation of the Hebrew text, the LXX, gives us epoiesen (which root form means 'to make' basically--as opposed to ktizo which means 'to create') at 1:1, 7, 16, 21, 25, 26, 27 (three times), 31, 2:2 (by two), 3, 4, Exodus 20:11, Isa 45:12, Jer 34:5 {which equals Jer 27:5 in M} and so on.

It is obvious that the Greek translators felt no need to distinguish any meaning nor even nuance between the the two Hebrew words. Even at Acts 4:24 and 14:15, and Romans 14:7 we find the Greek form of the verb epoiesen, so that also held true for first century CE Christians.

The conclusion here on the verb form at Gen 1:16, is that it is equal to that of 1:1, and thus carries no weight beyond or in opposition to being 'created.' The light in verses 1:3~5, had obviously been a different thing in the minds of the 'original' author and redactors of the Hebrew works, and yet, within the context, was something physical in nature to them.

I will continue with further points and conclude section A in due time. Then, in my final conclusion on this section I will tie the points together for clarity, but will only say the following for now.

All the flying nephesh are said to have been created in the fifth period, along with those of the sea. In the sixth period, all the land nephesh were said to have been brought into existence.

At Gen 2:2 it is reasoned out that by the seventh period all the creative work had been accomplished, and the period of rest had begun, or had occurred. At 2:3, the first source block of that work finishes (or rests) while another block is inserted. Now throughout there is redaction work and editing thought to be Priestly in nature, and of the last of such work on the text, but 2:4-onward for a ways is more likely a different source.

1. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell and Scott, p. 745; A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by J.H. Thayer, p587. 2. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver and Biggs, p. 8. 3. KJV=King James Version; AS=American Standard; NAS=New American Standard; NRSV=New Revised Standard Version; TEV=Today's English Version; and NWT=New World Translation.

Mars Man

Oct 12, 2007, 16:01

3. A. 1. continued. . .

The only remaining point for here (A.) is discussion of the usage of the word 'iyom,' meaning day.

Even a number of biblical literalists take the word iyom to have been used in the collective sense, as an uncountable noun. They often point to, among a couple of others, Genesis 2:4 where the word is used in that sense. The effort most often, as far as I have researched, is to show simply that the Hebrew word can be used in that sense, and thus need not be understood in the sense of a countable 'day'--as in a 24 hour period, or a 12 hour period.

While the word can be taken in the general, it is not necessary to do so unless context gives ample enough room for it. The open text appears to be showing a more literal understanding of the referent behind the word iyom as reasoned out by the following:
a. vs 4~6 show that as light is to day, darkness is to night and that the occurence of these two make a day; relative to a veiwer on earth. The literal intent is amplified somewhat by the redundant evening (ereb) and morning (bhoqer).

b. The addition of the two luminaries (vs 14~19) within the vault do not effect the process of morning and evening, nor day and night, but simply stress the distinguishing factors of the two. This wording gives further weight to the author's use of a literal 'day' as a human observer sees a 'day,' in that the constituents of verse one are not altered, yet the 'greater luminary' dominates the day (which is true to the daylight day) and the 'lesser luminary' dominates the night (which is true of the 'brighter moon'--the daytime moon being greatly subdued by the sunlight)

c. The argument supporting the need to keep the sabbath (the seventh day of their calendar week) free from work depends strongly on the example in the earlier account. The words attributed to YHWH at Exodus 20:8~11, and 31:15~17 make a much stronger connection in the mind of the writer and reader between the calendar week of seven 24 hour periods and the seven literal 24 hour days of Genesis than not.

d. Regarding the usage of the word iyom (LXX=himera) at Gen 2:4, it is used in the collective sense, but that is not the norm. In by far most cases of the usage of the base word in this sense, it is found in its plural form--and they are many. ①

Therefore, it can be seen that to the persons who had penned, or had edited the text exemplar from which the copies had come that lead to the copies upon which our recensions of today are based, as well as the earlier readers, would more likely than not have concieved of the whole linear evening and morning occurence as a literal, single calendar day. In that understanding, a week of seven days holds the pattern for the entire basis for the division of days for work, and the seventh day for rest. A literal week to a literal week.

This way of viewing what their understanding would more likely have been is based on the better of the contextual usage of the terms, and gives greater support to the postition that no supernatural superintendence led to the contents of the text. It is better supported by extra-biblical writings of old, and by the rather lateness of the understandings provided by natural science.

I will go to the next point under POINT NUMBER 3 in my next post here. Thank you for following along...and always feel free to ask, question, or debate any claims or propositions or such.

1. A Hebrew Lexicon {as given before-so from here on out BDB} pp.398~401.

Mars Man

Oct 15, 2007, 15:00

POINT NUMBER 3

B. Throughout the documents making up the Pentateuch we find explanations that reflect what had been thought to have been the case of events and occurences in the early history of the world, by those who had composed them.

In line with the previous section, which primarily deals with the six creative periods having been most likely meant to have been six literal days, this section will deal with two other reported occurences which, after investigation in the spirit of scientific method, will be found to be further evidence of mere human authorship.

1. Among the source-sections in the overall creation account, we have one area of concern, namely, the specific versus the general. In chapter one of Genesis we have as clear a chronological order of events as the language allows us to see. The order is as follows, in general:

a. light coming into a created state
b. a vault coming into a created state
c. vegetation coming into a created state
d. luminaries coming into a created state
e. water and flying animals coming into a created state
f. land animals and humanbeings coming into a created state

In chapter two we have, as clearly defined as the generality of the language allows, a single male human 'ha adam' coming into a created state without any pror intention for a female human's being created. (2:18~20, 23 ①; cf {again, cf=compare} 1:11, 21, 25)

That ha adam comes into the state of being at 2:7~9 before other nephesh, is clear enough in this secondary source-section running from 2:4 onwards for a while. The fact that the verb, as some try to make a point of, is in the imperfect state is of little concern because the imperfect state is common in the whole context so far. ②

This discrepancy not only leads to what may be a spurious injection at 5:1, but also evidences lack of knowledge--which is to be expected for humanity at that time. In the next post, I will go over the details of this.

① In verse 23, the word 'zoth' is an emphasized demonstrative pronoun, this, and 'ha pa'am' here thus carries the weight of 'now at length' or 'at last.' NWT, NRSV, TEV= at last; KJ, AS, NAS= now.　　② cf 1:1a, 19,20,22,25, etc. and note the contextual flow is clear enough in this very section. There is no need to cross compare it with the first source-section of Genesis in that there is not enough evidence for its having originally been a single context, but two separate sources compilied together.

bakaKanadajin

Oct 16, 2007, 00:17

So what you're saying is that those tasked with writing initial accounts of 'creation' were subject to certain contextual influences and, taking those into account, the 7 periods of creation would never be correctly divided into 'days'. Rather, they're successive but otherwise (as far as duration is concerned) chronologically ambiguous 'blocks'. Or are you saying they did interpret things as being on calendar day? I was a little unclear on that.

You also argue that the method of transmission is largely proven to be based on 'inspired' (as in from one person to another) written texts.

To play devil's advocate, what is the argument against saying that first person who wrote it down heard it from God?

My grasp of biblical study is non-existent. I'm afraid you may not get many specific responses or arguments from me based on the scholarly richness of your posts and my lack thereof! But, it's definitely interesting reading. You certainly know your literature.

Mars Man

Oct 16, 2007, 17:06

Oh no...!! Let me get back with you that, as I was just about the walk out the door of my office, and in going to close the PC down (and I keep a window open here most of the time when in the office) I noticed you post.

Oh no...is because I now wonder on how well I have outlined and worded what I've done so far. I will say, for the moment, that I do intend to round it all up in a conclusive statement...for point number 3...after a few more posts...but will answer your questions here, tonight. I will do that as an edit to this very post rather than create a new one.

Thank your for your thoughtfulness and your response.

That extremely concise, skeletal of an 'abstract' (if you will) for point number 3, follows immediately after that heading, in post #90. As for that stretched conclusion of 3. A. 1.in post # 93, the basic statement is as follows--leaving out the extra but necessary supplimentary information:

The evidence looked at so far (up to 3. A. 1. end) points us in the understanding that the author and redactors took the six creative periods as actual calendar days, and the seventh day of rest as one too--thus making a calendar week.

There could be something I am missing, but I think that it is, actually, your third paragraph point that I am arguing. I had hoped that that would have been clearly enough expressed in the next to last paragraph of my #93, (second paragraph after the 'Therefore,...' intro to the summary of that part...but...I must agree that my writing is not so good there. ...This way of viewing...gives greater support to the position that no supernatural superintendence led to the contents of the text.

Thank you for the compliment...at least I try to study hard. Please do ask any questions that come to mind, or correct ( or challenge ) any points or strange wordings that I sometimes do. {I recall back in freshman comp. that I was famous for run-on sentences...and maybe still am?...although I swear some books on philosophy and this very subject (biblical literature) have also done the same}

Mars Man

Oct 17, 2007, 17:38

3. B. 1. continued. . .

At Genesis 1:27 we find:

"And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God's image he created him; male and female he created them." ①

The text goes on to let us know that they, male (zakhar (which is likely rooted in the concept of something to remember) and female niqibah, are to multiply just as the nephesh of the waters and air were. (1:22--though the land animals don't have this added though. X-cf vs 24, 25)

In Hebrew, adam means both the specific male human, or mankind in general. For this reason, in the text at verse 27 we first have the singular, for the specific male human, followed by the general for both male and female.

As pointed out in post #94 above, this whole source-section runs in an most obvious linear, chronological flow. Now we can also see the agreement of conditions presented for the sexual activity of the created nephesh--logically assuming such for the land animals, as well.

In the source-section running from 2:4 we are presented with a different scenario. As touched on in #94, the male human comes into a state of being created without any intention for an complimentary sexual counterpart, and before the land animals had come into a state of being created. (vs 18~23)

a. Vs 2:5 uses adam without the definite article, giving more room for the concept of mankind, while vs 7 has ha adam as also the following verses, and the wording further indentifies a single individual having been created--such as use of the singular second person rather than plural, etc.

b. The reason given for forming the other nephesh ② (vs 19a) was the desire to not have ha adam alone (vs 18a)and thus to make a compliment helper; a female human nephesh,(vs 18b)

c. The expression presented as coming from ha adam enforces this understanding. (vs 23)

2. At Genesis 5:1a we have an introduction to the genealogy of Adam (the single individual) followed by that history starting at vs 1b. As in 1:27 Adam comes into a state of being created right along with the female while the play on the word gives room for both the single individual and the general 'mankind.'

a. Vs 1's 'asah otho' directly translates to 'made him.'

b. Vs 2's 'bira'am' directly translates to 'made them.'

Since 5:1,2 is to be taken as a part of that second source-section that runs from 2:4, we can conclude that it is likely spurious in nature in that it repeats 1:27 in opposition to 2:7~23.

Therefore, it can be seen that while holding 5:1, 2 as not likely being an original part of the 2:4~onward block, the explanation that we find in that source-section, namely at 2:7~23, was more clearly of human origin alone, in lack of our better understanding and knowledge of today.

This point 3. B., then is one point in the argument that bakaKanadajin had asked about in his #95 above. I will then continue with the next item under POINT NUMBER 3.

① Unless noted otherwise, I will use The New World Translation for English renderings. ② I may have forgotten to mention it, but the word nephesh basically equals 'the being'--otherwise rendered 'soul' in English.

Mycernius

Oct 18, 2007, 01:15

Genesis 1 and 2 and the creation of the world, universe and humans. The first of many contradictions within the bible.

Mars Man

Oct 26, 2007, 15:47

3. B. 3.

Genesis 5:1 begins a flow of 'historical origins.' While vs 1 and 2 can be concluded to be spurious, as mentioned earlier, and the whole block running from 5:1 through to 11:32 could be seen as a separate 'source-section'--though it is not necessary for the arugument to to do so. I'll take it as being an authenic portion of the source-section which begins at 2:4.

This genealogy goes along without much detail until we get to Noah. (5:29) At this point we are told of YHWH's anger over the way humans and 'nephilim' (or giants) had become, the regret of having made them, and the intention to destroy them all. This another area reflecting human understanding at the time of the story's composition.

We have noted earlier that just as the creative periods evidence having been seen as literal, 24 hour days, we know that those of that world--at least up to third century CE--took the time flow as being literal. Because of the differences among the variying texts, however, we have three general dates for the flood--the great deluge (heavenly ocean)--event.

While M, LXX, and Sam ① all agree that the flood occured when Noah was 600 years old, as does Joshephus, they disagree on how many years that had been after Adam's having come into created form.

a. M gives 1,656 years from the creation (of Adam) to the flood; LXX gives 2242 years; Sam gives 1307 years.②

b. Joshephus's work has several textual witnesses and it appears that the main number provided is 2,656, whereas 1,656 is also understood--which matches M, at least. ③

At 6:14~16 some details are given of how the box-like boat was to have been built. some 134 meters in length, 22 meters in width, and 13 meters in height. It was to contain three floors with some sort of 'roof-like' top of 'nests' at about 44.5 centemeters above the top of the hull height. This would make it--if my memory serves me well, somewhere around the size of the Titanic.

The narration goes on to tell us that 'every wild beast according to its kind, and every domestic animal according to its kind, and every moving animal that moves on the earth according to its kind, and every flying creature according to its kind, every bird, every winged creature... two by two, of every sort of flesh in which the force of life was active... male and female...went in.'

The story tells us that all living beings besides Noah and his wife, their sons with their wives, and the animals that had gone inside the ark with them, died. It also tells us that those who had gone in the boat stayed in there for about a year

This story is also simply one of human origin as can be seen when comparing it with the knowledge that we today have that the originators did not have. I will go over enough of those in my following post(s) to secue that understanding.

① M=Masoretic text (BHS), LXX=Septuagint, and Sam=Samarian text; ② Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis, by Wevers, p68; 　③ The Complete Works of Josephus, translated by Whiston, p 28

Mars Man

Nov 9, 2007, 16:00

3. B. 3. continued. . .

There will be some degree of embedding in the explanation that follows, and it will be a little detailed; for those who wish to follow along, please do so carefully, taking notice of all the points. The summary and arguments will come at the end of this point 3. B. 3.

The first thing to carefully take notice of is the order of events as they are set out in chronological order in the creation account. ①

c. In the second creative period, a division between the bodies of water, by an expanse, or dome, came into being. There were waters below the firmament, and waters above it--as discussed earlier.

d. In the third creative period, the waters which were below the expanse were collected together into what would be called seas, and the dry land would be called earth. Then, on that same day, grass, vegetation, and all plant life forms came into a state of being.

e. In the fourth creative period, the sun and moon and stars were created and put in the expanse.

f. In the fifth creative period, all the sea/water life forms and flying life forms were created.

g. In the sixth creative period, all land life forms were created, including human. Thus the conclusion at vs 2:1.

With this much laid out as a referent, for now, for some of the points to come, I will go into the presentation on those points--but it will have to wait until I get back home this evening. (Japan time) Please excuse me for this shortness here...I shall return.

① The understanding of the intention to be chronological in order, and of a literal 6, 24 hour day creation periods, has already been fairly established.

Mars Man

Nov 10, 2007, 02:25

3. B. 3. continued. . .

The first thing that allows us to determine that there was a lack of knowledge of the world, on behalf of the author(s), is that of the problem with the water volume. As shown above, the seas, and thus the sea basins were to have already been in place on the third day. Even taking plate tectonics to have occurred since that day, the volume of the oceans would not change--the weight of ice disperses its volume.

At verse 7:11 (now that's a convenient place to be) the 'springs of the vast deep' are opened, and the vaults (or trap doors) of the dome are opened, and the waters rise to a height of 15 cubits above the highest mountians. ① That means, basically, 6.7 meters above the tall mountians.

The waters would have come from above and below, as the story goes, but in that we do know now, that the earth is a sphere, it would be saying that the level of water had been that high above the sea level. That would mean a level of about 2 kilometers above sea level when taking the 'tall mountians' to be at even around 32 thousand meters above sea level. It would also mean a possible increase of 2 meters per hour, over the 40 day (and night) period.

If this had been an actual occurrence, the water would still be here on earth; as all the water that has, for the far greatest part, been here is still here. It is very clear, however, that that much water is not on, nor inside the planet, thus has never been here.

THAT...however, is not the only part of the water problem... more is to come.

①　This point (vs 7:19,20) is important in that it deducts from the general Creationist argument of a flat earth beforehand;

bakaKanadajin

Nov 10, 2007, 03:07

Mars Man my friend, I'm still reading over here, just thought I'd chime in so you didn't feel like you're selling timeshare to the homeless. I will admittedly have to sit down with this thread again and read the totality of your remarks at one time to fully grasp them, as I fear I am losing continuity due to the interludes (which of course are to be expected as the topic is large and we all have real lives to lead.) Just thought I'd pop in and respond! You certainly have a wealth of knowledge on biblical interpretation! I fear that, to no fault of your own, most who would choose to disagree with you would not be able to do so based on much more than blind faith, which is the fundamental problem with.... fundamentalists.

Mars Man

Nov 10, 2007, 11:53

Thanks for your chiming in !! It is greatly appreciated. In the process of tying it all together, it may be good, as I often do in such cases, to print out those pertinent posts, and read, underscore, or highlight (all the while making notes) them off line. It seems to really soak in so much better in that formatl. Maybe I am just too much of a caveman, though...hee, hee, hee....will be back here, on this, tonight. MM

Mars Man

Nov 10, 2007, 21:54

3. B. 3. continued. . .

Not only would the roughly 2 meter per hour incease of standing water coming from the 'springs of the deep' and rainfall needed to amount to the some two kilometers of water in 40 days, be a problem, but, if, as the Young Earth Creationists theorize to balance their view of the fossil record, all the known evidence for volcanic activity were to have happend then, along with plate movements, the temperature of the water would likely have risen to around 2700 degrees Celsius! It might have been hard to keep things so peaceful for the sea life forms in that case.

In that we far more clearly know now that not all marine life forms can survive in just any kind of water, we also can realize the impossibility of the waters being layered into strata of salt water and fresh water, so the various species could be saved.

On top of that, one proposition by the Creation Scientists is that all the sedimentary rocks were laid down and formulated within that one year period of water standing on the globe. ①

One calculation that has been provided is that there is presently 1,350,106 km3 of ocean water on earth, and 654,106 km3 of Phanerozoic sediments--this, in the scenario where the soil had been stirred up with the flooding so that it could later have settled down, would be extremely muddy water since that is close to two parts water, one part sediment. That in itself--not to mention the heat, would have been the death toll for much marine life...especially coral. (which is animal, by the way)

The next major factor which shows that this story is simply of human origin, is the lack of knowledge it displays about life forms themselves; and the fact that you'd simply never be able to get them all in that handmade boat of hewn logs.

I will continue with that part next.

① This also has problems with the claim that the mountians were pushed up during the flooding/flooded period due to their having sedimentary rock in them themselves, meaning it would have had to have been there already;

Mycernius

Nov 12, 2007, 19:17

The waters would have come from above and below, as the story goes, but in that we do know now, that the earth is a sphere, it would be saying that the level of water had been that high above the sea level.
There is a creationist fundie called Kent Hovind, you might have heard of him, who has said that there was a shell of ice surronding the planet and it melted and caused the flood. For him it explains the water above in the bible and also is a good enough explanation for other young earth creationists.
The one major problem with this is that the shell of ice would have to be very thick to have the amount of water to flood the entire planet. That means that such a shell would block all radiation from the sun, including light. Such a shell would prevent any life surviving on this planet.
The entire flood myth is very easy to disprove, but you will not sway the christian fundie.
For example there is no achaelogical evidence whatsoever of a worldwide flood. Covering the enire planet with water would kill all life within the soil, so all Noah would have been left with was a barren, sterile world. Genetic abnormalities would have been prevalent is such a small collection of animals (only two pairs of unclean and seven of clean) not to mention that the only humans to have survived would have been Noah and his immediate family, and we all know where interbreeding can lead to, banjos and webbed feet:-).
The planet would have been covered with fresh water, so all sea and ocean creatures would have died. As you can see the entire flood myth is wrought with impossibilties and contradictions and these are just a few. Sure enough apologist sites will try, badly, to explain these away, but they ignore physical laws when they want and try to re-write nature in there own twisted fundie image.

Mars Man

Nov 12, 2007, 23:12

Good points there, Mycernius. I did touch a little on a calculation for the speed of the increase of the water level--around 2 meters per hour--which would mean some pretty fast melting of that ice sphere too.

Thanks for joining in ! I'll point out a few more things on the matter of evidence for that story's not being true history, but just human imagination.

3. B. 3. continued. . .

According to the story, and as pointed out earlier, the boat was to have been pretty large, and built out of wood. It can be guestimated that building a pyramid might have been easier than building an ocean worthy boat of that size out of wood only; with possibly some metal fittings?

Now a number often thrown around for the number of animals on board, is 50, 000 (25, 000 species). Giving the Creationists the benefit of the doubt on that, even, we still run into lot of problems. Another thing is that would probably have to be up to around a million insects too.

It has been argued that the sea creatures would have had to have been on the ark as well--because, as Mycernius also highlighted, they would have died in the water. ① That point, however, I'll let that rest, just to make it that much 'easier.'

Here are some of the problems we would have:

h. Unless there were some supernatural magic performed, the eight human occupants would have a hard time keeping the birds, bats, and cats from eating any of the insects during that one year on board.

i. Since food for all the animals (including the humans) was to have been loaded up on--enough for one year for each creature--possibly some one third of those said 522 standard stock railway cars (the calculated volume of the ark) would be only for food.

j. With 50,000 animals, each human would have to feed, water and clean, about four animals a minute--and that, working 'round the clock without sleep or eating. (unless they were eating while they worked)② That would have been very hard to do on the lower decks (no lights back then) and with methane coming from natural waste, in such closed in confines, lighting a fire would very likely end in an explosion.

k. We also have to keep in mind--since it seems none of the literalist do--that in all reality, we'd have to say that all the animals (and humanoids) now extinct would have had to be on board too. The biggest problem would be the dinosaurs--in fact it's so big of a problem, that I won't even bother to bring it up here.

l. With those 50,000 animals that supposedly came of the ark (and remember that 25,000 species number is low because they say that only one of a kind is needed--you only need one horse to get a mule, a donkey, a zebra, etc.) we would have to have an extremely fast evolutionary pace in the calculated-from-numbers-in-the-Bible 4,337 years since the flood. One calculation is at a rate of about 40 per year...40 new species evolving a year. ③

m. Now with all those animals and food (which is a squeeze to on that large ship, even, but may) there is one question as to if the thing would actually float, rather than just be so heavy that it couldn't rise with the rise of water level.

n. And then last, but not least by any means (and as Mycernius hinted at too) is the fact that after forty days of super flash flood waters and torrents, and after having been under water for about one year, those poor creatures which had been cramped in that log barge for that one year, would come out to a totally barren and destroyed landscape--olive trees still standing with leaves on them? hardly.④

What we can clearly see, is the writers of that story did not have the knowledge that we do today. They did not have the experience. The story there about a flood, Noah's flood, is merely a human creation.

① In an earlier post, when talking about that, I sarcastically said it would have been 'the death toll for much marine life.' Of course this is sarcastic, because we can be very, very sure that extremely little of any kind of life form can live in water at a couple of thousand degees Celsius. ② 50,000/8 people=6,250 animals per person/24 hour day=260.41 animals per person per hour/60 minutes to the hour=4.34 animals per minute per person. ③ For beetles, that would have to be about 9.6 species a month. ④ We would also have to take into account plants like cacti, which would surely have died too--especially in water that had been a couple of thousand degrees Celcius. (I'm being a little sarcastic here too...of course at that temp, all plant life would have been gone)

Mycernius

Nov 13, 2007, 01:49

This mans (http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t) videos on youtube are very interesting to watch. See the ones on "Why do people laugh at creationists?" Up to 11 parts so far and makes some very good points on why the bible is wrong on creation. As Mars man has pointed out bronze age, nomadic tribesmen didn't have much of an idea about the universe as we have. Yet people today still think that this book is the fount of all knowledge. The question is really simple,, who would you rather believe, a superstitious bronze age tribeman who doesn't even understand the principle of thunder, or modern day science?

Mars Man

Nov 17, 2007, 00:45

POINT NUMBER 3

C. In the Pentateuch, we find statements that reflect the thinking and norms of the sub-culture that composed the documents much more than the concepts derived from objective observations of nature.

1. The first one is, actually, the calendar of seven days which came pack and parcel with the tradition that later developed from that. We can see that as the root of the creation account, the flood account①

2. Another one is that of the frame of mind that Noah was supposed to have had which led to sacrificing of a 'clean' animals for the purpose of pleasing YHWH. (Gen 8:20, 21) Sacrificing was a development particularly emphasized by Judaism, and it would be extremely hard to present evidence for it being a natural necessity for the well-being of humanity.

3. The idea that sexual contact leaves a person in an 'unclean' (thus not worthy) state is one of the Jewish religious belief-system at that time, and not a natural matter. (Ex 19:15)

4. The idea behing the command to 'not murder' (Ex 20:13) is more obviously one of the cultural element of that society at that time. It is to be noted that the verb 'to kill' is not used here--so as to indicate that there may be a reason for killing a person. (as can often enough be seen in these writings)

What can be gleaned from that is the more obvious intent to instill the idea that killing without a reason--or godly reason--is detrimental to the social state. This goes against the established fact of natural occurence that beings do kill for a reason, and the reason is established by the social groups within which that being that kills operates and/or adheres to.

5. The concept that a female's menstrual state is an 'unclean' state in the eyes of a said intelligence which is held to be responsible for such a state, is to deny the truth of nature. This is thus simply a reflection of the patriarchial social rule of that ancient society. (Lev 15:19~30)

6. The teaching that it is of greater uncleanliness to have a female baby than a male baby, is surely not a matter of universal nature. (Lev 12:1~8)

These, among others, show far much more than anything else, that the author(s) of such concepts were merely human beings...and in an very unenlightened social structure/state.

① Gen 7:4 gives us the 'in just seven more days' forumla, as well as vs 8:10, 12. This, after having weighed in all points, evidences a leaking of explicit state of mind;

Chi65

Nov 17, 2007, 05:29

Aha. . .

OK, I have to confess, it will take quite some time to go through everything here, but the basic canon is pretty clear, and I somewhat expected this from you. Why?
Well, experience of age, right?

I agree with you on many parts and had heavy and lively discussions on other forums already for longer (I am also on the RD forum, and, since I know that chap, on P. Gabriel, and others). Via one of these forums we found an interesting thread here (not this one) and that brought me here.

I am not a militant atheist, but also not a blind theist(protestant by upbringing, and simply by being lazy, not yet out of their list).
I have met people and beliefs all over the world, by the way and was always invited with respect and given some interesting parts of the puzzle.
(An uncle studied comparative religions amongst others and ended up documenting australian Aborigine language and songs, to give you an idea of the wide range)

I respect the bible as fiction, of course made by men, as you rightly said, but I can as happily join an invitation to a fine Goma and think about the image of Fudo.
If you so wish, I could make an extra thread about that experience, also in relation to the bible and the image of devil or not, hehe.

To such places I can always go back to, and we had most wonderfull and openminded talks there, and not only there. As said, for me its a puzzle, and everyone has a hint to what there really is (or not) behind.

Cheers, Mars, here is an artistic Moon/Venus, by the way, with a scientist father, after all ;-)

Mars Man

Nov 17, 2007, 10:17

Hello there, Chi65 san, and thanks for joining in! I appreciate your input although I admit I cannot follow some of the points exactly.

Anyway, if you get the time, please do try to follow through with the back-reading on this thread, so that you can add to it. What I have been doing so far, is to develope the argumentation--as you had noticed--for the observation that the Bible is merely a collection of documents composed by humans, and whatever degree of 'supernatural' input it may have, needs not reflect any modeled god by those same written works--or other noncanonical works.

Please do take note of the definition I am using for the word 'Bible' here in this thread.

The other subject you mentioned regarding Goma and Fudo, would likely be another thread, I do agree. The concepts behind them would have to spelled out more, though; I'm not so familar with them.

In the up-coming posts, I will probably go into highlighting the god model that the Hebrew Religious writings build; since it also plays a major role in understanding just what they had had in mind, and how that can be used in testing the belief-system.

Chi65

Nov 18, 2007, 07:38

Never mind, just give me time to read it all first and properly, to pay the according attention and digest it, OK?
(I think, you are doing fine!)

By the way, we have an interesting book in Germany:

"Lexikon der biblischen Irrtümer"
(from W.J. Langbein, 2006, Aufbau Verlag,
sorry, not yet translated, but easily available for Germans)

and you probably know the "God Delusion" from Richard Dawkins?

And are you also into writing such a book now?

Revenant

Nov 18, 2007, 13:12

The Bible has some very excellent advice and some very romantic stories that if believed, would be very happy paradigms. It does have some extreme similarities with earlier religions, and some laws and guidelines that don't make sense besides a 'God said so, we've got to do that'. Theology and apologetics get extremely difficult. Not an easy book to base my belief system on.... I tried.

Mars Man

Jan 13, 2008, 23:50

I have fallen so far behind with this thread, yet would like to keep it going--even though it will sift downward from time to time. I plan on eventually opening a thread which will look at the god-models drawn up by the several systems' databases, and it would be good to have this thread in the neighborhood.

I strongly urge any who have just looked in on this thread to go back and check the definition of the word 'Bible,' and the point which all this embedding is supporting.

POINT NUMBER 4: The god-model prescribed in the Masora .vs. nature

A. The most promenant aspect ascribed to the god-model of the Jewish religious system of old is that of the creation of all things--the universe. The writers of the several documents carry that tenet along, throughout the works regularly enough.

The matters which are related to natural workings--the 'book of nature' if you will--can be tested for accuracy by what we know today. The first step is to induce the described god-model, then list things that relate to the real world (natural matters, events, etc.), and then test both against what is known and knowable today. The results will show the conclusion that the works were merely written by humans to be the most secure one.

1. The god-model in the Masoretic Texts is shown as having created everything in the universe. That everything is what we can see now, and is what the authors had had before them back then, even if they were greatly ignorant on many points.

Gen 1:1~2:4; 2 Kings 19:15b; Pslm 96:5; 136:5,6; Prov 8:22-31; 16:4; Isa 42:5; Jer 27:5; 32:17; Amos 5:8; 9:6

2. The god-model is shown to have a personal name (proper noun) as well as many descriptive titles. The personal name was something along the lines of Yehweh (YHWH) which by Jewish superstition became surpressed in usage. This name is called the tetragrammaton, and appears in the text more than 6, ooo times. That the common nouns god or lord are not the personal name intended by the authors, is clear.

a. YHWH is the personal name of the god-model.
Ex 3:15b; 6:3①; 15:3; 20:24; Lev 19:12; Deut 6:4 (cf 18:19, 20); Josh 9:9; 1 Sam 20:42; 2 Sam 7:26; 1 Ki 8:16, 29; 2 Ki 23:27b; Ezra 6:12; Neh 1:9b; Job 1:21c; Pslm 5:11b; 68:4; 83:18; 135:13; Prov 30:9; Isa 25:1; 42:8; 48:9; 54:5; Jer 7:12; 16:21; 33:2; Eze 20:14; Lam 3:55; Amos 5:8; 9:6; Micah 4:5; Zep 3:9; Zec 13:9b; Mal 2:2; 3:16; etc.

I will then continue from here in the next post.

① The usage and concept behind the word 'name' must not be overlooked here. The most obviously correct understanding here is that the author intended to declare that what the name meant in actions to be taken by YHWH had not been known to the forefathers--not that the personal name had not been known. The Hebrew has eh-yeh asher eh-yeh and the LXX renders that as ego eimi ho on (to be explained later)

Mars Man

Jan 17, 2008, 23:49

4. A.

3. The god-model ( hereafter YHWH) is shown to rather freely and easily communicate with human beings, and interact with them. The scenes provide direct contact in most cases, but messenger contact on behalf of YHWH in a few.

Gen 2:16-18; 3:8-11, 13-19; 4:6,7,9-15a; 6:13-21 etc. etc.
Ex 3:4,6-10, 13-22; 4:2-12; 19:3-6, 9-13, 16-20, 24; 20:1-17, 22-24:2,3,4, 12-15; etc. etc.
Lev 1:1-3:17; 4:1-5:13; etc. etc.
Num 1:1-16; 2:1-31; etc. etc.
Deut 1:1,3,5, 6-8; 3:23-28; 5:2,4, 6-22; 6:1; etc. etc.
Josh 1:1-4; 3:7,8; 4:15,16; etc.
Judges 1:1,2; 3:9,10,15; 6:7-10; etc.

and the list goes on throughout most of the documents of that canon.

Mars Man

Jan 20, 2008, 16:24

4. A.

4. YHWH is shown to have a place of abode, in the heavens, basically, yet is capable of being in certain locations or spaces. This element does not contradict with that of having knowledge of what's happening everywhere, as also drawn out by the documents. This prescription of YHWH does, however, not support the assertion that the Jewish religious leaders of old concieved of YHWH as being omnipresent.

a. place of abode is above the heavens:
Deut 4:36; 26:15; 1 Ki 8:10-13, 49; 2 Chron 6:30; Pslm 2:4; 11:4; 80:14; 102:19; Isa 40:22; 66:1a; 63:15a

b. present in a certain and specific location:
Ge 11:5 (goes down to see Babel); 17:1 (the verb form of ra'ah (to see--and in this case passive, to be seen--can be both literal or figurative, depending on context. In this general flow it appears most likely to have been intended to be literal.) Gen 17:22; 18:1-3, 13, 17, 20, 22; Ex 3:6; 19:3, 9, 20; 33:11, 23; 40:34, 35 (cf Lev 16:2); Nu 16:42

c. knowledge is incoming to YHWH from everywhere:
2 Chron 16:9; Job 34:21; Pslm 11:4b; 66:7; Prov 15:3; Jer 16:17; Zec 4:10; etc.

d. that knowledge is perfect:
1 San 2:3c; 2 Chron 6:30b; Job 36:4; Pslm 104:24; 147:5; Jer 17:10; etc. etc.

Mito Natto

Jan 20, 2008, 23:17

Sorry to break the flow here but wanted to add my angle.

Jesus was the Solar Deity of the Gnostic Christian sect, and like all other Pagan gods, he was a mythical figure. It was the political establishment that sought to historize the Jesus figure for social control. Emperor Constantine convened the Council. It was during this meeting that the politically motivated Christian Doctrines were established and thus began a long history of Christian bloodshed and spiritual fraud.

Mars Man

Jan 21, 2008, 08:43

While being familiar with that theory, I also happen to know that evidence for it has not been such as to cause any ripple among scholars in that field--not due to any disruption that such theory may or may not cause for the general understanding about the historical figure which became the 'Jesus' that we read of in the early Christian writings, but simply because of inconclusive evidence.

That point, however, should come later...about the historical personage, Yeshua. For now I am looking at the Jewish god-model, and will get to the Christian god-model later.

Mavrek

Jan 27, 2008, 05:59

Bible is a sacred book and words of God . I am a student of bible and trying to be more religious because with out acting upon the religion life is nothing .

sabro

Jan 27, 2008, 06:06

Mavrek-- I too am a student of the Bible... I noticed you have a Pakistani flag. Are you a Christian or Muslim?

Mycernius

Jan 27, 2008, 19:22

Bible is a sacred book and words of God . I am a student of bible and trying to be more religious because with out acting upon the religion life is nothing .
I'm sorry you feel that life is nothing unless you follow a religion. As for the Bible being a sacred word of God, I think this thread is showing it up for what it really is. A collection of mystical writings from various Jewish, and Christian doctrines, which contradict each other. It is as sacred as War and Peace or The Iliad. A piece of classic literature, yes, but the word of God, no.

Half-n-Half

Jan 28, 2008, 00:25

There is a creationist fundie called Kent Hovind, you might have heard of him, who has said that there was a shell of ice surronding the planet and it melted and caused the flood. For him it explains the water above in the bible and also is a good enough explanation for other young earth creationists.
The one major problem with this is that the shell of ice would have to be very thick to have the amount of water to flood the entire planet. That means that such a shell would block all radiation from the sun, including light. Such a shell would prevent any life surviving on this planet.

I know this post is old, but it is also interesting to note a certain fact about Kent Hovind's shell of ice. Yes, even if it were possible for this shell of ice to exist and be thick enough to not melt until the flood and still have life on earth even though all the solar radiation was blocked out, *breath* there is still one fundamental problem even an amateur physicist understands. When that ice finishes melting and finally falls onto earth, it would pick up so much speed that as it went through the atmosphere it would superheat and boil off the flesh of any living being underneath it.

Kent Hovind, plain and simple, is an idiot. If anybody here is a Kent Hovind fan, I am not sorry for that comment. However, I try not to use Kent Hovind as an example against ALL Christians because most Christians are sane and moderate. 99% of my friends are Christians and they are all very nice, intelligent people who would never buy this load of crap.

sabro

Jan 28, 2008, 01:11

As for the Bible being a sacred word of God, I think this thread is showing it up for what it really is. A collection of mystical writings from various Jewish, and Christian doctrines, which contradict each other. It is as sacred as War and Peace or The Iliad. A piece of classic literature, yes, but the word of God, no.

I don't think this thread does anything of the sort... neither somehow "proving" that it isn't the "sacred Word of God" nor demonstrating contradictions. At most it shows that there is a disparate variety of modern opinions regarding a collection of very old writings, which some still hold as sacred.

Mycernius

Jan 28, 2008, 04:27

I did say I think, but my approach to the bible is that of an atheist. Maybe I am a little more objective about it, as I see it as myth, the same way as I view the Qu'ran, Vedic texts, etc. As an insight to the history of mans developing beliefs it is there to be studied, but it must undergo the same critical anaylsis you would give to Greek, Egyptian and Romans myths. Because it is not yet a dead religion, Christianity, along with Islam and other living religions, will have people defending the book as sacred and true, in some cases to the point of stupidity *cough* Kent Hovind*cough*, which can distort and even, especially in the case of Islam, and even worse Scientology, block and threaten anyone who examine the religion in a more acedemic light without letting God come into it.
You can do this with myth as they are now dead religions with no-one to object to "insulting" their faith. I do think in 2000 years time Christianity and Islam will have either go the way of Roman beliefs or morphed into something very different from what people use today. Christianity is not the same as it was during St. Augustines times, Judaism is not the same as it was 3000 years ago, and Islam is not the same as it was when Muhammad died.

Glad to see you back into discussions Sabro san:-)

Mars Man

Jan 28, 2008, 14:59

Nice to see you coming 'round, sabro, yes indeed. I might add, gentlemen, that we could say the evidence presented so far is clearly on track with a single projectory course, unless, of course, more secure evidence from what has been presented so far, with what will be presented over the course of the yet-to-be-filled-out part, could more objectively secure a different understanding of the data plots on the graph.

I wish, at times, that it could be laid out more quickly, but I'm afraid I don't have that much time on my hands, and in fact, going too fast would not be as productive anyway. I'll try to keep working at a fair pace here--and just in case, let me say here that this is all embedding along the lines of as exhaustively as possible supporting the conclusion I had given earlier.

No one, not a single person, scholar nor novice, can say with any degree of validity whatsoever, that something like this can be done in even a single volume. Let's enjoy the discussion and presentation. I would suggest that parameters of terms, and definitions be kept in mind here. For that reason would suggest looking at (if not done so already) earlier posts on what 'Bible' means here, and, at this point, what comparisons are being made--or, in other words, the control and the tested. I'll be back soon enough.

sabro

Jan 29, 2008, 01:45

Normally, I would be the last to tell you two gentlemen that things are relative and need to be judged on terms relative to what you are studying. There is however a need to bring this discussion into some relative context, and to demonstrate from my perspective why this particular exercise lacks validity.

As an Athiest, it doesn't give you a more "objective" view of the text, it gives you a different bias. This might explain why your "critical analysis" of what may seem to be a ridiculous belief set of even a person like the Kent Hovnid you mentioned is more a statement of your own personal values than a rational and objective assessment of what his beliefs are and how they function. Beliefs don't exist in a vacuum, nor do they exist without reason. That in any analysis of any belief system one would examine the context of the system, and the reasoning and functions of that system... not simply judge that system against their own and find it wanting. I'm not certain this is a valid as an expression of judgment.

What we have done here is to set up a series of parameters... cardboard constructs... based upon judgments and expectations... and then conveniently knocked them down... showing how in the construct they don't meet the judgments and expectations. Again, an interesting exercise that says more about your values than what you are examining.

The parameters you should be examining and the angle that should be evaluated are the external strictures set up by the belief system within itself. You can't impose some artifice nor shift the definition of terms but have to look at the context.

Other than that, St. Augustine remains relevant and widely read to Christians even in the 21st century.

sabro

Jan 29, 2008, 02:13

But back to topic... the original question: I read the Bible frequently, I study it intently. I find it relevant, applicable, instructive, and meaningful. It has enriched my life and I continue to find richness and beauty in its pages.

The Christian Bible is a collection of books written by a variety of mostly Jewish authors over a period of a couple of thousand years. It is usually divided into Old Testaments (39 Books) and New Testaments (27 Books) with most containing a third section of Deuterocannon or Apocrypha (7 books). The current arrangement developed during the early centuries of Christianity at a series of synods and councils.

Evangelical Christians regard the Bible as Scripture, as the inerrant Word of God. Authored by men (and a couple of women) through the inspiriation of the Holy Spirit. In several places the Bible identifies the person of Jesus closely with the "word". It is also identified as daily bread and spoken of as more important than food. 2 Timothy 3:16 reads "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." So the reading of the Bible by Christians is not only encouraged, but usually viewed as essential to healthy spiritual growth.

Mariat_San

Jan 29, 2008, 02:45

...

First; define objectively: 'God'
I'm more of an atheist and I'm not searching any religion.
For me, Bible, Koran,... all of those religious books are more than rulez and exsamples, how to live a good and happy life, if you do, what is written in there. (somehow, seems more like brainwashing to me, but just keep it objective)
There are so many of religions, that everyone can search and pick up his own... like in a supermarket^^

However, I'm not searching, because it's a pitty of wasted time. (my opinion)
I just live my life, because I believe, life itself is the reason we live!
(check it?^^)
I'm very openminded about religions, because every culture has it own religion and that makes that culture unique... and so far it doesn't harm anybody, it's ok - i think.
PS: ... and all those wars, carried 'in the name of god' (so some fanatics says) are jsut cheap excuses. There is no religion I know, which tells to harm other people. It's just the humans, who care the responsibility of their doings.

(PS: just for the record: The question was: 'What do you think about the bible')

Mycernius

Jan 29, 2008, 06:01

Please, please tell me Sabro san you don't believe in what Kent Hovind spouts? YE creationism is bad science, pure and simple. It is literalists of the bible who don't like the fact that modern research shows that biblical creation is wrong. I wouldn't object so much if fundamentalist Christians would look on it as allergorical in Genesis rather than true history. It is as bad as flat earthers sticking to their theory when all evidence shows them to be wrong.

sabro

Jan 29, 2008, 07:54

What Kent Hovind spouts isn't science at all... and I think that many of my Christian brethren that indulge in the pseudo science of creationism are misguided.

and rather that beleive that "modern research" shows that "biblical creation is wrong" The Bible isn't a science book. It pre-dates any idea of scientific methodology by a millenia and a half. I think you are compairng two disparate types of work. On the other hand, if you are a literal fundamentalist, you need not believe that the tale given in Genesis is entirely allegorical.

Mars Man

Feb 3, 2008, 22:12

4. A.

5. The Masoretic text describes YHWH as a god which demands exclusive devotion. The term also gives rise to the concept or emotion of jealously. YHWH may be patient a little at times, but cannot retain anger very long against those followers of his who stray from worshipping him. (I use masculine here because the Hebrew does--YHWH is without mistake male)

Ex 20:5; 32:7-10, 30-35; 34:14-18; Num 25:11-13; Deu 3:23-26 (connect with 32:48-51) 5:9; 6:15; 13:1-18; 18:20b; Josh 24:19; Judges 2:2, 3, 11, 12, 17; 3:7, 8; (plus many more in this document) 2 Sam 6:7; Pslm 106:28-31, 35-43; Isa 51:17-20; Jer 29:16-19a; Eze 13:3; Mic 5:15; Na 1:2; Zec 13:3; etc.

YHWH is the only ever true god--forever.

Deu 4:35; 6:4; 1 Sam 2:2; Pslm 40:25-28; 41:21-24; 42:5-8; 43:1, 3, 12, 13; 44:6-8; 45:5-7, 18, 21, 22; Hos 13:4; 14:1

It would be in line to point out here, that YHWH is not presented as denying that humans have and worship other gods, but that those gods are non-realities, figments of the imagination.

Ex 18:11; 20:23; 22:20; 23:32; 33:14, 15; Judges 2:11, 12, 13, 17; 6:10; Isa 37:38; etc. etc. etc.

Next I will go into some more emotional aspects of the personality of YHWH, beyond that seen here--anger and possessiveness (jealously).

sabro

Feb 4, 2008, 03:12

I would agree that this represents a tenable biblical theology. It is the common theology presented by most protestant evangelicals.

Mars Man

Feb 4, 2008, 10:24

Yes, I would strongly reason so, since, in fact, it is coming straight from the Masoretic texts themselves, and thus represents the raw god-model prescribed to YHWH. As I go on, the model will fill out a little more.

Absynthia

Feb 28, 2008, 01:17

What do I think of it? It's just a book. Like Harry Potter :)

Pachipro

Feb 28, 2008, 02:19

I confess that I have not read the whole thread, but will answer based on the topic and what I have learned and researched.

The bible ( at least the Old Testament) is almost a literal translation of the Sumerian texts, which are the oldest known writings on earth today and date back more than 6,000 years.

A little more research and putting on one's Conspiracy hat one comes to learn that the Old Testament is indeed a literal translation of those texts with a few flourishes thrown in here and there to make one think it is a divine scripture.

Further putting on the "C" hat one may come to believe that there was indeed an advanced civilization that came to this planet and through DNA manipulation crossbred the hominid species of this planet, along with the DNA of with those who "descended from heaven (the skies)" and made us "In their image" to be their slaves and do their work for them and that was mining gold in Africa so that they may disperse it through thir atmosphere to "save their planet".

Once we became intelligent enough, they then gave us some of their beliefs or "religions" if you will. The only problem was that "they" were fractured and fought among themselves and fought also for their territory and their beliefs as the world at that time was divided among themselves and they fought for control. (look at the ancient Greek plays and such for what I am referring to here.)

Each region was taught that theirs was the true "god" (as we mere mortals perceived them who could outlive us) and that the other region or "god" was not the true "god". And the fighting for control and supremacy of this planet ensued to this very day.

That is the main reason why we have so many religions and faiths. They are still fighting among themselves today for control of this planet with the main crux being the Middle East where they first landed and where the Garden of Eden and the beginnings of man were supposed to be!

Could this be all a crock and a bunch of BS? Maybe so. But the Ancient Sumerian texts and their translations say something different and I believe in the ancient translations.

Where did they go? I have no idea. Maybe their planet was eventually destroyed or died and these so called "fallen angels" were left here or maybe exiled here to live out their life and we are their pawns or "souls" put here to learn and to see if we succumb to the 7 deadly sins or to rise above them and maybe advance in this strange universe of ours. I don't know.

But what I do know and believe is that we are here for a purpose and those that strive to control this planet have been and always will be here. It is up to us to decide the true path and which path we will follow and only then will our souls advance to the "next level".

People like Richard Hoagland have said that maybe the Book of Revelations should be the first book of the Bible instead of the last. I tend to agree with him here as I believe there was an advanced civilization on this plant way befor ours and they may just have nearly destroyed themselves and it has taken them 2008 years to get back to maybe where they were once before.

Crazy hypothisis I know, but it is something I believe.

Therefore, IMO, the bible is nothing but a flacid recreation of a past world that already existed on this planet and somehow destroyed themselves in the Book of Revelations.

Call me crazy or what-have-you, but google some of the things I have written about and you too may just say, "this couldn't be true, but it seems so".

Thanks for letting me rant here and expressing opinions which 99% of people may never believe, but which I believe for the most part until I come across something that proves otherwise.

yumeitsumo

Feb 28, 2008, 22:53

I think the bible is a freakin' game sometimes. It's been edited so many times: There's no telling what it said originally. It's like that game telephone. Also it's so difficult to understand sometimes.

Mitsuo

Mar 1, 2008, 11:17

Well, I have answered this in another thread. But I will repeat.

I believe that the bible is nothing more than a book of morals and lessons that was meant to set a foundation for societies to obey the laws under the pretense of going to hell if those laws weren't obeyed. The bible is genius! Seriously though, what a great way to control people! Strike fear in people, that'll do it!

緑さん

Mar 1, 2008, 13:05

Looking around i can see that there is alot of strong emotion in this post on both sides... All i can say is, there's alot of innacurecy... And i'm not reffering to the bible... Mostly that from random people entering... Though, simply, i will say to the person speaking of christian pseudo-science, there is much anti-religious pseudo-science as well. Often, one can't be genuinely sure that results come from true science and were not from suggestion interpreting a result. Though, i can't understand how anything involving the past can be science, since science is testable, but the past cannot be directly tested, therefor science of the past must be speculation...

Mars Man

Mar 2, 2008, 00:52

Though, i can't understand how anything involving the past can be science, since science is testable, but the past cannot be directly tested, therefor science of the past must be speculation...

And the fault of that argument is that while it is true that the past cannot be tested, the principles of nature can, and have been, and thus lead to conclusions which can be applied so as to understand claims made about the past. That's how it is relevent and is used to test 'the past.'

Goldiegirl

Mar 2, 2008, 00:57

made of stone

Mar 2, 2008, 04:32

Pachipro, I get what you are saying. If you really look at the bible, everything comes out of the sky. When you read some of the accounts it sounds like aliens visiting our planet. I once thought that sounded crazy, but now I am not so sure.

As is so often the case, Pachipro's post was hugely readable and interesting. And, although this is one of his vapour trails of thinking that differ greatly from my own, he's certainly a gentleman I'd love to share a long chat with over a cool beer (preferably outside, at night under the stars, around a blazing fire, and perhaps a peace pipe should be passed around too!) :beer:

Pachipro's post reminded me, perhaps partly indirectly, of a documentary shown here in the UK in the last year or two. It visited the area where the book of Revelation was quite likely written, and presented a convincing argument that it may very well have been conceived under the influence of 'magic' mushrooms. If you think about it, that would certainly explain a lot of the imagery!

Throughout history, many of the 'holy' or 'enlightened' or 'mystic' figures of different communities or societies - those who offer some way to the divine side of things; spiritual guidance, as well as healing - have been those who offered or controlled access to mind-expanding substances. We can still see this today in many spots around the world - the gurus in India, the medicine men of South America and elsewhere, in Rastafarianism, the elders in the native American tribes (what is left of them)...

Although consciousness-expanding plants aren't a part of western religion anymore, I personally have no doubt at all that some of these natural, organic (but extremely powerful) compounds very well could have played a role in the early days of some, if not all, of the major religions (and also might explain some of the recorded ancient interactions with aliens!)

For me the Bible's a wonderful book full of insight and lessons to be learnt, experimented with personally, where I feel it's valuable, and in some cases rejected completely. Imvho, part of it is history, many parts story. And most of it we have only a faint understanding of the circumstances it was written in, the writers themselves, and of course their states of mind (and any means by which they had 'expanded'/altered their consciousnesses!)

I do have my own belief and vision of 'god', through both instinct and experience, and like many here in the UK see myself as spiritual rather than religious.

peace to all :)

Pachipro

Mar 3, 2008, 15:55

As is so often the case, Pachipro's post was hugely readable and interesting. And, although this is one of his vapour trails of thinking that differ greatly from my own, he's certainly a gentleman I'd love to share a long chat with over a cool beer (preferably outside, at night under the stars, around a blazing fire, and perhaps a peace pipe should be passed around too!) :beer:

Ty you for the kind words MOS. There are a few others with differing, interestiing opinions here on JRef, like MM for one, that I would love to sit around a fire with one night over a few beers and toss around our opinions. I think it would make for a fantastic discussion. And a "peace pipe" would be most welcome. All opinions are acceptable as no one as yet proved one way or another. I tend to lean though towards findings and writings that are ignored, rather than studied, by learned scholors and institutions today and ask why.

Throughout history, many of the 'holy' or 'enlightened' or 'mystic' figures of different communities or societies - those who offer some way to the divine side of things; spiritual guidance, as well as healing - have been those who offered or controlled access to mind-expanding substances. We can still see this today in many spots around the world - the gurus in India, the medicine men of South America and elsewhere, in Rastafarianism, the elders in the native American tribes (what is left of them)...

Although consciousness-expanding plants aren't a part of western religion anymore, I personally have no doubt at all that some of these natural, organic (but extremely powerful) compounds very well could have played a role in the early days of some, if not all, of the major religions (and also might explain some of the recorded ancient interactions with aliens!)

I have no arquments with you here mos and it may well have been used much as they are still used today, legally, in the US by certain Indian tribes. Substances like peyote and "magic mushrooms" for example.

To go any further on this would be getting off the topic and into a discussion of legalizing drugs. I've always wondered as to why the "powers that be" (both now and in the past) strictly forbid the use of mind expanding and altering substances. There's something they don't want us to see or experience. But they have no qualms about offering us, in a heartbeat, an anti-depressent or other drug that does quite the opposite in that they numb the mind.

Pachipro, I get what you are saying. If you really look at the bible, everything comes out of the sky. When you read some of the accounts it sounds like aliens visiting our planet. I once thought that sounded crazy, but now I am not so sure.

Many "learned" people and skeptics have derided and put down the writings of Zecharia Sitchin when he wrote his Earth Chronicles series of books beginning with "The 12th Planet" in which he lays out what is written in the hundreds and hundreds of ancient Sumerian stone tablets and why the bible mentions the Nefilim and those that "came down from the skies" and those that mated with the daughters of men.

He translates exactly how the solar system was created and why we have the planets we have and how the earth was created. If what he translated was honest, and I believe it is, how did the ancient Sumerians know 6,000 years ago that there are nine planets as is depicted in their drawings and that neptune was the shade of blue/green it is?

He translates how and why the pyramids were made and why Mars lost its atmosphere when the planet next to it exploded creating the asteroid belt.

Someone of some vast superior intelligence must have been able to create the pyramids as modern man is unable to do so today even with the aid if the best computers! They didn't just appear out of nowhere.

Even our best machinery today would not be able to lift even one block in the pyramid so I wish the modern scholors and intstitutions today would stop feeding the line of BS that they were built by slaves by an ignorant Egyption civilization for to admit that would be admitting that they were vastly superior to us in all aspects and had access to technology that we can't even comprehend. The Japanese tried some years ago recreating it and were unsuccessful in moving even one block of similar size any significant distance.

He translates the name of the first human/alien hybred as being called "The Adamu". All the rest of his translations have been carefully linked with the old testament, including Cain and Abel, Abraham and the burning bush and the sacrificing of his son, Noahs Ark and why there would be a flood, etc, etc. as these people and experiences actually happened, but not through some divine power we are told is God. Coincidence? Hardly. Someone does not want us to know our true past.

His book, Divine Encounters, clearly lays out the tablets vs the Old Testament wonderfully. After one reads this book, they cannot but help walk away bewildered and wondering if we are being taught the truth about our history and origins. The skeptics and

It's when I read things like this that the establishment completely pooh-poohs and ignores that I become suspicious of what I am being told to believe as these are the greatest writings ever uncovered and tell us our true origins. Skeptics and Institutions (and those that control them) completely ignore the ancient Egyption and Hebrew writings found in the southwest United States at the beginning of the 20th century along with the bones and remaining red hair of giant humans who were over 9 ft tall. And not just in the US, but in the UK and many other countries around the world. They are just locked away never to be seen again and ignored and not discussed.

Don't get me wrong here, the bible is filled with great teachings and shows, in some respects, the proper way to live and should be followed to a certain degree, but imo is not a true account of the creation of man by a divine power called God. As much as they want us to believe it, after reading all of Mr. Sitchin's books, I cannot go down that road.

Mycernius

Mar 4, 2008, 01:47

He translates how and why the pyramids were made and why Mars lost its atmosphere when the planet next to it exploded creating the asteroid belt.
Mars does still have an atmosphere. It is not as thick as the earths because the planet is not large or dense enough to produce a sufficient gravity field to hold onto a thick atmosphere. Also recent studies tend to think that the asteroid belt was never a planet, there is not enough material. If it was all collected together it would be a 'planet' less than 1/1000 the size to the earth. More likely the remains of the formation of the solar system, as are comets, the Kuniper belt and the Oort cloud.

Someone of some vast superior intelligence must have been able to create the pyramids as modern man is unable to do so today even with the aid if the best computers! They didn't just appear out of nowhere.

Even our best machinery today would not be able to lift even one block in the pyramid so I wish the modern scholors and intstitutions today would stop feeding the line of BS that they were built by slaves by an ignorant Egyption civilization for to admit that would be admitting that they were vastly superior to us in all aspects and had access to technology that we can't even comprehend. The Japanese tried some years ago recreating it and were unsuccessful in moving even one block of similar size any significant distance.
Incorrect. It has been shown on several occasions that it is possible to build a pyramid using the tools and technology of the 25th dynasty. Even done on a BBC2 programme. Plus there is a definite evolution of pyramid construction, cumulating with the pyramid of Cheops. Also fairly recent discoveries of construction ramps next to the pyramids at Giza.
http://guardians.net/hawass/pbuildrs.htm