Author Topic: the Bible...  (Read 633 times)

Jay ay Beee

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4986
  • Karma: -122
  • One of the Greatest Moments in Football History
Re: the Bible...
« Reply #25 on: August 01, 2002, 10:57:18 AM »
A lot of the Old Teastament is plain stupid

Adam and Eve etc

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by 1034398800 »
 

Maestro Minded

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4281
  • Karma: -38
Re: the Bible...
« Reply #26 on: August 01, 2002, 10:57:20 AM »
Quote
Who wrote the Qu'ran?


Qu'ran is the words of God... you may search for contradictions there if you want
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by 1034398800 »
 

Sikotic™

  • Moderator
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28701
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • Karma: 3136
  • PussyCunt
Re: the Bible...
« Reply #27 on: August 01, 2002, 10:58:24 AM »
Quote


hm....

not "maby"... rather "definatly"....


but ok... in that case thing are clear...


I beg to differ because the Gospel books are all pretty much identical. Some books go into more details about different parts of Christ's life. The Bible has been proven to be historically accurate and its pretty hard for men to lie.

I think you trippin over three or four grammatical errors or words is absolutely ridiculous.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by 1034398800 »
 

Jay ay Beee

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4986
  • Karma: -122
  • One of the Greatest Moments in Football History
Re: the Bible...
« Reply #28 on: August 01, 2002, 10:59:11 AM »
Who penned his words for him?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by 1034398800 »
 

The_Retarded_Moron

  • Guest
Re: the Bible...
« Reply #29 on: August 01, 2002, 11:01:12 AM »
Quote
i got a couple question i want cleared out... and like always: all beef gets ignored...

who came up with the name "Bible", because theres no place in the book its name have been written... so its obviously a human that made up the name... and now when the Bible IS a holy book... how come that God didnt give it a name?



- the word bible is derived from "biblios", the Greek word for book.
- Yes, it was written by man.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by 1034398800 »
 

The_Retarded_Moron

  • Guest
Re: the Bible...
« Reply #30 on: August 01, 2002, 11:06:56 AM »
Quote
The (Christian) Bible is just a collection of religious articles collated by the Catholic Church, many hundreds of years ago, into a single book form. The individual chapters where just written as historical records by normal men e.g. Moses, King Solomon etc.


no. they were written by monks.

Quote

No idea why they chose the name "Bible" but they did. (Why did the Jews called theirs the Torah?)


Torah = Law = Hebrew word.

Quote

God didn't give it a name because God didn't write it, nor did he directly ask for it to be written.


;D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by 1034398800 »
 

.:R-E-L:.

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1506
  • Karma: 0
  • R-E-L...comin w/ that punk rap!  
Re: the Bible...
« Reply #31 on: August 01, 2002, 11:16:15 AM »
Quote
A lot of the Old Teastament is plain stupid

Adam and Eve etc




thats just fuckin ignorant and fucked up....that comment is complete bullshit....

i cant believe u would say some bullshit like that!!!

if u knew anything....Both the Old and New Testemants have stories that teach us....Adam & Eve is one of those stories....

in short...FUCK U!!!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by 1034398800 »
Straight Outta Muthafuckin So. Kaliforn-i-a
909 805 310 323 213 818 661 949 714 609 415 619 562
 

The_Retarded_Moron

  • Guest
Re: the Bible...
« Reply #32 on: August 01, 2002, 11:19:25 AM »
Quote

The Bible is about God and is a history of the world and how God created it, and in that sense is a Holy Book.


It's about man.

Quote

Christians should by definition believe the Bible as otherwise they're not Christians. i.e. You don't just decide one day to be a Christian and then start to read the Bible to find out what it says, you read the Bible first and if you understand and believe it you join your chosen religion.


no. Christianity is about choice. You may choose which way to take. You're not forced to take a certain way.

Quote


Whether or not the Bible contains "wrong information" it's really up to you to determine that for yourself. God did not proof read the Bible and as the chapters were written by normal people they may have made normal mistakes so it could contain errors. However, you can use various historical sources to cross reference Biblical stories and make a decision as to whether or not they are true. Also, you have to assume that people who wrote the original religious texts had good intentions and were not deliberatly trying to mislead people by lying to them. So they would have tried their best to be accurate. In the end religion is about faith and there is no proof of the existance of a God so the question you really need to ask is "Do you believe the stories are correct?".


30 years ago we would have got into trouble if we used words like "wanka" or "cocksucker" in public. Today it's "rather normal". Language changes. The bible was written a few thousand years ago. These people used a different language. They used different images ("mythos") to describe their experiences with God and their environment. Is it correct? Some things are, some things are not. It depends on the people who wrote down a particular passage etc.

Quote

To be honest one should never claim to be a Christian without reading the Bible (and the same goes for other religions and their related religious texts) because you're just being told to believe something that may or may not be correct.


true, but you need some basic knowledge.

Quote

For example, where was Jesus born? In a stable perhaps? But where in the Bible does it actually say he was born in a stable? Almost all Christians seem to go around with the belief that there was "no room at the inn" and thus Jesus was born in a stable but this is not mentioned in the Bible. So don't accept things at face value just because someone tells you something is true.


Jesus was most probably born in Nazareth.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by 1034398800 »
 

The_Retarded_Moron

  • Guest
Re: the Bible...
« Reply #33 on: August 01, 2002, 11:21:05 AM »
Quote
Google strikes again...found this info:


The Origin and Meaning of the Word Bible
The word Bible is a literal translation of the Greek word biblos (inner bark of the papyrus plant). Many ancient writings were on rolls of papyrus from which comes the word “paper.” Such a roll was called a biblion and contained only one book. The plural of biblion is biblia, which passed over into Latin as singular and came to mean Bible.


So "Bible" literally means a collection of paper rolls or ancient books.


damn, I didn't read this one.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by 1034398800 »
 

Sikotic™

  • Moderator
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28701
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • Karma: 3136
  • PussyCunt
Re: the Bible...
« Reply #34 on: August 01, 2002, 11:24:50 AM »
Jesus lived in Nazareth, but was born in Bethlehem.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by 1034398800 »
 

The_Retarded_Moron

  • Guest
Re: the Bible...
« Reply #35 on: August 01, 2002, 11:29:01 AM »
no. that's a myth. He was most probably born in Nazareth.I had the pleasure(?) to study theology at university for about 3 terms thus I know what I'm talking about.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by 1034398800 »
 

Jay ay Beee

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4986
  • Karma: -122
  • One of the Greatest Moments in Football History
Re: the Bible...
« Reply #36 on: August 01, 2002, 11:42:04 AM »
Quote



thats just fuckin ignorant and fucked up....that comment is complete bullshit....

i cant believe u would say some bullshit like that!!!

if u knew anything....Both the Old and New Testemants have stories that teach us....Adam & Eve is one of those stories....

in short...FUCK U!!!!


Calm it

I know what you're sayin man, about the stories, but my point is that it didn't actually happen.  Some people will not recognise the fact that it teaches something, and instead will see it as a lie.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by 1034398800 »
 

.:R-E-L:.

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1506
  • Karma: 0
  • R-E-L...comin w/ that punk rap!  
Re: the Bible...
« Reply #37 on: August 01, 2002, 11:45:41 AM »
Quote


Calm it

I know what you're sayin man, about the stories, but my point is that it didn't actually happen.  Some people will not recognise the fact that it teaches something, and instead will see it as a lie.


well jews believe it did happen!!!!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by 1034398800 »
Straight Outta Muthafuckin So. Kaliforn-i-a
909 805 310 323 213 818 661 949 714 609 415 619 562
 

Jay ay Beee

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4986
  • Karma: -122
  • One of the Greatest Moments in Football History
Re: the Bible...
« Reply #38 on: August 01, 2002, 11:49:44 AM »
That's a hot debate right now and you have a right to your opinion

It's Science vs Religion

I'm a catholic and I don't think it happened
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by 1034398800 »
 

Don Seer

Re: the Bible...
« Reply #39 on: August 01, 2002, 09:16:14 PM »
its not a hot debate now, its always been one.

people have been killed on both sides for saying less.

hows this for an angle.
the adam&eve story may well be based on an older oral tradition that was changed like a  'chinese whisper' before it was codified (written down).
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by 1034398800 »
 

Trauma-san

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16639
  • Karma: -231
Re: the Bible...
« Reply #40 on: August 02, 2002, 07:42:02 AM »
^^^ Exactly.

Moses wrote the first 5 books of the bible.  Moses wasn't around when adam was... lol.  So it's impossible for Moses to have first hand information about what God said to Adam, and Eve, he only wrote down what he understood, and what Jews and perhaps even God himself told or showed him.  The story of Adam and Eve, in my opinion, happened, but if you find flaws with it, it's flaws of men, not god, lol.  

Yall miss the point, that god is by DEFINITION perfect, anything good you can think of to the highest power.  So you can't say "god messed up" or whatever, about ANYTHING, because by definition, it's impossible.  

The gospels differ because they were written several, several years after Jesus's death.  The disciples went out teaching his word, for years after the ressurection, and as they neared the end of their life, put to paper what had transcribed.  Some of the gospels were written with help from the OTHER gospels, too... so say for instance, the book of Luke may have already been written, by the time John wrote his account, so he could refresh his memory with what Luke had written (I'm not sure about those two books, but you get the idea).  

Also, the books were originally in Hebrew, then Greek, etc. etc. So, when King James rolled around, he decided that there was no good english translation.  He had 6 crews of Scholars translate 6 different languages of the bible into english.  The head of each team met with the head of the other teams, finally, and decided together what the most correct translation of each verse was.  Lots, Lots, Lots was lost in the translation, and even though the 6 teams may have been divinely inspired at the time, they still probably made thousands of mistakes.  

The bible probably does have some wrong information, 1 for instance is that in Genesis it doesn't mention adam and eve having daughters, but yet at one point Seth is married.  To who?  Just little stuff like that.  On the other hand, the bible is FULL of material that just blows your mind if you sit down and read it... the old testament of course is a record of people back to the original man, Adam, and the creation of the world.  It follows the hebrews through time, up until when the building of Solomon's temple, awaiting the arrival of the saviour, there are also lots of prophecies about the future... the old testament predicted Christ's coming.

Then of course, the new testament is a record of the prediction of the lamb's arrival coming true.  With the new testament, we can read what Jesus taught, etc. and all the things surrounding that.  At the end of the New Testament you have Revelation, which basically is like "Hey, the old testament predicted christ, and that came true.  This testament is gonna predict the second coming of christ, and that's gonna come true too".

That's how it works.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by 1034398800 »
 

Maestro Minded

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4281
  • Karma: -38
Re: the Bible...
« Reply #41 on: August 02, 2002, 11:45:26 AM »
so the guys wh wrote the new testament were just normal guys who could have gotten the wrong information´, and they had no connection with God?? ... does that mean that we can expand the Bible and add "The Third Testament" with more informations and sagas?? if "no",, why not?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by 1034398800 »
 

Nostromoo

  • Lil Geezy
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Karma: 0
  • Ermintrude is my mum
Re: the Bible...
« Reply #42 on: August 02, 2002, 01:16:12 PM »
Quote

no. they were written by monks.

Don't get confused. The KJV was not the first Bible produced, it was the first English Bible. The first Bible WAS commisioned by Catholic Rome. Anyway, most Monks are Catholic anyway and actually King James might have been too. But I digress...

A lot of you of you seem to understand the Bible quite well. By Bible I'm talking about the Christian old+new testaments. And by understand I mean you don't just blindly take it at face value and are willing to question aspects of it that don't seem right.

Yes, the Bible is full of inconsistancies. To be honest I've neither the time nor the inclanation to list them all or argue them. But as an example, take the genealogy of Christ as described in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. They both claim to describe Joseph's family line but they are both totally different. Whether or not one is actually Mary's family (as I've heard claimed) is irrelevant as this is not stated in the Bible. Therefore, there is an inconsistancy. If you actually sit down and read the book, preferably from the orginal Greek and Hebrew, you will see these mistakes. You don't need specialist knowledge, you just need to be able to read and have access to a library. There's also the Internet!

It's not just mistakes in the original documents but also in the translations. Although translators may have tried their best, who's to know if the translations are perfect? When the original texts were written, some words had more than one meaning so who's to say the correct meaning has been used or correctly interpreted? For example consider the "no room at the Inn" told to us in Luke 2.7. The original word for Inn is translated elsewhere in both Luke and Mark as a large upper room in a house. Even Matthew (2.11) states when the Wise Men found Jesus they were in a house. So where did the nativity story with them living in a stable come from? (Please don't tell me the answer because I already know).

But of course there are bound to be mistakes in the originals anyway. Most of the books were written years after the events they depict. Even the calendar didn't change to A.D. until almost 500 years after Christ died and the wrong start date was probably chosen - as most scholars put the death of Herod the Great at 4BC and seeing as he was reportedly alive when Christ was born then the birth must have been before that.

The point I'm trying to make is that the Bible is a small book, made of sources written in more than one original language, over thousands of years, sometime many years after the events depicted, and in some cases translated again into another language. Ironically the people of the time did not have as good a grasp of history as we do today as they did not have access to the resources (in terms of reference material) we have. In addition a lot of the Bible is written metaphorically and isn't intended to be taken literally. So you can't just read the Bible and say that everything in it is right and true. There is no such thing as "Gospel Truth" as the Gospels quite clearly are not 100% true. You have to be skeptical at frst, read other history books and you can work out what is right and what is wrong.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by 1034398800 »
 

The_Retarded_Moron

  • Guest
Re: the Bible...
« Reply #43 on: August 02, 2002, 01:25:37 PM »
Quote

Don't get confused. The KJV was not the first Bible produced, it was the first English Bible. The first Bible WAS commisioned by Catholic Rome. Anyway, most Monks are Catholic anyway and actually King James might have been too. But I digress...


Obviously we're havin a little misunderstanding. Monks do not necessarily have to be of Catholic faith. I was referring to those people who wrote down the various passages which were canonized later on.

Quote


A lot of you of you seem to understand the Bible quite well. By Bible I'm talking about the Christian old+new testaments. And by understand I mean you don't just blindly take it at face value and are willing to question aspects of it that don't seem right.

Yes, the Bible is full of inconsistancies. To be honest I've neither the time nor the inclanation to list them all or argue them. But as an example, take the genealogy of Christ as described in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. They both claim to describe Joseph's family line but they are both totally different. Whether or not one is actually Mary's family (as I've heard claimed) is irrelevant as this is not stated in the Bible. Therefore, there is an inconsistancy. If you actually sit down and read the book, preferably from the orginal Greek and Hebrew, you will see these mistakes. You don't need specialist knowledge, you just need to be able to read and have access to a library. There's also the Internet!

It's not just mistakes in the original documents but also in the translations. Although translators may have tried their best, who's to know if the translations are perfect? When the original texts were written, some words had more than one meaning so who's to say the correct meaning has been used or correctly interpreted? For example consider the "no room at the Inn" told to us in Luke 2.7. The original word for Inn is translated elsewhere in both Luke and Mark as a large upper room in a house. Even Matthew (2.11) states when the Wise Men found Jesus they were in a house. So where did the nativity story with them living in a stable come from? (Please don't tell me the answer because I already know).

But of course there are bound to be mistakes in the originals anyway. Most of the books were written years after the events they depict. Even the calendar didn't change to A.D. until almost 500 years after Christ died and the wrong start date was probably chosen - as most scholars put the death of Herod the Great at 4BC and seeing as he was reportedly alive when Christ was born then the birth must have been before that.

The point I'm trying to make is that the Bible is a small book, made of sources written in more than one original language, over thousands of years, sometime many years after the events depicted, and in some cases translated again into another language. Ironically the people of the time did not have as good a grasp of history as we do today as they did not have access to the resources (in terms of reference material) we have. In addition a lot of the Bible is written metaphorically and isn't intended to be taken literally. So you can't just read the Bible and say that everything in it is right and true. There is no such thing as "Gospel Truth" as the Gospels quite clearly are not 100% true. You have to be skeptical at frst, read other history books and you can work out what is right and what is wrong.


100% cosign.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by 1034398800 »
 

Nostromoo

  • Lil Geezy
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Karma: 0
  • Ermintrude is my mum
Re: the Bible...
« Reply #44 on: August 02, 2002, 01:59:29 PM »
Well said Darth. I agree with what you're saying, I just want to add a comment though:
Quote
^^^ Exactly.
The bible probably does have some wrong information, 1 for instance is that in Genesis it doesn't mention adam and eve having daughters, but yet at one point Seth is married.

Most of biblical geneology only mentions men because in those days women were seen as not so important so not many got a mention. That might explain why Adam and Eve don't appear to have daughters when they may actually have had some. However, Genesis 1-27 states "God created man in his own image; male and female created he them." But God does not create Adam until 2-7 and Even until 2-22. So what does the 1-27 passage mean?

Genesis1 obviously isn't a strict factual account of what happened when God created the world. It doesn't for example mention Dinosaurs and I don't think that anyone can actually deny they existed. Genesis only mentions the things that Moses knew about so must contain ommisions as he can't have known everything - and besides there is no need for him to know everything.

It's my opinion that Adam and Eve where not the only people on the Earth at that point. Maybe God spent time experimenting by populating the Earth with different animals such as Dinosaurs and early proto humans before finally deciding on homo-erectus. Man created in his own image with the ability to think and most importantly talk. Maybe he created several humans but chose to place only Adam and later Eve in the garden. Afrer a great deal of thought I have found I cannot believe in macro evolution (micro yes, macro no) so in my opinion all animal species (including for example Neanderthal man and Dinosaurs) must have been created by God at some point.

I just don't know how else to interpret the fact it says God created "man and woman" and instructed them to be "fruitful and multiply" and have "dominion" over all of the animals. Then rested on the seventh day before creating Adam.

So I believe that after the expulsion from Eden, Adam and Eve met up with some of those other humans and we came from there. That's how Seth and Cain could have families even if Adam and Eve didn't have daughters (and it means there was less incest too.)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by 1034398800 »
 

Nostromoo

  • Lil Geezy
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Karma: 0
  • Ermintrude is my mum
Re: the Bible...
« Reply #45 on: August 02, 2002, 02:02:05 PM »
Quote


Obviously we're havin a little misunderstanding. Monks do not necessarily have to be of Catholic faith. I was referring to those people who wrote down the various passages which were canonized later on.

Agreed. :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by 1034398800 »
 

The_Retarded_Moron

  • Guest
Re: the Bible...
« Reply #46 on: August 02, 2002, 02:10:18 PM »
Quote


It's my opinion that Adam and Eve where not the only people on the Earth at that point. Maybe God spent time experimenting by populating the Earth with different animals such as Dinosaurs and early proto humans before finally deciding on homo-erectus. Man created in his own image with the ability to think and most importantly talk. Maybe he created several humans but chose to place only Adam and later Eve in the garden. Afrer a great deal of thought I have found I cannot believe in macro evolution (micro yes, macro no) so in my opinion all animal species (including for example Neanderthal man and Dinosaurs) must have been created by God at some point.

I just don't know how else to interpret the fact it says God created "man and woman" and instructed them to be "fruitful and multiply" and have "dominion" over all of the animals. Then rested on the seventh day before creating Adam.

So I believe that after the expulsion from Eden, Adam and Eve met up with some of those other humans and we came from there. That's how Seth and Cain could have families even if Adam and Eve didn't have daughters (and it means there was less incest too.)


Do some research ;). Key terms: "Jahwist & Priestly Source". Take care of the historical background in particular. Adam & Eve is not about God - it's about man.

 

The_Retarded_Moron

  • Guest
Re: the Bible...
« Reply #47 on: August 02, 2002, 02:12:17 PM »
I wish my English skills were better :'(
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by 1034398800 »
 

Sikotic™

  • Moderator
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28701
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • Karma: 3136
  • PussyCunt
Re: the Bible...
« Reply #48 on: August 02, 2002, 02:36:27 PM »
Quote
no. that's a myth. He was most probably born in Nazareth.I had the pleasure(?) to study theology at university for about 3 terms thus I know what I'm talking about.


How was it a myth?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by 1034398800 »
 

Nostromoo

  • Lil Geezy
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Karma: 0
  • Ermintrude is my mum
Re: the Bible...
« Reply #49 on: August 02, 2002, 03:09:44 PM »
Quote


How was it a myth?

I'd like to know too because I've never understood why Mary and Joseph would go to Betlehem. Seeing as how Palestine was not at that time under Roman control so I don't quite see how Caeser was planning on taxing the population.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by 1034398800 »