Plagiarism In The Bible

a reply to: Abednego

Genesis 3:15
"And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

I'm intrigue, If the serpent can impregnate a woman, then the serpent is another human being. Or if Satan is the serpent, How can he impregnate a woman? Assuming he is a spiritual being.

Genesis 3:15 is a very important prophetic scripture it is the first that lasts the longest of any bible verse.
Actually when finished it will have spanned over 7000 years. Let's break it down.

I=God
You=Satan
Woman=Heavenly forces aligned with God (symbolic)
Your Offspring = Demons and Humans that side with Satan
Hers=Earthly forces aligned with God
He=Jesus Christ
Crushed Head= Permanent Death
Your=Satan
You=Satan
His=Jesus
Strike heel=Temporary death of Jesus

Jesus suffered the heel strike in 33 AD.
It will be over 1000 years before Satan is executed(Crushed Head), he will be in a type of spiritual dimensional jail for most of that time too.

a reply to: deadeyedick

So science is guilty until proven innocent? That's not very fair.

Until science is proven wrong about the age of the Earth I'll stick with it. And no, a book isn't proof against science. Science can be verified through repetition and experimentation, a book cannot.

a reply to: Tangerine

Since we are on the subject of claims that cant be proven, none of the claims in the op have been proven to be anything more than theosophical propaganda.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Thing is... when science is wrong... Said scientists gladly admit to it and continue their search...

Religionists will never do the same... even when everything points to their book being wrong

originally posted by: Jenisiz
a reply to: puffinkron247

The library apparently isn't working as your knowledge of who preceded Christ is way way off. Go check out the link in the OP. Those are just 10 "sons of god" from dozens proceeding Christ.

You still havent backed up your claims with textual citations and dates. Puffinkron247, on the other hand, has done just that.

a reply to: Jenisiz

Buddah - Both went to their temples at the age of twelve, where they are said to have astonished all with their wisdom. Both supposedly fasted in solitude for a long time: Buddha for forty–seven days and Jesus for forty. Both wandered to a fig tree at the conclusion of their fasts. Both were about the same age when they began their public ministry.

Where did you get this? It's all wrong.

First, I would like to see your source for a tradition concerning the Buddha going to any kind of temple at age twelve. AFAIK the tradition says he was sheltered in the Sakya palace and lived a life of idle pleasure, though he didn't enjoy it and hungered for truth. As a child, I was taught the stories of the life of the Buddha by my Buddhist aunts. I never heard any such tale as this.

The bo tree under which the Buddha is said to have obtained enlightenment is a member of the fig family (Ficus religiosa) but it produces tiny fruit about half an inch across which nobody eats. Nobody on earth calls it a fig tree. Bo trees are very common in my country, by the way.

Most tellingly of all, traditions concerning the life of the Buddha were oral for about five hundred years. They were first committed to writing about the same time the Gospels were being written.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

The same could be said about the bible. It's propaganda to keep people in line. Why do we have to wait for Jesus to return? So those in power can squeeze as much out of us as possible. Convenient for the military industrial complex that "war and rumors of war" are supposed to take place before Jesus returns.

Don't Christians want Jesus to return? If so, they want war, or at least they will be complacent about it taking place. War is seen as a heralding of Jesus' return to the Christian.

They are also taught to deny a peacemaker because he's supposed to be the "antichrist". Peace? What Christian wants that? Peace only delays his return.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: deadeyedick



So science is guilty until proven innocent? That's not very fair.



Until science is proven wrong about the age of the Earth I'll stick with it. And no, a book isn't proof against science. Science can be verified through repetition and experimentation, a book cannot.

yes from my standpoint. science and religion have not yet understood eachother. if one believes the current beliefs in science then that belief negates what is written in the old testament. may not seem fair but the same could be said about science stepping on the beliefs in the bible.

I stand corrected ,thanks . although I did use the word probably . mmmmm a reply to: Noinden

a reply to: deadeyedick

Let's put that line of thinking into the justice system and see how well it works. Why not do the same with the bible? After all it is "stepping on the beliefs" of science.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Except the bible doesn't say the age of the earth...

the whole idea was concocted from the genealogies in the bible, which are likely not accurate anyways

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: deadeyedick



Thing is... when science is wrong... Said scientists gladly admit to it and continue their search...



Religionists will never do the same... even when everything points to their book being wrong

you mean that when science comes out with the newest belief then those who hold to gods word should bow to the new religion of beliefs that finally humans figured out that god was a liar. you know it takes great faith to make it through these times with your beliefs in the word in tact. we were warned how there would be a great lack of faith and this whole line of reasoning we have called science and history seems on par with what the word says about decption. 99 reason to not believe and just one to believe and that one is the promise that was made that only faith would save you or i.

a reply to: deadeyedick

No one is calling God a liar, we're calling men liars. Who wrote the bible again? Not God.

Or are you calling the men who wrote the bible God?

Stop limiting God to a book written by men prone to sin (lying).

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: deadeyedick



Except the bible doesn't say the age of the earth...



the whole idea was concocted from the genealogies in the bible, which are likely not accurate anyways

i agree with that somewhat because tracing down time in the bible can be decieving because often a number was givin to us from outside our time and others it speaks of our time but the true number from the source is 7 days but to us those seven days could be 7000 yrs or 7 billion yrs depending where we are viewing this from.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Men are indeed liars, and the bible was written by men. It is a flawed heavily edited document.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: deadeyedick



No one is calling God a liar, we're calling men liars. Who wrote the bible again? Not God.

sorry i did not mean to imply something that would near offending anyone but from my view the two are the same by proxy. you are impling that god choose falsely when he sought those to dictate his word or that he would not have enough control over his creation to have the power to put what he wanted in the bible in it. it is just another sign of lack of faith and is one of those 99 reasons i mentioned.

a reply to: deadeyedick

science and religion have not yet understood eachother.

Sure. After more than 500 years, religion still hasn't found an accommodation with science. It never will, because religious faith demands belief in things that cannot be shown to exist.

On the other side of the fence, scientists still haven't figured out why we have evolved to be religious. Since all hypotheses on the subject appear to be unfalsifiable, we may never know.

But we understand what religion is, and some of the purposes it serves individuals and societies, and why, once it was invented, it was impossible to eradicate — even if that were desirable, which is doubtful.

What is not in doubt — from a scientific perspective — is that the metaphysical claims of all religions are bogus.

a reply to: Astyanax

i can not argue with that because of your clever wording.

a reply to: deadeyedick

If God can prevent the bible from being corrupted then why couldn't he do the same with Eve in Eden? Seems like your god is hit and miss a lot of the time. He can choose wisely with the authors of the bible but couldn't with his first creations? Doesn't seem very all-powerful to me.

a reply to: deadeyedick

99 reason to not believe and just one to believe and that one is the promise that was made that only faith would save you or I.

LOL

Except Paul said that... Not Jesus...

Jesus did not teach faith alone... despite what you may believe or have been taught

No one is trying to say God is a liar, though im sure there are many trying to prove such a thing... Perhaps some of us are only trying to say the bible is not the end all be all of what God is about... and in many cases it is just flat out wrong