It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Bible is not the word of god

page: 10
2
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I guess I should have stipulated that the new testament is all Jesus/New doctrine.

Old testament - that' a wholly different thing.




posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Another point is that many of the interpretations of the bible are hard to understand. I have read a few versions, and made my own interpretations, although apparently I am not qualified. Oh well, it is just as well that I did cuz I have come up with tons of places where my reading of the text is totally different than the churches reading. I have discussed many of the points at length with Christians, but I still like my interpretations.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The folks who wrote those books did so as witnesses to history.


Considering that some of the writings could not possibly have been witness to history (would you disagree regarding Revelation?), how can you make such a claim?



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 03:18 AM
link   
It cannot possibly be? That is quite a claim about a text that my guess is you had as much luck deciphering as I did. The symbolism is colourful, but I couldn't make sense of it. There is indisputably, without a doubt, unquestionably, irrefutably, undeniably, for sure, certainly, in fact, a definite possiblity that it could refer to history. I hope I made the point that no matter what absolute one uses, the fallibility of humans, and the vast amount of things yet unknown makes the chance that it might prove to be wrong, possible. Somethings, of course, are pretty safe bets. Pregnant is pregnant, etc. there is no almost pregnant or half pregnant.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
well, normally that's because those stories were passed down by word of mouth for many generations before they were written. a lot gets lost when you play a game of telephone over time.


This is a gross underestimation of the abilities of the Hebrew people to record history.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
well, normally that's because those stories were passed down by word of mouth for many generations before they were written. a lot gets lost when you play a game of telephone over time.


This is a gross underestimation of the abilities of the Hebrew people to record history.


NO, it's not.

it's actually common knowledge that the scriptures weren't recorded originally. also, because of all the times the hebrew people had to relocate, they wouldn't be able to carry scripture, so they memorized it.

also, when do you think they started writing the scripture down? (approximate year please)



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
NO, it's not.

it's actually common knowledge that the scriptures weren't recorded originally. also, because of all the times the hebrew people had to relocate, they wouldn't be able to carry scripture, so they memorized it.


Thank you for recognizing that it was memorized. We don't memorize things these days so it's difficult for a lot of us to relate to what that really means.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
also, when do you think they started writing the scripture down? (approximate year please)


I don't know. Care to share?



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Just got done replying to an amazingly similar thread going on at the same time and figured I'd share a response I'd given there since it applies here too. Someone mentioned God did not carve the Bible in stone. I'd said He had done so for the 10 Commandments. Guess what happened to them? Anyhow, the rest of the post went as follows:

If you negate that there's any spiritual part of God, I could see your point. However, a believer in God believes God works with and through people in a very personal relationship with him/her up to and including direct and indirect communication. If that concept cannot be grappled, there's no way the Bible can be accepted as the Word of God. Therefore to folks who have a tough time with that (myself was included), my proposition is to first gain that very personal relationship with Him and then the answer to this question of validity should be clear.




[edit on 23-1-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   
saying the bible is the word of god is
the same of saying mein kampf is the word of god if people
found it over 2000 years from now and our civilisation had fallen well say
200 years from now.

I don't believe it is the word of god it speaks of great evil and evil doing like killing complete civilisations ( god said all people are the same and I love them all the same amount.) and killing baby's and childeren.
ect..



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
Atheists debunk God because they are afraid of Him. They fear having to answer for the wrongs they do. They know that God is real but they have to deny Him.


Interesting point but maybe we just dont believe what you do. It upsets me that people have to justify their existance. Each to their own.




How did atoms floating around in the primordial soup suddenly say, let us become a thing and think and know and then make copies and continue ?

Any answers from the Unbelievers out there......

Fromabove

I dont have all the answers, no one does but that doesnt mean that the bible has all the answers. i can give you data on how it happened, after the first few milliseconds but as to why...? No one (I think) claimed the Universe was created by atoms deciding to do anything. the Universe is the most amazing place and i firmly believe has come about by pure chance and evolution. People say 'how can it be the world is so perfect' nature finds a balance, and i think chance and evolution are a darn sight more probable than an omnipotent god.

Many of you have identifyed my biggest problem with God, is man... man gets in the way with organised religion. Which to my mind is the most hateful and destructive force this planet has ever seen.
"An idea is something you have. An ideology is something that has you."

I think Epicurus said it best:



1.1 Theorem

God does not exist.


Proof

Consider the notion of an omnipotent and benign God and his willingness to eliminate “evil”.

Either:

(i) He is willing, but unable – therefore He is not omnipotent;

(ii) He is able, but unwilling – therefore He is malevolent;

(iii) He is able and willing – whence comes Evil?

(iv) He is neither able nor willing – then why call Him God?

Q.E.D.

(After Epicurus 341 B.C. – 271 B.C.)


thanks for reading



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
saying the bible is the word of god is
the same of saying mein kampf is the word of god


There's no comparison unless one wishes to fabricate parallels between Nazi Germany and Christianity. Creating a colourful analogy means nothing without any support to substantiate the similarites.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigdanprice
1.1 Theorem

God does not exist.


The problem with this "theorm" is the assumptions. I'll try to explain.


Originally posted by bigdanprice
Proof

Consider the notion of an omnipotent and benign God


This negates God's justice, to say He's benign. Justice is part of His character according to the Book, "Yet he does not let the guilty go unpunished".


Originally posted by bigdanprice
and his willingness to eliminate “evil”.

Either:

(i) He is willing, but unable – therefore He is not omnipotent;


Nowhere is that even implied. I think it's safe to rule this out. On the contrary, He does eliminate evil per Revelation, and even in the past per Genesis, Exodus, gospels, etc.


Originally posted by bigdanprice
(ii) He is able, but unwilling – therefore He is malevolent;


Malevolent by who's standandards? Man's standards? This is a very arrogant assertion as He has said, "My thoughts are not your thought, my ways are not your ways."


Originally posted by bigdanprice
(iii) He is able and willing – whence comes Evil?


All in good time per Revelation.


Originally posted by bigdanprice
(iv) He is neither able nor willing – then why call Him God?


We can rule this one out according to the Word as well.


Originally posted by bigdanprice
Q.E.D.

(After Epicurus 341 B.C. – 271 B.C.)


thanks for reading


Follow witty men and meet the same end. Follow the eternal God and receive the free, eternal gift.

[edit on 23-1-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Epicurus was a greek philospher who predated christianity but the points he raised still applied.

' Epicurus is one of the earliest philosophers we know of to have raised the Problem of Evil, arguing against the notion that the world is under the providential care of a loving deity by pointing out the manifold suffering in the world.'

This is the issue: the world is cruel: Where is God? to try and say that God has given us free will re iterates his point, see point II in my previous post. The standards are judged the only way then can be buy man's standard as we would judge anyone or anything. it is mans standards that have created and corrupted the Bible. (sliding back on topic)

' the gods exist, but only as projections of what the most blessed life would be. '

God is a construct of human belief to justify our existance and provide comfort at the thought of death. I dont deny people their right to believe other wise, but i find frustration when i see people making judgments on faulty evidence. In the end though this all comes down to faith: How can you disprove something that someone believes in with no/or inspite of evidence.

All Quotes from: Epicurus



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigdanprice
Epicurus was a greek philospher who predated christianity but the points he raised still applied.

' Epicurus is one of the earliest philosophers we know of to have raised the Problem of Evil, arguing against the notion that the world is under the providential care of a loving deity by pointing out the manifold suffering in the world.'


I'm not sure what good quoting philosophers will do. I have my personal favorites, but none will really help me progress in life other than give a motivational quote now and then. When it comes to putting rubber to the road, philosophy seems to spin in the air frequently. The only philosophy that seems to have some practical implication is Platonic, but don't really know how a societal structure is relevant to eternity.


Originally posted by bigdanprice
This is the issue: the world is cruel:


What is your definition of cruel. People are cruel? Who's fault is that. Nature is cruel? How/why did that all begin? The answer is the same.


Originally posted by bigdanprice
Where is God?


He's around, and not as far away as some may think.


Originally posted by bigdanprice
to try and say that God has given us free will re iterates his point, see point II in my previous post. The standards are judged the only way then can be buy man's standard as we would judge anyone or anything. it is mans standards that have created and corrupted the Bible. (sliding back on topic)


Again, a believer doesn't just go by a book. If you ask a believer their testimony, I doubt they would say, "I read this book...then I believed!" I suppose it could happen, but I've never met someone with that much faith.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
saying the bible is the word of god is
the same of saying mein kampf is the word of god


There's no comparison unless one wishes to fabricate parallels between Nazi Germany and Christianity. Creating a colourful analogy means nothing without any support to substantiate the similarites.


I was trying to say we found the death sea rolls which contain many of the stories currently in the bible.
and what I used compared was if people found a book from a lost civilisation and don't know of its true purpose or why it was written is it then whise to follow it.
if our civilisaition was lost due to something and people forgot there for who hitler was. and that mein kampf was an propaganda book,
what is it that we aren't making the same fault if people from 2000 years from now seeing mein kampf as the word of god as we do with the bible.

I like to say maybe the bible was written to make propaganda just like mein kampf and we are just walking after the ideas of a death cult leader with bad ideas and the ideas written down were just stories of propaganda just like mein kampf does and leni von reifenstahls , triump des willens. creating a false image of something horrible and people nowadays are following it blindely without question or daring to question it .



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   
can anybody tell me why we are using the term one god .??
when the orignal name of god or used for god is a name
pointing it were more then one?

as pointed out many times in movies series books documentary
the name for god there are many of them but
one is used and that is
among other things, that the word in question means "those who came from the sky."
as those is used to say that there are several entities it would mean that there are more then one god,

and claimt as much is that it means they came from the skies points out they were factial came from the skies in spacecrafts so they must not be gods at all but ETE , ET, ect or for short aliens
which sounds more plausible then what I hear from churches and the pope and its priests



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
I was trying to say we found the death sea rolls which contain many of the stories currently in the bible.
and what I used compared was if people found a book from a lost civilisation and don't know of its true purpose or why it was written is it then whise to follow it.
if our civilisaition was lost due to something and people forgot there for who hitler was. and that mein kampf was an propaganda book,
what is it that we aren't making the same fault if people from 2000 years from now seeing mein kampf as the word of god as we do with the bible.

I like to say maybe the bible was written to make propaganda just like mein kampf and we are just walking after the ideas of a death cult leader with bad ideas and the ideas written down were just stories of propaganda just like mein kampf does and leni von reifenstahls , triump des willens. creating a false image of something horrible and people nowadays are following it blindely without question or daring to question it .


You've proved my point, thank you. It also gives me cause to wonder if you've read either.

[edit on 23-1-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
I like to say maybe the bible was written to make propaganda just like mein kampf and we are just walking after the ideas of a death cult leader with bad ideas and the ideas written down were just stories of propaganda just like mein kampf does and leni von reifenstahls , triump des willens. creating a false image of something horrible and people nowadays are following it blindely without question or daring to question it .

Maybe the Bible was just propaganda, I cannot say that is impossible. Have you looked into the subject at all? You are not the only one to think that. In two books that I have read, the authors present lots of support for that. They propose that Roman writer Josephus was the author, and that the motive for fabricating the NT was to instill animosity towards the Jewish people so that Rome would have more public support for their rule. The descendents of this man rose to prominence in Roman society. But, I am not a subscriber to this theory. People often choose blind acceptance of many things. It is easier than thinking for themselves, and it may result in finding out answers which make one unpopular. What research have you done to better decide what is more likely?



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
I like to say maybe the bible was written to make propaganda just like mein kampf and we are just walking after the ideas of a death cult leader with bad ideas and the ideas written down were just stories of propaganda just like mein kampf does and leni von reifenstahls , triump des willens. creating a false image of something horrible and people nowadays are following it blindely without question or daring to question it .

Maybe the Bible was just propaganda, I cannot say that is impossible. Have you looked into the subject at all? You are not the only one to think that. In two books that I have read, the authors present lots of support for that. They propose that Roman writer Josephus was the author, and that the motive for fabricating the NT was to instill animosity towards the Jewish people so that Rome would have more public support for their rule. The descendents of this man rose to prominence in Roman society. But, I am not a subscriber to this theory. People often choose blind acceptance of many things. It is easier than thinking for themselves, and it may result in finding out answers which make one unpopular. What research have you done to better decide what is more likely?


I was putting forward a theory / hypothetical philosopy to discus are trying to let people think about the possiblity of such an occurance.
have said it befor in an earlier thread of such kind.
that we can accept something with out further evidence a book or something else from a lost civilisation without knowing what it was for.

like easter island with its statues we don''t know its origene but mainly we come to the conclusion that is something to do with there religion. but it also could be something else .

what is the change that people find something for example automobile preserved by something and our civilisation is long lost what are people going to say it is with out a point of reverence.
they can say it is mean of transportation but also that it was a moving house or toy. even they can say it was left there by the gods we don't know. just that we have no point of reverence to what the bible was for or what its origene was. only that is was from a civilisation lost by time and that it spoke of being with great powers , if there powers came from through nature or technology is what we don't know, that we did't find any technology doesn;t mean it was there in the time the story happens.
it could have been biotechnology and the electronics made by bioenginering are destroyed over time or it just rusted away or it was destroyed some other way.

we don't have any point of reverence to conclude that the bible was written as the word of god or that is words about gods as in mankind but then godkind, or another possible explantion.

so hypothecialy speaking all is possible ..

just like the discusion about evolution theory and the god theory they are both theories and they only can become facts through factional physical proof,

in court you have to deliver evidence to proof somebody is inocence or guilty.
until proof is delivered both sides are possible but people can be sentenced with enough proof.

currently there is more proof for evolution then for the god theory so they introduced a new theory calle intellegent design also about a creator.

still the same is with the bible we have no proof it to be or about a god or a group of aliens both are theories and both are possible until proof points out to be the one which is right.

then there is one other thing and that is before saying it is word of god you have to proof with physical evidence that gods excist. or what the deffintion of god(s) is .

if you say well gods are beings or something else with great powers which can do things well beyond our abbilities that will not mean that they are god(s) it can be beings whom are more advanced than us.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   
'then there is one other thing and that is before saying it is word of god you have to proof with physical evidence that gods excist. or what the deffintion of god(s) is .' Mark Luitzen
But it is impossible to prove God exists, or define God, and besides, even if you had God's signature on your document, if someone demanded confirmation of it, would you be able to subpoena God? And if he testified, what would swearing on the Bible mean to him?
So what we are left with is that faith is unavoidable if one is to believe.
And there is nothing wrong with sincere faith, imo. There is nothing wrong with atheism either. It is faith in God not existing.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join