It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Blind Acceptance...The assumption that none have been made

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 02:24 AM
I was watching a early morning religious program on TV this morning and I was alerted to the assumptions that were being made in regard to proof of the invalidity of the Mormon scriptures. It got me thinking about all the assumptions that are made when one blindly accepts the Bible, or anything for that matter, without question. I believe it even states in the Bible that only a lazy man accepts the word of others without testing it for themselves, but I cannot find where it is. Anyhow, I thought I might just point out SOME of the assumptions that are made when one accepts the Bible as the undisputed absolute truth:

1. The accounts passed down from eyewitnesses to the writers of the original text were accurate and uncorrupted.
2. The dreams and visions received by the prophets were interpreted correctly.
3. The dreams and visions originated from God/Jesus as opposed to less honourable sources in disguise.
4. Jesus was aware of how His teachings would be recorded at the time of delivering them.
5. The translation from Hebrew/Greek to English does not distort the intended message.
6. The integrity of the countless people involved in transporting the original messages to the version of the Bible you refer to today has not been compromised.

There are many more assumptions that are made, but the above should give you some idea of the volume of doors you are closing by blindly accepting the Bible as "Gospel" so to speak.

posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 02:39 AM
I view the bible as a collection of stories and a guide to living your life and that's it.
In yesteryear and I'm talking about in the 1300's or so, the monks used to transcribe the bible and that's all they did all there lives (no mass printing available), so who can blame them for occassionally putting in something different just to break the monotony of it all.
I'm sure the bible has been twisted and shaped to fit almost anyone's interpretation of what they want it to mean.

posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 02:42 AM
I know what you are saying and you are correct in your logic about the reliability of the biblical texts being accurate. I am a firm believer of God and I have side-stepped all this by relying on something that a lot of people don't accept and that is to quit interpreting the bible on the superficial words on the surface. It isn't a matter of the wording being greater than the meaning, but vice-versa.

If you want to assure that the passages are correct and unchanged then look to the original Hebrew of the old Testament. I cannot quote how many of the first books they were, but many dated old copies are exactly the same as newer versions in Hebrew because of the perfectionism of the scribes who copied them. This is a proven fact, but you will have to learn Hebrew. This isn't to say that the many translations are incorrect because they aren't written in the same language as the originals. It isn't any different than if I said, "We had a heavy rain today." or "it rained cats and dogs today.". The translations are different, but you can still understand the point. The literal meanings behind the bible is not a matter of the wording, but of the understanding or "hearing" of the message behind it. A prime example is Jesus' usage of parables. Even though he said these in an understandable way, its message wasnt at all about the words themselves, but an underlying meaning connected to a spiritual concept.

Hopefully you truly understand this and your future thoughts and studies will lead you to read beneath the words into the underlying revelations of the words and not what seems apparent to the average reader.

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 11:21 AM
Take the first two words of Genesis: (in Aramaic) B"Rasheth Elohim translated as " In the beginning God..."

B'rasheth consists of the prefix B, "in", and the feminine noun Rasheth. Of course it is not inaccurate to render this as "In the beginning". Nevertheless, Rasheth means more than that. It has also the meaning of "source, origin". "In the Essence," and "In the womb". These translations are in keeping with the great Chaldean Scriptures (of which the Hebrew Bible is, as it were, only a selected edition). In the Babylonian Creation Narrative, Heaven and Earth are made from the body of the goddess Tiamat.
Coming now to the other word "Elohim". - There appeared an article in "The Times" a while by the Religious Affairs Correspondent. He quotes the words of Professor Nelle Morton: "The early Hebrew name.. Elohim, was the combination of the word Eloh, a goddess, and Im, the masculine plural Hebrew suffix.... Yahweh (the pure form of the corruption Jehovah) was ... derived from the name of the earlier Sumerian goddess." And so an accurate translation of "Elohim" is not "God" but rather "the Deities" or "the Pantheon." One wonders when the official translators will have the honesty, or perhaps the courage, to translate this word properly.
(Note: I had to spell B'ras... with an e instead of an i otherwise you would get B'Ra#h)

new topics

top topics

log in