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.

 

Is it me, or is it hard to find people who have a healthy reverence or scepticism for the bible?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Take it Word for Word literally.


So then Jesus was not on a crucifix, but rather killed on a tree?

Acts 5:30 "Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree"
Acts 10:39 "whom they slew and hanged on a tree"
Acts 13:29 "they took him down from the tree"
1 Peter 2:24 "who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree"

Regarding the question asked by the topic creator, I've found that many people who raise criticisms about the Bible are plenty, but don't voice their opinion as much because they're trying to argue with someone who has structured their life around that faith. When I debate, I try not to be offensive or act in an arrogant manner, because I would expect the same level of respect from the other person. I understand the person I debate with is human and I'm not out to break their faith.




posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Take it Word for Word literally. Check the accuracy of the prophecies.

Look what it says and look at the world we live in.

Nuff said..........It's accuracy is always challenged and yet through history always stands up to doubters with facts.



However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)



When a man strikes his slave, male or female, and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money. -Exodus 21:20-21


So if I take the bible literally then its ok to own slaves beat the slaves you own buy, sell and trade slaves and pass the slaves one owns to their children as inheritance?



We must take into account that the world we live in is much different from the biblical world. People should be studying the underlying principals behind the rules, and not the rules themselves. There were laws made in the US and England in the 1800's regarding roads that made perfect sense when only horses and buggies used roads, that are complete rubbish now that cars are on the roads. That is not to say the principles behind those rules, or making the roads safe and efficient, should not be incorporated in road rules today.

The concept of slavery was different in biblical times. First of all slaves back then were more like servants and employees. Second, times were tough back then. In many ways, slaves/servants benefited from working under a master because they got their masters protection. Without their masters protection, they might not live.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   


The concept of slavery was different in biblical times. First of all slaves back then were more like servants and employees. Second, times were tough back then. In many ways, slaves/servants benefited from working under a master because they got their masters protection. Without their masters protection, they might not live.


With all due respect that is simply a cop out....slavery is wrong either today or 2000-3000 years ago. If you read the passages from the bible I posted, you could beat your slaves all you wanted you just could not kill them. You could pass slaves own as property from parents to children. It was nothing like indentured servitude unless you happened to be a Hebrew slave if not a Hebrew slave you were a slave for life.

And to say without their masters protection they might not live is really demeaning to the human spirit. Who really knows what a slave could have accomplished in their lifetime if it weren't for the fact they were slaves?



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I am not saying I am pro slavery, but things were very different back then and slaves in that time were more like servants than slaves. The slavery of biblical times was very different than the slavery that occured during the 1800's in the US.

The biblical world was a harsh place. Not only was it surrounded by inhospitable desert, but there were marauders and bandits out and about. Society was agrarian and semi-nomadic, people did not many career choices at that time other than working as a farmer. If you were lucky enough to be born in the aristocracy or to a tradesman, your options were greater, but still limited. For the slaves/servants of biblical times, they could either work for a master, where they would have access to the things they needed to survive and be afforded protection, or they could be "free" in the desert, at the mercy of the elements and bandits. Slaves in the US in the 1800's often did run away, and could thrive as the environment was more hospitable.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   
One problem that springs to mind about the bible is that there seems to be two different gods.
The one in the old testament seems a lot crueller or vain: demanding sacrifices and such.
Then when Jesus talks of god in the new testament, he sounds a lot nicer.

Another thing though: Why6 should you have to beleive in Jesus to have eternal life?
What if you are an atheist, or a tribal villager say, and you live a good and honest life anyway? Would god really not let you into heaven?

Don't think so.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   


With all due respect that is simply a cop out....slavery is wrong either today or 2000-3000 years ago. If you read the passages from the bible I posted, you could beat your slaves all you wanted you just could not kill them. You could pass slaves own as property from parents to children. It was nothing like indentured servitude unless you happened to be a Hebrew slave if not a Hebrew slave you were a slave for life.

you're overgeneralising
the Bible is not a history textbook
many of the claims made in it are entirely false
Slavery for example was not quite what was claimed for it in the city that the Jews were enslaved




The ardu was a slave, his master's chattel, and formed a very numerous class. He could acquire property and even hold other slaves. His master clothed and fed him, paid his doctor's fees, but took all compensation paid for injury done to him. His master usually found him a slave-girl as wife (the children were then born slaves), often set him up in a house (with farm or business) and simply took an annual rent of him. Otherwise he might marry a freewoman (the children were then free), who might bring him a dower which his master could not touch, and at his death one-half of his property passed to his master as his heir. He could acquire his freedom by purchase from his master, or might be freed and dedicated to a temple, or even adopted, when he became an amelu and not a muskinu. Slaves were recruited by purchase abroad, from captives taken in war and by freemen degraded for debt or crime. A slave often ran away; if caught, the captor was bound to restore him to his master, and the Code fixes a reward of two shekels which the owner must pay the captor. It was about one-tenth of the average value. To detain, harbour, &c., a slave was punished by death. So was an attempt to get him to leave the city. A slave bore an identification mark, which could only be removed by a surgical operation and which later consisted of his owner's name tattooed or branded on the arm. On the great estates in Assyria and its subject provinces were many serfs, mostly of subject race, settled captives, or quondam slaves, tied to the soil they cultivated and sold with the estate but capable of possessing land and property of their own. There is little trace of serfs in Babylonia, unless the muskinu be really a serf.


www.fordham.edu...

and considering that the Bible was written in this city the truth of it is clear
it lies about the truth of slavery in the world around its borders

Hammurabis code which is a factual list of laws has many edicts that cover slavery
none of them are particularly brutal towards the slaves themselves
most in fact cover penalties against free men for crimes committed against slaves who had the full protection of the law





One problem that springs to mind about the bible is that there seems to be two different gods.
The one in the old testament seems a lot crueller or vain: demanding sacrifices and such.
Then when Jesus talks of god in the new testament, he sounds a lot nicer.

www.youtube.com...
Lewis Black answers this question better than ayone else I have seen


[edit on 4-12-2006 by Marduk]

[edit on 4-12-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 04:54 AM
link   


One problem that springs to mind about the bible is that there seems to be two different gods.
The one in the old testament seems a lot crueller or vain: demanding sacrifices and such.
Then when Jesus talks of god in the new testament, he sounds a lot nicer.

www.youtube.com...
Lewis Black answers this question better than ayone else I have seen


[edit on 4-12-2006 by Marduk]

[edit on 4-12-2006 by Marduk]

A great link thanks.


I'm gonna look up more of this guys stuff


[edit on 10-12-2006 by j1mb0]



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Here's an article that talks about the author's skepticism of the Bible as factual. It pretty well sums it up for me.


"A recent poll taken by Rasmussen Reports indicates that most Americans, 63 percent, believe the Bible is literally true and the Word of God. The survey found just 24 percent thinking otherwise."

onlinejournal.com...

63% - !!! That's pretty scary!



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   
To be fair, were the people in the survey only given two choices, namely that the bible was either the word of god or a creation of man? Could people choose a middle option, that the bible was divinely inspired or partially the word of god, or allegorical and not literal? Perhaps many of the +60% of the people fall into the middle ground.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   
hahahaha. It makes me laugh when people somehow get these alien stories out of the Bible.

And to the poster that said that the Devil is a representation of a reptilian, the devil is not usually presented as a reptile. And coming from the Bible, with Lucifer being a fallen angel, he would be that, an angel. Not some reptilian in the service of Marduk for the betterment of their world through their manipulation of the human masses through, oh my lord, "RELIGION." I bet all these reptilians are the alien rulers that scientologists believe nuked a bunch of aliens on earth. I better go tell Emperor Palpatine that the Reptilians are getting out of hand again, we need to send in some storm troopers to handle this mess. I hope none of the reptilians are Jedi.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
Here's an article that talks about the author's skepticism of the Bible as factual. It pretty well sums it up for me.


"A recent poll taken by Rasmussen Reports indicates that most Americans, 63 percent, believe the Bible is literally true and the Word of God. The survey found just 24 percent thinking otherwise."

onlinejournal.com...

63% - !!! That's pretty scary!




24% 24% 24% 24% 24%

24%. Now that is what i call scary!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by soshootme

Originally posted by forestlady
Here's an article that talks about the author's skepticism of the Bible as factual. It pretty well sums it up for me.


"A recent poll taken by Rasmussen Reports indicates that most Americans, 63 percent, believe the Bible is literally true and the Word of God. The survey found just 24 percent thinking otherwise."

onlinejournal.com...

63% - !!! That's pretty scary!




24% 24% 24% 24% 24%

24%. Now that is what i call scary!!!!!!!!!!!!


because 24% of the people of the world do not have a self-assuring dogmatic belief in the legitimacy of a collection of ancient documents, they are scarey...

so now LOGIC = bad
this is why the 63% scare me some times



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   


because 24% of the people of the world do not have a self-assuring dogmatic belief in the legitimacy of a collection of ancient documents, they are scarey

actually the version that most of them believe as real was written in 1611
en.wikipedia.org...
395 years is hardly ancient



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr

So if I take the bible literally then its ok to own slaves beat the slaves you own buy, sell and trade slaves and pass the slaves one owns to their children as inheritance?


You said:
"So if I take the bible literally then ...."

Why even bother typing any words after this? It is self evident you have never taken the bible literally, therefore you have absolutley no basis for comparison throughout all your accumilated experiences to judge any verse accordingly.

First you would have to know what it is to take the bible literally.
And you have no experience at this, therefore there is no basis for
comparison in your mind as you attempt to judge and discredit the
bible by quoting a few verses that best serve your purpose.

The bible has no contradictions. If you apply the rules of the bible to the words of languages (and the bible itself) ..... .. . . .. . . .

the bible has no contradictions, whatsoever. It is more than just a moral or ethical guidline. it was encoded, numerous ways.

Say this word out loud, or go ask 5 other people to say it for you, and ACTUALLY LISTEN to how they pronounce it: the word is Eden.

How do they pronounce it?

Look it up in a Dictionary. How does your Dictionary say it is pronounced?

The bible says "Judge not lest thee be judged", does it not?

and yet, the bible judges us, does it not?

therefore, the author of the book is either inviting us to judge the bible by it's own accord, or the author of the bible is a hippocrit.

so, judge the words of the bible, by the rules of the bible that can be applied to words........

how do people pronounce "Eden"?

But, we aren't in heaven, are we? The bible says we are in someone elses dominion. So, perhaps everything would be opposite?

E D U N [mirror] N U D E

but, alas. Perhaps you were doing the opposite of what every angelic messenger said to do in the bible, when they said: "Be not afraid".

Perhaps you were afraid? cowardly? then lie on (cowardly lion) with your "All Fib, bet".

You Fraidies!
Euphrates.

"inner eye" = INRI (the sign above jesus's head, while on the cross)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Be honest with yourself. How can you justify your hate/rege/anger without first being afraid of losing something you love? Can you justify hating someone without first being afraid that they have the potential to take from you something you love? And, what is it the BUY BULL says you love?

"let he with wisdom calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of man"
# of mankind's loves?

In order to find the truth of the bible, a pre-requisite is loving the truth before all else, hence the first commandment. But, this was not your first loves, now was it?

1-Fear (byproduct of instinct of "Self Pre-Serve" aka "self before i serve".
2-Food (needed for cellular reproduction)
3-Family (protected and nurished you)
4-Friends (you wanted to belong, and feel accepted)
5-Fornication (you were curious about a thing called "love")
6-Finances (provided you with a sense of control and a means to obtain more of your previous loves)

6 Choices to dissobey the first commandment by choosing to love 6 different things before truth, all of them beginning with the
6th letter of your "All Fib, Bet". Love of "F" before the 7th letter, God's "G".

But, I'm not worried. 6th from the end is YOU ("U"), with a "+" there too.

think i'm spitting out "hot air"?

See = C

See i fart = C i fart = CIFART

CIFART [mirror] TRAFIC

ya, no truth there whatsoever?

OPEN EYE ON open i on >>> opinion


[edit on 10-12-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   


Say this word out loud, or go ask 5 other people to say it for you, and ACTUALLY LISTEN to how they pronounce it: the word is Eden.

you can't really use the word Eden and claim its proof of the Bibles veracity
in Hebrew its a loan word from Sumerian where it is attested from as early as 3000bce (thats 2500 years before the bible was written) and it doesn't mean a garden built by God
it means plain, steppe, open country
psd.museum.upenn.edu...
Like wise the name Adam isn't actually a noun as it is attested in Sumerian from 2500bce and means habitation, living in the steppe, steppe-dweller
psd.museum.upenn.edu...

so the Bible got that bit wrong for starters
but then it isn't a dictionary is it
its a cosmology written fora bunch of Jewish slaves written around 500bce
this means that if you're a christian and you are expecting to get saved when judgement day comes then you'd better convert to Judaism before that happens



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Ok, I gotta give my 2 cents on this...

My view is that the bible is a historical record of teachings, morals, and happennings. Nothing fake or, technically, false.

IMHO, I believe that the bible we use today is just a gross collection of the stories, picked to read a certain way for the purpose of control of anyone that can be convinced to be "faithful". Think about it this way: not every person has a built-in set of morals, and don't feel that they need to follow the laws set by man. People DO have a built-in fear of the unknown, and that is (in my opinion) what the compilers of the modern bible use to ingrain social morals into these people.

As far as the original texts, I do believe they are as true and accurate as possible, but remember that some are first-hand stories of observed events, interpreted by the author as well as possible, and some are written after generations of hand-me-down stories. As well, some could have been just stories of morals told to children to help them grow up with decent morals.

Remember that man was once tribal and nomadic. When we started forming small settlements, there needed to be laws in order for the tribes to survive. If something happenned by nature's hands to hurt someone who was unliked by the rest of the tribe, the tribe could easily misinterpret it as an unseen force causing punishment. Superstition could easily be the biginnings of a god-like figure. As man learned to write, he started to record these stories that have been passed down for possibly hundreds of generations.

As an example, look through the bible and see how many descriptions of 'god-like' events you can attribute to natural causes, such as comets, earthquakes, volcanoes, flods, tsunamis, hurricanes, odd or extreme weather, landslides, meteors, solar eclipses, lunar eclipses, etc.

Volcanoes are the easiest one to example here... fire and brimstone (sulfur) raining from the sky... blood-red skies, darkness during noon.

Another is water turning red as blood... this can be attributed to CO2 seeping from the ground through the water. As well, this would kill all fish, and frogs would jump out of the water and instinctively head farther away, usually being uphill.

See a progression of plagues working out here? But back then, they could only describe what they saw, which was pretty literal. They used alot of symbolism to describe things. Comets, for example were described to be like the head of a lion, because that is really the closest thing to match it to, the best way to paint a picture of what they saw.


EDIT: BTW, can someone please edit post id: 2669570 and take out all the smileys? Kinda hard to read the other posts.

[edit on 10-12-2006 by Earthscum]



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
you can't really use the word Eden and claim its proof of the Bibles veracity


perhaps not. But, when coupled with a few hundred thousand more examples of "coincidence" then perhaps, just perhaps, the odds and validity of your arguement starts to dissipate in the eyes of others. Furthermore, the fact that when you do apply the rules of the bible to the bible, you get other key words and other entire verses from the bible also seems to depreciate the odds of you being entirely correct. But, then again, how many coincidences does it take before the sum of them are real? God is the words, not the word. But, perhaps God didn't care too much for being asked what the highest number was.



in Hebrew its a loan word from Sumerian where it is attested from as early as 3000bce (thats 2500 years before the bible was written) and it doesn't mean a garden built by God
it means plain, steppe, open country
psd.museum.upenn.edu...
Like wise the name Adam isn't actually a noun as it is attested in Sumerian from 2500bce and means habitation, living in the steppe, steppe-dweller
psd.museum.upenn.edu...


"edinu" ??

based upon an opinion that does not acknowledge or recognize the possibility that consciousness can be a shared resource not bound by time. But, thanks for sharing their opinion just the same.



so the Bible got that bit wrong for starters
but then it isn't a dictionary is it


nope, it is the key to decoding the dictionary's lies, as well as other languages twisting of communication as well. Perhaps if you were consciously aware of what your subconscious mind was thinking about you could relate. Why are curse words curse words?

BONDAGE! Being bound. I'm just trying to unbound your mind, but you deny the simplistic logic of even that, because you don't believe in the truth, nor do you choose to subscribe to the truth, because your opinion matters far to much.

Cuff [mirror] ffuC (cuff backwards is a binding word, closes the mind)
ties (tihs) [mirror] t i (h is silent) s (ties is a binding word)
park [mirror] krap (park means to stay in one place, and not advance)

why am i so adament i am right about this?

Because the many verses decoded from the bible do provide perfectly accurate accounts of events that occurred in the future. So, to think it originated by man's opinion and man's opinion alone is even more of a ?????????????
in other words it raises more questions about the coincidences in english (and all other languages), and how there is truth in what was written in man's ages of yesterday.

is it a seek writ or is it a secret?

another example?

"Look i fear"

but, "c" also makes the "k" sound, and "c" also makes the "s" sound which was characteristic of the "hissssss" of the snake.
so:
"Looc i fear"

but, the "u" makes the same sound as "oo" does, but with less space being taken up.

"Luc i fear"

but, i hear no "a" sound out of the "a" in the word "fear", so i say since it makes no sound, take it out, as it is a deciever.

"Luc i fer"

Or ......

You Fraidies (cowards being afraid)
what was the name of one of those rivers next to the steppe?



its a cosmology written fora bunch of Jewish slaves written around 500bce
this means that if you're a christian and you are expecting to get saved when judgement day comes then you'd better convert to Judaism before that happens


I was under the impression Jesus was a Jew.

[edit on 10-12-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

I was under the impression Jesus was a Jew.



Well, a "Christian" he was not. Christianity was developed around "Jesus Christ", something I've never understood, since his real name, as I have come to understand, was "Yaweh bin Joseph".



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Earthscum

Well, a "Christian" he was not.


Jesus not a "Christian". Interesting interpretation.



Christianity was developed around "Jesus Christ", something I've never understood, since his real name, as I have come to understand, was "Yaweh bin Joseph".


I'm not sure sure if i've ever heard of Jesus being
call "Yaweh bin Jospeh" before, but i do not contest
you on this matter. I've heard his name was variences
of "Yehoshua bin Yosef" and "Yehoshua bin Joseph" and
similiar names, so you may indeed be correct.

As for what "Jesus" means, i remember learning that it was
the Greek word for "Savior", translated from Aramaic (Jesus's
native language). So my reply to you would be that the word
"Jesus" is the Greek word meaning the same thing that "Yehoshua"
meant. As for the word "Christ", i have also been taught that
this is the Greek word meaning "king", or rather from the Greek
word "Christos", meaning the same thing.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 01:06 AM
link   
doh... you are right on the name. My bad. Yaweh is one of the names of god. the explanation I got is that "bin Joseph" is interpreted as "of Joseph", as in son of Joseph... not exactly sure if that is accurate or not, though.

Here's a good example of the descrepencies of the modern bible... in order to form the crusades, the church leaders depicted "jesus" as being a caucasion. Basically, the people wouldn't be willing to go convert non-believers, especially dark-skinned muslims and otherwise, unless they felt they had a greater connection with "jesus". In the depicted image, they were able to more readily identify themselves. Also, I believe the name was derived the same time, and for the same reason. Faith in religion was a good governing factor... like 'patriotism'. According to GWB, I am not a "patriot" because I am agnostic, and we are "one nation under god". The crusades continue to this day, and christianity is still used as a motivator.

Basically, the stories in the bible are translations of translations of translations. There are scholars that have gone through some of the (semi-original) texts and done direct translations. Some of the time when there is a mention of "god", it has been mistranslated, and is really "king", and not as in a divine king. The same thing has been proven about heiroglyphs in egyptian tombs. When interpreted by some, the glyphs read literally, and aren't mystic or divine, and are actual medical or ceremonial procedures. In the same 'glyphs, there were found to be 2 different picts that have been interpreted to be read as 'god', but one of them can be read as 'god', or 'king', as in the ruler of a land. it's kind of a thing where you have to read it in context and put your faiths aside as to not read it the way YOU want it to read. Pretty simple, really... and in the proper translations doesn't destroy the meaning, but it does make the things in the bible seem less mystical.

In the end, I just wish someone would retranslate the bible to read the way it's supposed to instead of the way the compilers and translators wanted it to read. As well, remember that there are so many things left out of the bible because it doesn't fit in with the christian religion... such as the story of Lilith, the woman before Eve. The Catholic church hates that one


EDIT: I forgot... I do remember something about Jesus and Savior, but for some reason I remember "Christ" was translated from another language's "king".

en.wikipedia.org... says:
"Christ is the English form of the Greek word Χριστός (Christós), which means literally The Anointed One. The word was originally used to translate the Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ (Mašíaḥ), that is Messiah."

Wiki says "messiah", so I may have confused that one... it's late, lol... brain is slowing down in the functionality department.

[edit on 11-12-2006 by Earthscum]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join