Do you take this book literally?

Before I start this thread I just want to say that God the Most High gave everyone a mind. We should use our mind to search for truth and in our search for truth we will find the kingdom, which is within ourselves.

With that said I was watching the discovery channel on Ancient mysteries. We all know of the story of Joshua and Geirco. How he walked around the city and the wall came tumbling down. The story goes the God promised them this land that once belonged to the cainiates.

Well anthropologist and historians have found that this story may have happen but it's not entirely accurate. It seems that this story is similar to the sorry of an ancient cainite king who did the same thing. They found the story written on clay tablets and a site in Syria.

Ok I know some of you would say that this isn't enough proof. That the bible stories did happen and they went' taken from other cultures. Well here's something else for you to ponder. It seems scientist took the DNA of ancient cainiates and test them against the modern day Israelis and Palestinians. You already know where I'm about to go with this. They found that our modern day Israelis and Palestinians and decedents of the cainiates people So what does this tell us about the bible story about Joshua? It still could of happen but It wasn't the Israelis fighting the evil gentiles as most people believe. The closes thing I could say that they were fighting them selves. However the story is still not 100% accurate

I don't think I really matters though. The Bible is an inspirational book. It is supposed to give us example of how to live. Yet many fundamentalist quote passages( the only ones that fit there beliefs) just to get there point across.

My whole purpose of posting this is to show all of you fundamentalist out there, who use one passages to support your view that you really need to take a good look at why you believe what you believe. It's not because it's in the bible, that�s a cop out. It's because you have been conditioned to believe that way. I'm sorry if I sound condescending or cynical but it seems like thats only way to reach you all.

God gave you a Mind to search for truth.....Use it



[Edited on 12-2-2004 by John bull 1]

Hummm........ Guess I was right seeing that none of the bible thumpers on this site said anything.

" i guess im right ""


In your own mind, yea. maybee people have been off the internet all night/



But datruth, you can believe what you want, how yu want, when you want, but the reason I believe in this man Jesus is through stuff you have not witnessed in my shoes, and never will see how I seen it, and you have the slightest clue why
I believe or other souls believe, not even a hint.




God Bless you. Ifyou want to think your right then go ahead and do so if it makes you feel good.






peace.

[Edited on 12-2-2004 by Truth]

Originally posted by Truth
the reason I believe in this man is though stuff you have not witnessed in my shoes

What the hell did 'the man' put in your shoes? Don't tell colonel.

Magic socks that give me super powers.


peace.

The bible uses stories to teach morals.

"decedents of the cainiates people" as in descendants of Cain? How on Earth can anyone say that anyone is a Cain descendant? We don't know about a single Cainite which survived. Besides, the Jews stem back to Seth, brother of Cain, son of Adam and so does the Palestinians, since they are partly children of Ismael and Esau. They all share the same y-chromosome, as did Adam, Cain, Abel and Seth. Why should this be mysterious? However, if you mean that they were descendants of Canaanites, these were not the sons of Cain, but the Hamites (modern day Egyptians) or the children of Kam, Noah's second son. The Jews are the children of Sem, Kam's brother, while the Europeans (including me I guess) are the children of Jafet, the younguest son of Noah. The only link we may have to the Cain descendants would be the Kenites who at the time of Mosche claimed to be the descendants of Cain. This can not be verified though.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 12-2-2004 by Hamilton]

DaTruth,
The bible is also a historical reference, not only an inspirational reference.
The Old Testament, and parts of the New Testament are records and texts, written over a few thousand years, on a particular people giving insight into thier beliefs, their views, their traditions, their views on morality, their legal systems and determinations, their idea of monotheism versus polytheism, thier views of how Man came to be and why, etc......
The list can go one.
What amazes me the most about all this, is that people view the Bible as "Holy", for which I am not going to debate if it is or isn't, but mentioned this because the Bible is derived from the Jewish TANAK or the Jewish Bible! It records and implies far more than just "Holy" and inspiration. One of the only differences between the TANAK and the Christian Bible is that the TANAK still encorporates the Apocrypha (the hidden books) and the Christian Bible does not because it was determined, by Christians, to not be of import or significance, and were thus removed or excluded.

Before anyone condemns a "book", they really need to understand the significance of the "book"; how it is to be read today and its applied, historical, literary, and contemporary views, applications, and contexts.



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 12-2-2004 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Truth

" i guess im right ""


In your own mind, yea. maybee people have been off the internet all night/



But datruth, you can believe what you want, how yu want, when you want, but the reason I believe in this man Jesus is through stuff you have not witnessed in my shoes, and never will see how I seen it, and you have the slightest clue why
I believe or other souls believe, not even a hint.




God Bless you. Ifyou want to think your right then go ahead and do so if it makes you feel good.






peace.

[Edited on 12-2-2004 by Truth]

I think you need to read my post again... Did I say anything about Jesus?????? Your totally missing the point of my post. Did you even read what I wrote???? Probably not, you just proved how closed minded you really are.

I believe in the teachings of "Jesus" too Truth!!!! However I haven�t had the experience of receiving �Jesus� through my shoes????

Originally posted by Hamilton
However, if you mean that they were descendants of Canaanites, these were not the sons of Cain, but the Hamites (modern day Egyptians) or the children of Kam, Noah's second son.
[Edited on 12-2-2004 by Hamilton]

Yea that's what I meant just spelled it wrong, sorry.

Originally posted by Seekerof
DaTruth,
The bible is also a historical reference, not only an inspirational reference.
The Old Testament, and parts of the New Testament are records and texts, written over a few thousand years, on a particular people giving insight into thier beliefs, their views, their traditions, their views on morality, their legal systems and determinations, their idea of monotheism versus polytheism, thier views of how Man came to be and why, etc......
The list can go one.
What amazes me the most about all this, is that people view the Bible as "Holy", for which I am not going to debate if it is or isn't, but mentioned this because the Bible is derived from the Jewish TANAK or the Jewish Bible! It records and implies far more than just "Holy" and inspiration. One of the only differences between the TANAK and the Christian Bible is that the TANAK still encorporates the Apocrypha (the hidden books) and the Christian Bible does not because it was determined, by Christians, to not be of import or significance, and were thus removed or excluded.

Before anyone condemns a "book", they really need to understand the significance of the "book"; how it is to be read today and its applied, historical, literary, and contemporary views, applications, and contexts.



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 12-2-2004 by Seekerof]

Good points there are some historical basis to the bible however there not 100% accurate.

"Good points there are some historical basis to the bible however there not 100% accurate."

You make a valid point but let me assert what I mentioned and emphasize this:
The Bible is written from a particualr "peoples" perspective....thus error can and is inherent, as with anyone who records and then combines all the texts of a particular culture or people into one book. Is this not a fair enough assertion?


regards
seekerof

Originally posted by DaTruth

Originally posted by Hamilton
However, if you mean that they were descendants of Canaanites, these were not the sons of Cain, but the Hamites (modern day Egyptians) or the children of Kam, Noah's second son.

Yea that's what I meant just spelled it wrong, sorry.

Well, that's quite interresting, for the bible says that there will be lots of wannabe Jews in the endtime, who are infact the "Synagogue of Satan". Is there any online material about these DNA results?

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 12-2-2004 by Hamilton]

Originally posted by Seekerof
The Bible is written from a particualr "peoples" perspective....thus error can and is inherent, as with anyone who records and then combines all the texts of a particular culture or people into one book. Is this not a fair enough assertion?

Yes it is. For instance a word like enemy (satan) is highly relative. It speeks distinctively about the enemies of Israel through most of the books. Either Israel of sound faith, which to the Israeli meant any faith incompatible with the faith of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Whatever the book...Be it...


The Bible:


The Necronomicon:


The Qu'ran:


You get zealots, and you get skeptics, Like I am.

You can basically boil it down to this....

These three books, in collective hold the entire truth. Now, the division of the truth is what the question here is. If you could Come up with something like the NecroBible'Ran, then you'd have all the answers there in front of you.

My basic point here is that you're not going to find the answers in any one of these books, and you're narrow minded if you think you can.

Originally posted by Seekerof
"Good points there are some historical basis to the bible however there not 100% accurate."

You make a valid point but let me assert what I mentioned and emphasize this:
The Bible is written from a particualr "peoples" perspective....thus error can and is inherent, as with anyone who records and then combines all the texts of a particular culture or people into one book. Is this not a fair enough assertion?


regards
seekerof

Yea your right, i agree.... BTW is that you in your avatar. Diabolical looking I must say

Let me say simply and without explanation...ummmm, NO!



regards
seekerof

Originally posted by Hamilton
Is there any online material about these DNA results?

I'll look but I saw it on the discovery channel with that black guy from Star Trek the next generation. The show is called ancient evidence. I'll go to there web site and see if i can't find anything

Originally posted by Loki
Whatever the book...Be it...


The Bible:


The Necronomicon:


The Qu'ran:


You get zealots, and you get skeptics, Like I am.

You can basically boil it down to this....

These three books, in collective hold the entire truth. Now, the division of the truth is what the question here is. If you could Come up with something like the NecroBible'Ran, then you'd have all the answers there in front of you.

My basic point here is that you're not going to find the answers in any one of these books, and you're narrow minded if you think you can.

What's the The Necronomicon. ever heard of it. That cover looks a little creppy.

here are some links I found. The first is kind of radical
www.stewartsynopsis.com/New/dna_is_a_mother_f.htm


arabisraelites.fortunecity.net...

The Necronomicon of Alhazred, (literally: "Book of Dead Names") is not, as is popularly believed, a grimoire, or sorcerer's spell-book. It was conceived as a history, and hence "a book of things now dead and gone". An alternative derivation of the word Necronomicon gives as its meaning "the book of the customs of the dead", but again this is consistent with the book's original conception as a history, not as a work of necromancy.

The author of the book shared with Madame Blavatsky a magpie-like tendency to garner and stitch together fact, rumour, speculation, and complete balderdash, and the result is a vast and almost unreadable compendium of near-nonsense which bears more than a superficial resemblance to Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine.

In times past the book has been referred to guardedly as Al Azif , and also The Book of the Arab. Azif is a word the Arabs use to refer to nocturnal insects, but it is also a reference to the howling of demons (Djinn). The Necronomicon was written in seven volumes, and runs to over 900 pages in the Latin edition.

The book is best known for its antediluvian speculations. Alhazred appears to have had access to many sources now lost, and events which are only hinted at in Genesis or the apocryphal Book of Enoch, or disguised as mythology in other sources, are explored in great detail. Alhazred may have used dubious magical techniques to clarify the past, but he also shared with the 5th. century B.C. Greek writers such as Thucydides a critical mind, and a willingness to explore the meanings of mythological and sacred stories. His speculations are remarkably modern, and this may account for his current popularity. He believed that many species besides the human race had inhabited the Earth, and that much knowledge was passed to mankind in encounters with beings from "beyond the spheres" or from "other spheres". He shared with some Neoplatonists the belief that the stars are similar to our sun, and have their own unseen planets with their own lifeforms, but elaborated this belief with a good deal of metaphysical speculation in which these beings were part of a cosmic hierarchy of spiritual evolution. He was also convinced that he had contacted beings he called the "Old Ones" using magical invocations, and warned of terrible powers waiting to return to re-claim the Earth. He interpreted this belief (most surprisingly!) in the light of the Apocalypse of St. John, but reversed the ending so that the Beast triumphs after a great war in which the earth is laid waste.

Read the rest Here.

For all those who are curious, and even if you're not, I've been investing alot of time in the study of the Necronomicon lately.