Bible Study

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Ok, I posted this in another thread at first, but I thought it would be best if I put it out there on its own because I think these are good questions. I want to hear peoples opinions on this. I think this could be seriously interesting.

Compare:
John 1:18 and Exodus 33:20 with Genesis 32:30 and Exodus 33:11

Now, somwhere in there is a huge problem.....which is to be "interpreted", and which is to be taken literally?


How about this....
Compare:
Exodus 20:5 and Exodus 34:6-7 with Ezekiel 18:20 and Dueteronomy 24:16.

This is a question that should rattle the fundamental foundation of the Christian belief system. That is unless it is open to interpretation. But how do we interpret this? Who is the final judge onto which way we choose?




posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 01:22 PM
link   
You should post the verses.



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Ok, I was kinda looking for people to look it up themselves but I guess thats not necessary. My apologies.

Compare:
John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]. " and Exodus 33:20 "And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. " with Genesis 32:30 "So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." "and Exodus 33:11 "The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent." .

Now, somewhere in there is a huge problem.....which is to be "interpreted", and which is to be taken literally?


How about this....
Compare:
Exodus 20:5 "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me" and Exodus 34:6-7"And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD , the LORD , the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation." with Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." and Dueteronomy 24:16 "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." .

There are more examples of both instances. The second is truly disturbing to me at least. Oh yeah, after going through what I had to just to get those verses in there I am sorry for asking you to do it.

[Edited on 4/12/2004 by Seapeople]



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
Ok, I was kinda looking for people to look it up themselves but I guess thats not necessary. My apologies.

Compare:
John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]. " and Exodus 33:20 "And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. " with Genesis 32:30 "So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." "and Exodus 33:11 "The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent." .

Now, somewhere in there is a huge problem.....which is to be "interpreted", and which is to be taken literally?


How about this....
Compare:
Exodus 20:5 "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me" and Exodus 34:6-7"And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD , the LORD , the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation." with Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." and Dueteronomy 24:16 "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." .

There are more examples of both instances. The second is truly disturbing to me at least. Oh yeah, after going through what I had to just to get those verses in there I am sorry for asking you to do it.

[Edited on 4/12/2004 by Seapeople]


God says he punishes on earth but the eternal fate of one person is of his own accord.



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 12:29 AM
link   
The New Testament refers to more than one God and the bible as translated today does not relate this. There is the Goddess of the ancient Israelites Sophia or Astarte (matriarchy) The God of the Proto-Patriarchal period (Yahweh) and the great I AM of Moses and Jesus. Each one demanded to be worshipped in a different way hence the apparent discrepancies in the Bible. The Idea of the Bible as an infallible work of Gods own hand is a rather modern notion foisted on us by the Catholic Church. It has been edited, certain books thrown out and deliberately mistranslated in some cases to impose a certain view. It is still happening today. There is talk in some circles of removing the book of revelation because it doesn’t fit with modern notions of what the bible should say. Hopefully one day they’ll delete all the books from the “canon” and restore all the holy works to their rightful place in doing so!



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by radiant
The New Testament refers to more than one God and the bible as translated today does not relate this. The God of the Proto-Patriarchal period (Yahweh) and the great I AM of Moses and Jesus. Each one demanded to be worshipped in a different way hence the apparent discrepancies in the Bible.


I just posted this in another thread but it seems this thread need the clarification as well. The God referred to in the Old Testament is the same God in the new. Period end of story.

Jesus was and is God (Yahweh, I am).

Exodus 3:13-14

Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?" God said to Moses, "I am who I am. [2] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

It is true that God refers to himself an “I am” many times in the bible. The Egyptians had many gods by many different names. Moses wanted to know God’s name so the Hebrew people would know who sent him to them. God called himself “I Am”, a name describing his eternal power and unchangeable character. Hebrews 13:8 says god is the same “yesterday and today and forever” because God’s nature is stable and trustworthy.

I’m sure you have heard God referred to as Yahweh. This is also accurate; Yahweh is derived from the Hebrew word for “I Am”.



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 01:20 AM
link   
You seem to just be repeating dogma you have heard over the years. If your point is valid then how do you resolve the flaws and major discrepancies the bible and this post offers to you? Please respond to the original post. I would love to hear your explaination.



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by radiant
You seem to just be repeating dogma you have heard over the years. If your point is valid then how do you resolve the flaws and major discrepancies the bible and this post offers to you? Please respond to the original post. I would love to hear your explaination.


radiant you go everywhere and preach heresy...have youever read a bible?



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Not only have I read the Bible but also the Talmud and the Nag Hammadi and the Dead Sea scrolls. I also read them in the original Greek and Hebrew. I pose the question back to you. Have you read the bible? And if so did you understand it? There really is no substitution for reading the scripture in its original language. Why you ask? I’ll give two of my favorite examples.

When Pilate asks the crowd do you want Jesus The Son of the Father or Barrabbas? Barrabbas is not a proper name it is Aramaic for Son of the Father. (bar = son of abbas = father) What Pilate really asked is do you want Jesus Son of the Father or Jesus son of the father! Why did the translators leave this untranslated?

My second example. The word ante in Greek is translated as being positive and indicating likeness in every case in the New Testament EXCEPT when referring to Christ.
E.g. antetheos = Godlike (ante = like theos = god) When presented with such a word as anteChristus the translators wrote anti-Christ NOT Christ like….Why?

These are but two of many such examples throughout the Old and New Testaments.

WHY DON’T YOUR MINISTERS TELL YOU THIS?
CAN THEY EVEN READ HEBREW OR GREEK?
ASK THEM NEXT SUNDAY.

All modern Bibles are full of these “mistakes”, with the exception of one transliteration (and it still has some but it’s the best you have if you can’t read Hebrew or Greek)…the YLT (Young’s Literal Translation Circa 1860’s) and I defy you to find one in print. I should know I’ve been trying for years. Fortunately www.biblegateway.com has it as an option it’s the only place I can reference it outside the university library.

Btw if anyone reading this has an old copy of the YLT I’d gladly pay top dollar for it!

As for your heretic comment.

Heretic was a word the ROMAN catholic church used to burn people that didn’t support their POLITICS. Would you like to see me on a stake? Would it make you sleep better at night knowing you have cleansed the earth of my “Heresy”? Did the Catholics remove the Gnostics (original Christians) from the world to make it a better place? (for an example google up the Cathar War… the only crusade waged by the Catholic Church against other Christians) I think not. The Gnostics never started a war or persecuted anyone for their beliefs. Can you say the same for your religion? If all other religions were removed from earth tomorrow the cleansings would again return to your bastardized Christianity. I really shouldn’t even call you Christian more like a Paulite. It never ceases to amaze me how people can dismiss the teachings of Christ and embrace Paul. Paul contradicts Christ at every turn. ( I give no evidence but leave it as an exercise to the reader ….so many posts so little time!) A person who had never even met the Christ. A person who was reviled by the true disciples in Jerusalem and eventually caused the pure teachings of Christ to be handed to the Romans and Paganized.

Laughable Blissful Ignorance…. it must be nice.



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 04:32 PM
link   
why do you argue about such things if you arent a christian.
leave it to a non believer to attempt to tear down someones beliefs.

apparently you didnt understand when you "read" the bible, etc.

[Edited on 15/5/2004 by aldsar]



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by aldsar
why do you argue about such things if you arent a christian.
leave it to a non believer to attempt to tear down someones beliefs.

apparently you didnt understand when you "read" the bible, etc.

[Edited on 15/5/2004 by aldsar]


Aldsar, there are some truly disturbing things that are instructed of us in the Bible. Never forget that. FOr you not to do these things, means that you are interpreting on your own, and not literally from the Bible.

In the Bible, it tells us to sacrifice cows and children. It tells us to stone rape victims if they do not accept the rapist as the father and marry him. These are instructions given directly and indirectly from God Himself. Are you going to sacrifice a cow today? Are you going to stone someone? You see, aparently you didn't understand when you read the Bible. The Bible is not where you should start your search for God. Instead, you should do it within yourself. That way you will understand a little more about why we don't stone people even though we were given instructions to in the Bible.

[Edited on 5/18/2004 by Seapeople]



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 06:13 PM
link   
What in that post makes you think I'm not a Christian?

Because I don’t put MONEY in your churches coffers?
Or is it because I don’t uphold your ridiculous literal interpretation of scripture?

It’s just so predictable that you would attack me in this way.

If you don’t believe in Christianity as I know it you’re not a Christian and going to hell.

Is that your contention? Bah humbug!

Go tell your scary stories to someone with a weaker mind… mine will not be assaulted by such drivel.

Open your eyes things are not as they seem!

Has the world ever been right?

Why do you think it is now?

Thank you for your defense seapeople I appreciate your comments.

To answer your original question

In the bible very little is to be understood literally. In order to correctly interpret scripture you must consider yourself to be every character in the bible. The focus is on your journey through the world of the dead or Egypt (our world). Earthly Life should be considered to be spiritual death. Physical Death considered resurrection into life (sort of puts a new spin on the resurrection of Christ doesn’t it)!

The verses discussing who is to be punished for what sins points to the jewish belief in Reincarnation prevalentat the time. There were also rituals where you would sacrifice your children to molech to atone for your sins. These verses preach against that.

If you guys want a great read on this method of interpretation check this out its long but really good.
members.tripod.com...



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Ok, oh wise christian one...tell me...... (radiant)

Do you follow the bible literally or not?



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 11:53 AM
link   
WHY DON’T YOUR MINISTERS TELL YOU THIS?
CAN THEY EVEN READ HEBREW OR GREEK?
ASK THEM NEXT SUNDAY.


My pastor does teach all the discrepancies in christianity...he teaches greek, hebrew, he teaches how paganism got tacked onto Christianity, he teaches history, archaeology, astrology, he teaches about the pyramid, there is nothing he hasn't covered that relates to christianity. He has fought in the supreme court to protect the rights of the church.....how come you haven't heard of him? Media doesn't want christians to have a firm faith and knowlege of God's revelation to mankind. They want christians to remain ignorant.
My teacher can be watched and listened to 24/7 worldwide by internet, shortwave, c-band dish and direct to home dishes, his network is the University network. Graduated from Stanford university with a doctorate in philosophies of education, he has undergraduate majors in so many subjects I cant list them all. He lost his faith in university and went into a hard study of the resurrection for 3.5 yrs and came out believing that Jesus came out of that tomb. He explained his findings to his professor who later became a christian. He is now in his seventies, and he teaches no bs....he tells it like it is and alot of people get turned off by him because of his honesty, and also because of his approach to get people to stop and listen. Fundamentalists are turned off by his cigar, which is why he smokes it....they're not too keen on his hats either. BUT none of them can argue with his teaching. He is plagiarized constantly by TV evangelists and one well known healer...they never give him credit for what they learn from him. He put beautiful girls on his network to stop the fundamentalists from recording his stuff and stealing it. An insider said that when they see the girls they have to change the channel because it's a sin for them to see girls in bathingsuits or shorts....(it's ok to see them naked in a motel room though)...maybe this should be in the 'conspiracies in religion' section!



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
Now, somewhere in there is a huge problem.....which is to be "interpreted", and which is to be taken literally?


It's not a huge problem unless your faith hangs in the balance. The books of the Chrstian bible were written by many people over many years; and most of these stories were probably passed by word of mouth first. If you can view modern religion the same as you would ancient mythology then there is no problem.

As for your question; when you write a story, you put in metaphors to keep it interesting, right? And don't forget the languages that these books have been translated through; our words and phrases may have a different meaning than the original authors intended.



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rev_Godslapper

Originally posted by Seapeople
Now, somewhere in there is a huge problem.....which is to be "interpreted", and which is to be taken literally?


It's not a huge problem unless your faith hangs in the balance. The books of the Chrstian bible were written by many people over many years; and most of these stories were probably passed by word of mouth first. If you can view modern religion the same as you would ancient mythology then there is no problem.

As for your question; when you write a story, you put in metaphors to keep it interesting, right? And don't forget the languages that these books have been translated through, our words and phrases may have a different meaning than the original authors intended.


I totally agree with you. As a matter of fact, that was one of the most meaningful responses that I have seen yet. I am not sure where I stand on many things in the Bible. I do though, not discard the fact that everything in it has at least been translated once if not more. Translated from languages that may be somewhat incompatable. You are correct that some things will be a little off. You are correct when you mention the use of metaphors.



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 10:27 AM
link   
This thread should have been titled Bible Bashing :shk:

SeaPeople, stop trying to pick holes in the Bible. Of course there are strange things written in there. Some of this refers to culture thousands of years old. If you want contradictions, let me help you. Here is a collection of hundreds of supposed contradictions in the Bible. Have fun!



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
This thread should have been titled Bible Bashing :shk:

SeaPeople, stop trying to pick holes in the Bible. Of course there are strange things written in there. Some of this refers to culture thousands of years old. If you want contradictions, let me help you. Here is a collection of hundreds of supposed contradictions in the Bible. Have fun!


I probably have that list somwhere. For starters, I am not Bible Bashing. I am pointing out things that blind followers such as your self refuse to see.

Supposed contradictions..... Here goes....

Mr. Dbates. HOW LONG WAS JESUS ON EARTH AFTER HE ROSE FROM THE DEAD?

Go ahead...... give me an acurate statement. Not a range...or an opinion. Give me the amount of time. Then tell me again that it is a supposed contradiction.



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Acts 1:3 mentions a number of 40 days, but we know that Jesus appeared to Saul (Paul) after his ascension(1 Corinthians 15:8 , Acts 22) as Saul traveled to Damascus. How many days later this event took place isn't actually documented.

Matthew 28:16-20 and Luke 24: 33-49 are both a summary of Jesus' appearances after his ressurrection so you can't use these scriptures to document a time frame. Paul even mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 that Jesus appeared to over 500 men after his resurrection. Just because we don't find evidence of this in Matthew and Luke doesn't mean that these are invalid accounts. It simply means that these were summaries, and brief instances of Jesus appearing after he was risen from the dead.


Answer this question for me. What man in the Bible did not have a mother or father? (It's not Adam)

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by dbates]






top topics



 
0

log in

join