The bible – god’s word or mans?

i'm just pointing out that it doesn't matter what the english translations of the text says. it only matters what the original word was and it was not whale.

reply to post by undo


i'm going to have to agree with undo that it probably was not even a whale to begin with and it doesn't have to be. A "submarine" as undo suggested is not completely unbelievable. It's really not important. All that you need to know is that in the story, there is a giant creature/machine/entity that resides in the water that swallows someone. That's it and the book gets the point across.

[edit on 2/9/2009 by JPhish]

I'm just over this whale thing, you're not going to give in no mater what i say. I've never witnessed such stubberness.....

Anyway, there's a more indepth point i wonted to make earlier but i might as well bring it up now. In my op i pointed out the alteration in the bible that was religiously and politically motivated -

"An example of an alteration relates the king of Ugarit, where his followers were the principle competition with the emerging religion of Moses. Scribes working on the New Testament chose to demonize Ba’al ZeBul, the “Lord on High”, by distorting his name to Beelzebub, the “Lord of the Flies”. So the Bible has been deliberately and deceptively altered for both religious and political reasons.

The rest of what became the New Testament was canonized in the 4th century in a series of committee decisions at a convention at Nicea. Four gospels were accepted and sixteen more were rejected, all by a show of hands, as if the facts of the matter could be evaluated or dismissed by popular vote. "

Now one of the main reasons i brought this up was to confront christians with this because not many of you actually know anything about how the OT came about. So my biggest question to those who already knew about this, is why so you still accept the bible as god's word when it has parts that were rejected - how can you base your faith on one fith of the entire gospel? How can you base your faith on what was accepted by popular vote?

And to those who didn't know until now, why still be a christian when your entire belief system is based on a half truth?

double post

[edit on 10-2-2009 by miriam0566]

Originally posted by andre18
I'm just over this whale thing, you're not going to give in no mater what i say. I've never witnessed such stubberness.....

lol. how do you americans say it? the pot calling the kettle black?

"An example of an alteration relates the king of Ugarit, where his followers were the principle competition with the emerging religion of Moses. Scribes working on the New Testament chose to demonize Ba’al ZeBul, the “Lord on High”, by distorting his name to Beelzebub, the “Lord of the Flies”. So the Bible has been deliberately and deceptively altered for both religious and political reasons.

the entire theory was based on a text written in the 2nd century (100's of years after)

so how is that fact?

The rest of what became the New Testament was canonized in the 4th century in a series of committee decisions at a convention at Nicea. Four gospels were accepted and sixteen more were rejected, all by a show of hands, as if the facts of the matter could be evaluated or dismissed by popular vote. "

no, you may want to check your references on that. canonization was was a gradual process.

Now one of the main reasons i brought this up was to confront christians with this because not many of you actually know anything about how the OT came about. So my biggest question to those who already knew about this, is why so you still accept the bible as god's word when it has parts that were rejected - how can you base your faith on one fith of the entire gospel? How can you base your faith on what was accepted by popular vote?

first off, parts were not rejected. if they were, then im sure god would have made sure that they were reinserted. the parts that were rejected were simply not inspired.

second, the bible was not "voted" on. rather the question of canonicity didnt arise untill the 4th century when "christians" started to write more books.

the 1st century christians circulated the apostle's letter which were considered to be inspired.

reply to post by andre18


oh oh, he's not specifically the Lord on High. He's more like the Water Lord Flying. AB (Abzu) became BA and BE in late Akkadian, early Babylonian period. So BA'al or B'el and Be'el is the Water Lord (who is also the Chaos Lord, the Lord of the Abzu, the Lord of the Abyss, the Lord of the Nun, the Lord of the Primeval Waters of Creation, The Great Dragon). Et. al, Ba'al, Be'elzebub, Bel is Enki (EA).

[edit on 10-2-2009 by undo]

it works like this:

THE ETYMOLOGY OF THE "GOD" WORD IN MESOPOTAMIA

The god word is derived from LIL, which is from ENLIL.
LIL BECAME IL.
IL BECAME EL AND AL.
---------------------

Add a prefix BA or a B or a BE, and you have WATER GOD.

Abaddon, the Destroyer (chaos god), is Lord of the Abyss (Bottomless Pit) in Revelation 9. Same guy as Enki. The concept of Chaos was the root meaning of Confusion, as regards the Confusing of the languages at the Tower (Ziggurat) of BAB-ILU. (notice, both the water (ba, ab) and god words (IL-u) are present, indicating that the tower of babilu (babel) was Enki's E.ABZU rebuilt.. it's the tower of the chaos god, or more specifically the tower of the water chaos god (he ends up being turned into a female persona known as tiamat in the enuma elish. the primordial chaos god of water)... the tower of the abzu. the tower of the abyss.

essentially revelation 9 reveals the reopening of the chaos gate of the water god, Enki, a.k.a. Abaddon the Destroyer. some weird stuff emerges from that gate shortly thereafter.

NOTE: THE TEXT SUGGESTS THAT ABADDON IS NONE OTHER THAN APOLLO, WHICH MEANS, IF I'M CORRECT ON THE ETYMOLOGY, THAT ENKI WAS APOLLO. it fits too, since apollo was also known as the god of plagues (which you can see in the revelation 9 text, is precisely what is transpiring---- weird hybrid creatures emerge from the chaos gate under the leadership of abaddon/apollyon, and spread a world wide plague that lasts 5 "months." not a good scenario!

[edit on 10-2-2009 by undo]

Exactly. The same answer I have gotten from everyone I have ever asked in the major faiths. Christians are the largest. So, apparently, in order to know that God exists you must first ask if he exists, then have faith that he does exist and begin the practices he wishes you to perform as if you already know he exists. Now, is this what you believe. Because this is what christians tell me when I bring up the whole complete-lack-of-evidence question. This is just a manipulative roundabout way of saying simply: You must convince yourself. Act and pretend as though you know God exists, then he will let you know he exists. REALLY!! Nice try. I think you need a new sponge, because my brain deflected that attempted washing.

The bastardization of Ba'al ze Bul to Beelzebub, while well known, is not a "fact", though it is evidently true. While the original name may have had other meanings, those sources dealing only with him as an historic or archaeological character refer to him as the lord of the house.

en.wikipedia.org...

Bart D. Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar and textual critic of early Christianity. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has written about how the original New Testament texts were frequently altered by scribes for a variety of reasons, and argues that these alterations affect the interpretation of the texts

Two major themes run throughout nearly all of his books and lectures. First is the desire to analyze the historicity of claims made by ancient texts used in the creation of the New Testament, as well as many books left out of the Christian canon, and subject them to a series of criteria. Second is the desire to reveal the thousands of differences and changes in the texts some people take to be the inerrant and literal "Word of God," who it was that changed the originals (none of which have survived), and what motivations or theological benefit could lie behind such changes being made.

A second major theme that runs through his more recent works is the analysis of why such biblical variations are there. The vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of differences are due to the mistakes of scribes; these have little or no effect on the meaning of the passages or core tenets of Christian dogma. Ehrman argues however that some changes could not have been mistakes, but were purposeful alterations by early church writers to support their interpretation of Christianity.

Two key examples illustrate the critical nature of the variations. Two of the most striking additions occur in the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark, and in 1 John.
Ehrman points out that the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark are not found in the earliest manuscripts, an omission which is noted in the New International Version (a translation used by many Evangelicals) and argues that these verses were added on to the original text many years later. Unlike some other scribal errors that had little bearing on the major tenets of Christian dogma, this addition to the text has significant implications.

In Mark, Jesus' reappearance to his disciples is mentioned only in the added verses. Bearing in mind that this is generally regarded as the earliest of the three synoptic gospels, and one of the primary sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, the addition of these verses could have an important effect. In the King James Version of the First Epistle of John there is a passage often taken as an explicit reference to the doctrine of the Trinity. Ehrman points out that this section does not appear in any Greek manuscript before the 9th century.

Check out the book "What about the missing gospels and the lost christianities"

Yes canonization was a gradual process, culminating in a final construct composed in the 4th century. One of my sources is one of the foremost experts on Biblical history (Dr Paul Maier) He explained exactly this gradual evolution of the canon took place. And yes, that did include achievement of a virtual consensus, a vote. They still opted to remove more than a dozen books from the Bible even though they were still referenced by other books they chose to include. It was a religious convention that altered the bible to create the existence of the trinity.

Why would God’s word refer us to other books which were some human’s word, and/or are no longer available?

The parts that were rejected are listed here. Removed from the OT –

The book of the covenant, (Ezekial 24:2,7)
The Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14)
The Book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13;2 & Samuel 1:18)
The book of Statutes (1st Samual 10:25)
The book of the Acts of Solomon (1st Kings, 11:41)
The book of Nathan (1st Chronicles 29:29 & 2nd Chronicles 9:29)
The Prophesy of Ahijah and Visions of Iddo (2nd Chronicles 9:29, 12:15 & 13:22)
The book of Shemaiah (2nd Chronicles 20:34)
The book of Jehu (2nd Chronicles 20:34)
The Acts of Uzziah, written by Isaiah (nd Chronicles 26:22)
The Saying of the Seers (2nd Chronicles 33:19)

An Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (1st Corinthians 5:9)
An Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians (Ephesians 3:3)
An Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans (Colossians 4:16)
An Epistle of Jude (Jude 3)
The Prophesies of Enoch (Jude 14)
The prophecy that Christ should be Nazarene (Mathew 2:23)
The Prediction Known to the scribes in Jesus’ day that Elias must restore all things before the coming of Christ (Mathew 17:10)

I'm also making mention of the fact that the remaining, and thus "inspired" parts of the Bible still reference the now-deleted parts of the Bible which you describe as un-inspired. So why would God refer to them? Whether any of the alleged gospels was assumed to be divinely inspired is irrelevant.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by andre18]

Every one of the world’s supposedly “holy” doctrines of any religion describe themselves as being written by men, not gods; men who were moved by or inspired by their favorite gods, or perhaps taking dictation from angels, but they were written by mortals none the less; not by angels, and certainly not by gods.

If there really was one true god, a being of that magnitude ever wrote a book, then there would only be one such document; one book of God. It would be dominant everywhere in the world with no predecessors or parallels or alternatives in any language, because mere human authors couldn’t possibly compete with it. And you wouldn’t need faith to believe it, because it would be consistent with all evidence and demonstrably true, revealing profound morality and wisdom far beyond contemporary human capacity.

It would invariably inspire a unity of common belief for every reader. If God wrote it, we could expect no less. But what we see instead is the very opposite of that. Instead of only one religion leading to one ultimate truth, we have many different religions with no common origin, all constantly sharding into ever more deeply-divided denomination, conflicting truths and each somehow claiming divine guidance despite their ongoing divergence.

reply to post by andre18


Unless i'm missing something, the only logical conclusion is that "they all can't be right". However, it doesn't mean that all of them are wrong or that any of them are right for that matter.

how do you americans say it? the pot calling the kettle black?

lol, I'm not throwing in the towel, you just won't listen so I’m just giving up convincing you because of your stubbornness to accept defeat. Here's example of another whale - giant fish like mistake,

Apparently bats are birds

Leviticus 11:19 - "These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, 14and the kite and the falcon in its kind, 15every raven in its kind, 16 and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, 17and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, 18and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, 19and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat."

In verse 13 Moses talks about the birds and then he lists them out. In verse 19 the bat is included in this list. We know that a bat is not a bird - this means bible is incorrect.

Originally posted by andre18

how do you americans say it? the pot calling the kettle black?

..........

Apparently bats are birds

Leviticus 11:19 - ............................

In verse 13 Moses talks about the birds and then he lists them out. In verse 19 the bat is included in this list. We know that a bat is not a bird - this means bible is incorrect.

So the bible is incorrect because they said that the bat is a bird? Well I dont know about you but when I look at a bat I think that its some type of bird.... I mean, it has wings, it flys etc.....
The fact that it says that the bat is a bird does not detract from the message that the bible puts across.

Think about it for a second.... does it even matter that there are a whole lot of books not included in the bible?
The bible is that its like our manual for life... God speaks to us through this and it doesnt matter if there are a few facts that are wrong and as long as we focus on what God wants for us then any wrong facts will become irrelevant. The idea is that we get out of it what God wants us to get out of it.

Perhaps, by put to death it means to slay there flesh, as though Shall not kill is the overiding tenant, Anyone commiting these act's especially for there period needs to take a broad look at why they are attracted to men firstly, perhaps its the massive increase in ezo-estrogen that causes this behavior, although not abborant its not my choice, that would be my interpretation of the living word anyways.

reply to post by JPhish


For example the Torah, the gospels, the Qur’an, the Hindu Vedas, the Book of Mormon, and the Urantia book are all declared to be the “absolute truth” and the “revealed word” of the “one true” god, and believers of each say the others are deceived. The only logical probability is that they all are.

or perhaps they mis-interpreted the meaning of it, Yes I know there is a God, And yes i know there is a bible, but the bible deals more with conduct, and behavior, if one did all the things it dictated without reading it IE not lying not stealing, being curtios, and respecting there fellow man and expecting also respect from them. Even without a book or creed God has written it on our hearts the book is simply for inspiration, be it divine or naught, I would have to talk to The omnipotent and Omnisient one face to face to get all the facts straight at a singular point in time.

reply to post by andre18


that's actually an illogical conclusion.

let me explain . . .

3 men walk into a room. In the center of the room is the only clock in the world. It's digital!

The three men make note of the time, and leave the room.

Once outside the room,
one man claims the clock rhed 2:32
another claims it rhed 2:23
and the last claims it rhed 3:22

Not all of the men can be correct
and all of them could be wrong,
but one of them could be right.

not sure what they're teaching in school nowadays, but that's logic.

[edit on 2/12/2009 by JPhish]

ACTUALLY, if you follow the etymologies, they are all mostly correct! They are talking about the same exact things, just using local dialect and presented in their regional tradition.

Take the Divine Councils of Rome, Greece, Egypt, Sumer, Akkad, Babylon, India and China. Those are all the same gods, repeated again and again from the local traditional perspective, in their unique languages.

here's an example;

ISIS is ...

INANNA
ASTORETH
ASTARTE
ISHTAR
(semiramis is a later incarnation of the same figure

OSIRIS is...

NIMROD
ENMERKAR
NARMER
GILGAMESH

and don't even get me started on ENKI's various personas. he's got a bunch!


[edit on 12-2-2009 by undo]