Is there any credibility with The Kolbrin Bible?

reply to post by Redevilfan09


A very cursory search regarding The Kolbrin Bible came up with this

Unfortunately, the Kolbrin Bible has no prevenance beyond that claimed by its publishers. On the Web there is no reference to "The Kolbrin" or "The Bronzebook" other than by the publishers; the official Glastonbury Website makes no mention of this "book" - and does not even mention the possibility of arson in the 12th century fire which supposedly was intended to destroy it. It is eminently probable that "The Kolbrin" is a literary hoax, albeit brilliantly conceived and very well written... and with a remarkably convincing exposition of evolution combined with the will of a God. (Darwinism and Creationism finally have an intelligent mediator!)

From here Re The Kolbrin bible

There is also this

From combined research, the origins of The Kolbrin can be traced back to a large collection of manuscripts salvaged from Glastonbury Abbey during an arson attack that was intended to destroy them. It was the time of history when there was a great suppression of monasterys. As fate would have it, the once considered heretical works were transcribed on bronze tablets by the religious druids of the time. Since they were thought to be destroyed during the fire, they were preserved in secrecy.

Since then, much of the original text was lost or destroyed due to the passage of time, their environment, and human error. Each caretaker though, has gone to painstaking efforts to preserve what was left and to fill in the gaps with the correct knowledge in order to preserve the original meaning.

My bold

from here thekolbrin.com

which would indicate to me that there is little left that can be considered original if indeed there really was ever an original....

I actually live about 5 miles from Glastonbury and I can honestly say that the place is a hot bed of conmen and deception aimed at people that believe in mystical things. I actually saw a box for sale in a shop there last week with a grain of rice in it for £7.00 apparently the box contained 'love'...

Originally posted by robinmorningstar
I should have learned my lesson from Yahoo Answers, don't engage atheists in this manner...there is neither a chance nor desire for victory. My only point was that I think the dismissal of another's faith is rude. You can make an a-theistic point without name-calling. I have sensed so much anger and hatred in the dismissal of theistic thought, it's pungent. The fact is that no one has proof for or against the existence of God. I can no more prove to another that God exists than another can prove to me that God does not, they both eventually reveal themselves as faith. But, I don't have to disrespect an atheist in order to assert my beliefs, though it seems too often vice-versa. And atheists don't hold a monopoly on science. I graduated with an engineering degree and Bachelor in Science from the #1 school in America (according to Forbes Magazine). I am a scientist, and in the beauty and elegance of scientific revelation, I see the magnificence of the creator.

I have to say Robin, Id admire your perspective, I dont personally share your views on the Holy Bible, my opinion would be that its a politically motivated collection of stories to bolster a common goal but neither would I abuse or criticise anyone for their beliefs. Thats very much your world view and in that, valid to you. It does piss me off when intolerant people feel that have undermine someone else's belief and are not just comfortable with their own. Good luck to you. Much s&f's

reply to post by Versa


go through my post earlier it refutes all your quoted claims from the official websites of the Abbey, and the Trust that holds the documents

upon further reading about the "book", kolbrin bible, it too seem doc'd up,as too say man influenced, as poster said or i should say, quoted form an other site, i was hoping to find so true old doc's that were untouched. and in hole wishful thinking on my part.

reply to post by seedofchucky


I like what you said, i feel the "appeal to majority" has never been a good argument for the beauty or truth to anything. "Well.....Lady Gaga is popular therefore her music MUST be good."

Christianity is the most popular religion in the world but it doesn't stand in favour of it's truth, in fact i would have thought any serious thinking person would realise this tripe is nonsense, even a child can see through, and they do with their questions.

Thank "God" or rather thank Humanity that we have democratic free society in most 1st world countries so that minority opinion has a chance of becoming the majority opinon. Women's rights, abolition of slavery etc. etc.

Originally posted by seedofchucky
reply to post by robinmorningstar

 

number one selling ? that means what ? how gullable people are ?

Britney spears / lady gaga / just beibier all sell pretty good wouldn't you say ? what does that tell you about society ?

now lets compare science books to that shall we ?


oh not selling that much you say ?

i know the bible may seem all cute and friendly but what about the evil verses in there ? stonning to death ? rape ? murder ?

most people i talk to about the bible don't even know about these verses because they try hard to keep them hidden

i ask you good sir who in the right mind would ever follow a god who inspires such a book of torment?

Here is what I do not understand. Not just about your statement, but about all people who make those kinds of comments.

Why are you bothered so much by what other people believe? Why does it matter? You are entitled to your beliefs and others are entitled to theirs. Do you get some kind of satisfaction out of attacking someone else's faith?

It is okay to agree to disagree.

Originally posted by robinmorningstar

Originally posted by seedofchucky
creadibility + bible same sentence = oxymoron

I really get annoyed when people say things such as that above. The Bible (not talking about the Kolbrin bible which I know little about) is the number one selling text of all time, studied and reveared by societies and cultures for generations. You don't know as much as you think you do, but if you have an inkling of understanding, use it not to disrespect others faith. It's rude and obtuse, and I grow tired of the arrogance of that nature...

I am glad to see others sticking up for the Bible. I fail to see the point of trying to discredit the beliefs of others and I see a lot of that on this site.

reply to post by daryllyn


It separates two wolrdviews, we inherently think the views of Theism are irrational. Having a description of God before having evidence, it's guesswork, people should value the pursuit of Truth.

No man can claim to reveal wisdom regarding the creator of reality, no man can claim that this entity definetly exists, and furthermore no one can claim to know "GOD"'s thoughts and desires.

Man is agnostic is regards to this, as we were agnostic regards to Gallaxies a few hundred years ago, we DONT know, so guessing is irrational.

What's worse is that this is indoctrinated to the suggestable minds of children, without any evidence. This is wrong, the preaching of eternal damnation is the most immoral preaching i can think of, to say that to a child, is used to make the child fear their "immortal souL" and make them submit to these dictatorships with ease.

This is wrong, we come here to voice our opinion and thoughts, as do you.

Originally posted by robinmorningstar
I should have learned my lesson from Yahoo Answers, don't engage atheists in this manner...there is neither a chance nor desire for victory. My only point was that I think the dismissal of another's faith is rude. You can make an a-theistic point without name-calling. I have sensed so much anger and hatred in the dismissal of theistic thought, it's pungent. The fact is that no one has proof for or against the existence of God. I can no more prove to another that God exists than another can prove to me that God does not, they both eventually reveal themselves as faith. But, I don't have to disrespect an atheist in order to assert my beliefs, though it seems too often vice-versa. And atheists don't hold a monopoly on science. I graduated with an engineering degree and Bachelor in Science from the #1 school in America (according to Forbes Magazine). I am a scientist, and in the beauty and elegance of scientific revelation, I see the magnificence of the creator.

Well said.

I agree 100 percent.

If they don't like the content of the thread or the direction of the conversation, they can choose to not comment rather than attack the bible and people that have faith in the word of God. They get some sort of satisfaction (or something) from attacking another's faith, which is just ridiculous. Believers have just as much of a right to believe as non-believers have to not believe. Why can't people just agree to disagree?

Sorry to the OP for the subject getting skewed. I have no knowledge on that particular text.

reply to post by daryllyn


Cool story about Atheists bro.

Apologies to the OP for distracting from the subject.

Like any bible of man, it is indeed created by man, not God, i think therefore all credibility flies out the window. Some historical facts may be true, it might give someone a good idea of how they lived at the time (maybe not) But i don't think the metaphysical claims are true (GOD, afterlife etc.), they didn't have the means to test the claims, we still don't.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


I do not deny that you have the right to voice your opinion. I am also not going to force my views on you (or anyone else for that matter). If you choose not to believe, that is your right. I am not going to argue with you, or anyone on the subject. I know what I believe and couldn't care less about what anyone thinks about it. You could try to disprove my entire belief system and it wouldn't change a thing.

reply to post by daryllyn


No problem, I'm here, like you, to offer my opnion. Perhaps some fence-sitters may be persuaded in my direction of argument, perhaps some believers will. I won't tell them they risk eternal damnation if they refuse to be Atheist though, Atheism has no dogma.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


I am not your typical bible-thumping-you will burn in hell for not agreeing with my viewpoint kind of believer. I have formulated my own belief system that is probably different from the majority. I am nondenominational and do not attend church. I am more than happy to agree to disagree with you

reply to post by daryllyn


Excellent. I appreciate that some "believers" don't really believe all of the "FACTS" in the doctrine. I don't really have many concerns with the Deistic approach, which seems to be your position. Forgive me if i am wrong.

Just know that not all Atheists are smug, we're not voicing our opinion because we are arrogant or want to cause distress or contraversy. We hope that one day; belief in a God or not, that people will admit that religion is a construct of man, not a construct of something off-Earth.(GOD)

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Religion being man made is exactly right. That is why I refuse to subscribe to a denomination and subsequently refuse to attend church services. The intent originally (from a bible believing perspective) was not for everyone to be separate and attack each other. I am of the opinion that denominations go against the bible altogether. We are also not supposed to judge one another. Which is why I will never tell someone they are going to burn or that their beliefs are flawed (even if I sometimes think they are). This is also why I don't force my beliefs on others.

I am not of the opinion that all atheists are certain way. Everyone is different.

reply to post by daryllyn


I can't disagree with anything you say here. I would never aim to indoctrinate anyone or any child. I'm here to share my philosophy/worldview and why i have formed a criticism of religion. With so much destruction and controversy evident worldwide (past and present) i think my criticisms of religion from a logical, philosophical and moral point of view are more than justified.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Oh my. Are an atheist and a Christian actually having a meaningful discussion without attacking/insulting/belittling one another?! Seriously though, breath of fresh air. I normally try to avoid discussing anything of this nature because it normally does not bode well.

The things done in the name of God/religion/bible in this world are horrid. Its completely ridiculous that murder/terrorist acts are justified in the name God/Allah or what have you. The sad part is that they really believe that they are doing the right thing. Atrocious.

I think we have completely derailed this thread though! Apologies to the OP.

reply to post by daryllyn


Indeed, it is a refreshing change on ATS.

Are you a Christian though? How can you call yourself a follower of a religion but customise and discard the parts you don't like? You said yourself you don't believe in ALL of the stories/philosophy/morals in the bible? What makes you believe in any of it? What's your evidence other than the bible?

This shows your doubt for your own religion. The religion which you labell yourself with (Christian)

Are you not a Deist, as i have asked before? This seems to highlight your position.

Deism (pronounced /ˈdiːɪzəm/ ( listen), US dict: dē′·ĭzm)[1][2] in the philosophy of religion is the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that a supreme being created the universe. Further the term often implies that this supreme being does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending to assert that God (or "The Supreme Architect") has a plan for the universe that is not to be altered by intervention in the affairs of human life. Deists believe in the existence of God without any reliance on revealed religion, religious authority or holy books.

This seems to be more your approach? A belief in a omnipotent God but without the man-made nonsense.

Again, i'm not being rude, nor am i trying to be; this is an arena of debate. Despite our contrasting beliefs - we can still maintain civil discourse - as we have shown

Peace.

Originally posted by Kayzar
reply to post by seedofchucky

 

number one selling ? that means what ? how gullable people are ?

Does that same logic apply to the god delusion? That was a best seller.

Sure does

How about a little scholarly research?

The Culdeans
* No record of such a sect

It's composed of manuscripts saved from the burning of Glastonbury.
* Glastonbury Monastary burned in 1184 (en.wikipedia.org...). This says nothing of a truth, simply sets a timeframe.

what about books from Glastonbury library?
* There's no older legend about lost books from the library. Doing a google scholar search on Glastonbury manuscripts, I find that there are a lot of them and they're used as reference for many historians.
* Searching for "list of Glastonbury Manuscripts" shows that there's a known list of manuscripts that date to about 1100, none of which has any of these titles.

McCanney says it's rumored that Nicola Tesla acquired knowledge from the book.
* Tesla was Catholic, not Church of England and CofE has some very harsh feelings about Catholics. Besides, he went to the US, not England. It is very unlikely in that suspicious, nationalistic time that he got any secrets from anywhere.

The claim is made that "The word 'Kailedy' (or Kailedi) originated with the early Christians who came to Britain in 37AD".
* Jesus supposedly died in 33 AD. The sect during those times was trying to round up its base, firm the local churches, and organize (see Acts, Corinthians, and all the other books in the Bible.)

The Kalidey' is supposedly a variant of "Culdee"
This is a word that does not show up until 803 AD: en.wikipedia.org...

Comments on the opening:
VERY modern in tone. They say that the translation was kept pure, but there are some concepts (they had little idea that fashions changed dramatically) that seem to date from 1960-1980.

Comment on the first book
Again, very modern. There is talk of a creator god, then suddenly minor beings which are also deities/spirits (Earth, Sun, etc) -- which is NOT Christian or Jewish in origin. Nor is it Egyptian or Sumerian. If this is supposed to be Biblical material (brought to Britain by new Christians in 37 AD), then it would clearly have links and beliefs traceable to the Judaism of the day (Christianity was not terribly different from Judaism in its earliest days (remember, Jesus and the disciples were Jews.)) There is not a sense of an established mythos here and it is extremely contradictory ("god" decides to not interfere yet there he is being involved with the birth of Man. Earth is treated as human and then suddenly as a wild beast.)

The "birth of man" contains some material that would not have been acceptable to Jews or early Christians and names that were not found in any mythos or legend. If the material had been ancient writings "from Jesus", etc, then we would see the same forms that are in the Gospels or the Torah or other works of that time. None of them mentions "ape men" (an "ape man" is a fairly recent concept) It appears to be a mere "stream of consciousness" rather than a retelling of a structured story passed from time immemorial, which deals with a firmly established belief system.

The name of "man" hops from "Earthling" to "Earthchild" (and within 2 sentences of each other) ... an inconsistency that would not have existed in ancient manuscripts. Translators would have settled on one name for the being and would have kept it consistent throughout that section of the manuscript.

Destruction and recreation section
I'm sorry to sound rather rude here, but it reads like a bad retelling of the "Cataclysm" introduction to the "World of Warcraft" MMORPG (which I play.)

The Affliction of God
Linguistically, the same person who wrote/translated/created this is the same person who wrote the introduction and the previous section.

In the beginning
Same person, again. "Awen" is not a name in any language -- and this is important because the Jews/Greeks/Christians all had names by which they referred to the deity.

...and so on and so forth.

So we have a disjointed, rambly narrative and words that have no consistent root language (even within the story) and an incoherent structure of deities/powers/heavenly beings. If this was an ancient Christian narrative, we would expect to see elements of Christianity in it (the Torah/Old Testament was not necessarily part of the Christian readings of the time.) We would expect to see names similar to or taken from the languages of the Middle East of that time OR Celtic names.

In the old times, people KNEW what their names meant. Unlike today, they didn't use "pleasing sounds" but rather traditional names and names which resounded with significance.

Cultural details -- well, they all seem to be Midwestern American with an overlayer of "sort of native American New Age". The mythology isn't consistent in any of them, nor is it consistent with original Christian beliefs and thoughts.

In the narration we find that all the narrators write the same way no matter which culture they come from. If you run it through a linguistics analyzer, all books have the same readability score in general and they all gender like a man wrote them.

Even if they had the same translator, books written in different languages flow differently (compare the flowery phrases of the Psalms with Corinthians; two books composed in two different languages by two different cultures and meshed into a whole.) For something truly different and in English, compare the translation of the Mahabdarata and the Bible or the Baha'i writings. You will see that even when translated into modern English, the Baha'i is far more flowery... and in a very different way than ordinary English or the English version of the Bible and so forth.

So it cannot be any version of the Bible. It cannot be any writing brought over in 30 AD (otherwise we'd have linguistic ties with the languages and cultures of the Jews of that day.)

I would judge from the consistent mess of theological ideas, disjointed writing style, and apparently made up words that this is a modern piece created sometime after 1980. I frankly wouldn't buy a copy of it, having read it, nor do I intend to refer to it as a piece of unusual wisdom. As fiction, well, I prefer the Warcraft novels.

More on Early Christianity: en.wikipedia.org...
More here: www.cogwriter.com...