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.

 

My first issues with the Bible.

page: 32
47
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
For the question about Genesis, "Let us make man in our image", I like this interpretation of the usage of the Hebrew term Elohim. "Now let's take a look at Genesis 1:26

And God said, Let us make man in our image... (Genesis 1:26, ASV)

Just as the earth, who is Elohim, brought forth the animals, the earth also brings forth man. But this still does not explain the "us," unless the "us" is the land and the sky.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27, ASV)

Something that is often overlooked in this verse is that it identifies the "image” of Elohim as "male and female" and as we have already found, earth is a feminine word and the sky is a masculine word. We can also see this masculine and feminine attributes of Elohim at work in Genesis 2:7 where Elohim formed the man with the land and sky.

And the Elohim Formed the man of dust [masculine] from the ground [feminine], And he breathed into His nostrils [masculine] the breath [feminine] of life, And the Man [masculine] became a living soul [feminine] (Genesis 2:7, LT)"


source: sites.google.com...




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I always hear God in the singular term.It has always been my thought that there are multiple gods.God needs a family too you know.Considering the vastness of the universe and the scope of gods position,it makes good sense that there would be multiple gods.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Not likely. More likely he was talking about himself in the trinity, or his angels. In addition, it clearly states he created him in his image, male and female he created them. This indicates that He first created mankind in his image, and then created them from that into male and female. Not necessarily asexual. But indeed male and female came out of something from before that was described as he.

In addition to this, there is the potential that the two genesis stories do not describe the same man, considering they are at different time periods.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lordvander
The problem with Christianity is that the belief in the bible as a holy book is false. If it came from God, why was it changed? Why are there so many different versions of it? It just does not make sense.

video.google.com...#


Hello ATS -

New here, been watching for awhile but figured would make this my first response. I have yet to watch the referenced documentary in its fullness, but did want to go ahead and clarity that claiming the bible was 'changed' throughout time is a misnomer.

As far as why there are so many versions of it, the short answer is that language is a living thing, and we're dealing with updated modern english as compared to ancient original languages. As the times and english change as a result, people want to update the modern text to reflect contemporary usage to increase readability in the current era - this is always (perhaps usually?) done from the most respected and available extant (read: oldest-surviving) original language copies available. Also, a new version will sometimes come out when new/older copies may have been found that result in people wanting to do more than just footnote an existing version as such, but this is rare.

Now, as to the bible being "changed", I'd really like some examples of this. Different faiths have sometimes included different books in the 'bible' (jews leave out the 'new testament', catholics add the apocrypha, and most exlude texts from the nag hammadi library and dead sea scrolls). This is a very good reason that I don't take the christiam bible as 'God's' only true revelation - the decisions to include and exclude certain books were definitely made by groups of men, but usually for mainly consistent & good reasons. Long story short, take nothing for granted, and as Paul said in the new testamnent, 'Prove all things and hold fast that which is good'.

As a whole looking at the involved texts, though, the bible has remained shockingly consistent over thousands of years. You can compare portions of the old testament to the Dead Sea scrolls found in the last century and witness the amazing accuracy with which the masoretes relayed the information that was available during the time the scrolls lied hidden - the Dead Sea scrolls give us a picture of the Tanach (old testament) as it existed about two centuries before "Jesus", wheras the oldest extant copies we previously had available were from around 1000AD/CE. The DSSs validate the vast accuracy with which the message had been relayed, with a very small number of changes over more than a millenia (en.wikipedia.org...).

When dealing with the new testament - well, you're dealing with the collection of books that has the best textual support of any ancient writing. Thousands of ancient copies exist, and also verify the accuracy with which the text has been upheld over the last two thousand years. Almost the entire new testament can be recreated just from the quotes of the early church fathers, actually, let alone the thousands of extant copies out there with which to compare (good info on bible text accuracy at home.earthlink.net...).

Then again, there are no secrets or cover-ups even when texts disagree. If you actually take the time to look at pretty much any modern version of the bible, you'll see all sorts of footnotes talking about what is said differently in another manuscript when there is a disagreement. There's no effort to hide anything and you can get information on which version saying something different is older or in wider circulation or scholarly acceptance, or even when a popular verse (ending of Mark, for example, does NOT appear in the oldest copies and hence might not be trustworthy).

Long story short, you might disagree with what the generally-accepted bible itself says (despite consistently-verified historical accuracy as archeological discoveries have been made), but ultimately the integrity of the text itself is beyond question.

Be well -
Steve



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Here is another view of the Father/Mother God Elohim from the same source, sites.google.com...

"In our modern culture we tend to view God in masculine terms and imagery. While the word Elohim is a masculine noun, it does not have to imply that the Elohim is masculine. To illustrate this, notice that the word Elohim is used for a female goddess in the following verse.

For Solomon went after Ash'toreth the goddess [Elohim] of the Sido'nians. (1Ki 11:5, RSV)

In the first chapter of Genesis we receive our first glimpse of the nature of Elohim’s gender.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:27, KJV)

Notice that in this verse it states that Elohim made humans in his image, but then it defines this image as male and female. From this we can conclude that the attributes of God are both masculine and feminine. We can then surmise that he placed his masculine attributes within the man and his feminine attributes within the woman and when a man and woman come together and become one[1], they together become the image of Elohim."



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Not likely. More likely he was talking about himself in the trinity, or his angels. In addition, it clearly states he created him in his image, male and female he created them. This indicates that He first created mankind in his image, and then created them from that into male and female. Not necessarily asexual. But indeed male and female came out of something from before that was described as he.

In addition to this, there is the potential that the two genesis stories do not describe the same man, considering they are at different time periods.


Where in the OT is the trinity discussed? It is unlikely this is the usage of elohim. See my post about the Father/Mother God
So tell me, how did the concept of the Trinity get translated magically by you into the male/female thing, since the woman is not included in the Trinity? Your thinking here seems so mixed up, like so many of your other posts I have read, It sounds like you are trying to say that the Elohim was the Trinity and the Trinity created man in their image as man and woman. How do you create a woman from the archetype of holy spirit or the son? No, it had to be an archetype of female to create a female in the likeness of Elohim. .
edit on 21-3-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 



Now, as to the bible being "changed", I'd really like some examples of this. Different faiths have sometimes included different books in the 'bible' (jews leave out the 'new testament', catholics add the apocrypha, and most exlude texts from the nag hammadi library and dead sea scrolls). This is a very good reason that I don't take the christiam bible as 'God's' only true revelation - the decisions to include and exclude certain books were definitely made by groups of men, but usually for mainly consistent & good reasons. Long story short, take nothing for granted, and as Paul said in the new testamnent, 'Prove all things and hold fast that which is good'.


Here you go..


Bible Corruption?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
I lost interest in the bible right around this point:

``Then God said, "Let there be light!" So there was light.``



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Cataclysmo
 


Hey Cataclysmo,

Well and truly agreed. Most christians are such in name only and will, according to the bible itself, be disowned by the one they claim upon his return.

For whatever it's worth, I'll offer my apologies for those who close hearts and minds and drive others away. For some reason, certain people and groups have forgotten his lessons of humility, meekness, forbearance, sacrifice, and all the rest I could go on about. Even Gandhi once said that christians were the only reason he couldn't be one, despite how much he loved the message.

And therein lies the rub. You can't accept or decline a message or teaching based on the misrepresentation of those who merely claim to follow it. You'll always be disappointed and will never find anything worth believing in by doing so.

Be well.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaosComplex
 


"1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

And so Agriculture was born! lol Thanks



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaosComplex
 


I'm sure this has already been said in these pages, but anyhoo....

Also, I'm not a Christian, but I have studied the Bible and other religious texts.


"1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

"after his kind" makes me think that these creatures were based on creatures that existed somewhere else...


In this case, it appears that "after his kind" simply means "living" (not in our common view of the term, but being "animate")



"1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

What? Let US make? In OUR image? After OUR likeness? What the... How can no one have an issue with this?


Him and the Angels. The Angels existed prior to man according to many scriptures. So, the likeness is that we resemble both God and the Angels in appearance, according to scripture. Note, Lucifer/Satan is, at this time, another Angel. It is when God starts to show more favor to this creation (man) that Lucifer leads a revolt for the throne, and is then cast down with the other losers of the conflict. (at least according to some Hebrew texts, not really the official Bible.

EDIT to add: of course, this could be seen to conflict with the whole idea of Adam and Eve, and the Serpent, etc., but we really don't know how LONG Adam and Eve were there before this momentous event is alleged to occur.



edit on 21-3-2011 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaosComplex
 


I dont really get ur question dude "OUR" obviously he is talkin about "THEM" which would be supernatural or higher beings as god/aliens/demons/angels...somethin that is higher than humans so yeah there u go dude...he created us in his own image basically saying we look exactly like him he looks like a human


Definition of Our: •belonging to us; of us; used before a person's name to indicate that the person is in one's family

edit on 21-3-2011 by Evanzsayz because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2011 by Evanzsayz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
I take issue with giving a pass to, or blatantly allowing bible thumpers to use phrases like "because god says so" or "because god is all powerful therefore X=true"

Consider the following in this thread, and then try to imagine this were a conversation about anything other than religion:


you guys are absolutely abusing the word of god. If you have a problem with the bible its not our problem its yours, So deal with it (interstellarone)


Translation: Don't question me. It's not up to us to prove that flying spaghetti monster is real. It just IS true (FSM says so, ya know!). It's up to all YOU OTHER PEOPLE, to just ACCEPT IT.


No book on Earth is like it. That is how I know everything in it is true and told. (ag893)


Translation: Nothing else on earth is like the flying spaghetti monster. That is how I know he is real.


there is One True God (jim scott)


Translation: Because I say so! And don't you question it! All those other people's versions of their gods will go burn in hell, again, because me and my FSM say so!


The folks who wrote the other books are still here, dead. I'm going with the Bible. It's the one backed up by resurrection (Jim scott).


Translation: Instead of following the old rule of Occam and sorting through some of the other reasonable explanations here (he never existed in the first place, he wasn't ever actually executed, the body was moved by other humans, etc.) I'm just gonna go with magical intervention here and assume that he "rose up"


Ironic, isn't it, since Mohammed was married to a rich Catholic who funded his nonsense before he became a polygamist? (jim scott)


Translation: I am free to call other's religion "nonsense" but they better not dare question mine!


Muslims will recognize Christ and bow a knee like the rest of us. (superiorEd)


Translation: My religion is right! Yours is wrong! You will convert! My FSM says so!

This is getting boring, so I'm just going to stop there (and that was only page 11), there's at least 20+ more pages at the time of this post.

I'll also submit another piece for evidence, the so called "creation museum"
scienceblogs.com...


When they do make plain statements that contradict the science, they don't bother to provide a reason to accept their view over the scientific one — reason is the enemy, you may recall. It's enough to simply declare that this is GOD'S WORD, therefore it is true.


Good read, by the way. and it's exactly my point of trying to have a fact based conversation with some (not all) Christians. (some actually do understand the difference between "fact" and "belief, opinion, faith, etc.") Point being, the bible is not the authority on all things just because "you" say it is, and saying "god says so" or "the bible says so" as an argument for X to be true, doesn't necessarily mean X is actually true. (maybe this is why a lot of evangelicals don't want to go to a "secular" colleges when they come of age, there's this whole thing called the academic process they would probably have a hard time with, since, simply exclaiming "the bible says so" does not work in proving one's thesis correct)

and yes, someone already said it, but it's true, the wizards don't like it when you try to peer behind the curtain.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by anthbes
I lost interest in the bible right around this point:

``Then God said, "Let there be light!" So there was light.``



That refers to the creative power of fiat and sound. AUM

A very eloquent website sentientonline.net...
edit on 21-3-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
We have leapt up to 30 pages within 2 days and haven't reached the end of day 2 yet so this is a subject we obviously feel intensely about and of course it has influenced wars.

Regardeless of whatever version of the bible is considered, it is clearly one of the most emotive books in the world but, is it the book itself or the priesthood, its servants that we should really be looking at, when we deal with the anomolies the book throws up?

The book we know stretches over an incredibly long period of time, has probably 5 authors and a load of people who have added their own take on things. So basically the book has IMHO a fair defence and is unlikely ever to be removed from the sacred place within many people's hearts. So I don't think we can blame the book, because
its up to people who want it in their lives to live by what they perceive it tells them, to research it.

The Priesthood is another matter regardless of what religion they work through. Their responsibility was to tell us what the bible said and to implement it into society. Most of them will have had at least 3 years in some bible college. Its safe to assume they must have seen other 'difficult' texts and been tutored on the environments throughout the time the bible was written. Have they been honest with us especially regarding the bible's pagan beginnings amongst a number of so many other things I certainly wasn't told at worship?

People today can research into the bible's background but for so many past generations the priesthood were in a position of trust, did they abuse that trust from an academic point of view? (We all know about their recent problems).



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
A bit of a repost but.....

When I try to explain the Ancient Alien theory to Christians, they are quickly turned of by the notion of me using the term 'alien' and I'm trying to learn how to get them past the image of Stephen Spielberg's, "E.T.', since that seems to be the only image that comes to their minds...

The bible is indeed a book about OUR history, not the history of the universe. Our creator gods (the Anunnaki) were visitors on an 'Earth mission' and we were genetically engineered with their DNA (Genesis 1:26)

According to the Anunnaki story, which I believe to be true, brothers Enlil was referred to as the 'Lord God' and Enki was referred to as a 'traitor' (aka snake-serpent), so that in fact, Satan was the good guy of the bible and God was the ruthless tyrant-murderer...

Another thing: why aren't Christians able to entertain the idea of 'other-worldly' beings? What do they think the bible is talking about?

One way that I am successful at making them open their eyes to it is talking about the Star of Bethlehem....I explain that it was obviously not a real 'star', as stars do not move (especially the way it is described in the bible-going right, left, hovering over monuments,etc) and that the only star in our solar system is our sun...

that opens up conversation about astronomy and science and then they seem to open their minds


Hah...well said, although I usually take the reverse sort of approach here.

In my personal opinion, what we consider to be spiritual in the bible that everyone takes as some sort of ephemeral weirdness is merely the inter- and super-dimensional levels of existence. I don't take up with the root basis of the sumerians and annunaki in general (I believe them to be misunderstanding or intentional misrepresentations of the inter-dimensional), but in short even science acknowledges, for the most part, a definitely beginning to space-time for our universe.

I believe the root cause of this beginning is the super-dimensional ID'd as 'god' in the bible - merely a root source of all with the creative will and ability to make our universe and the laws it follows, while standing outside of and being bound by neither. Quantum physics stipulates - what, 11? - dimensions in existence at the time the universe came into being, and entities in such a number of higher dimensions (the inter-dimensional, angels/demons/djinn/aliens, what have you) would likely have more than enough leeway and abilities as have been attributed to them throughout the ages.

I have become a big fan of 'ancient alien' theory over the last few years, and when looked at in light of the book of Enoch and other faiths such as the sumerian (so bring in the watchers/grigori/igigi, etc.), I see it all meshing perfectly. Who doesn't love the serpent and his seed from the bible? By extension, who doesn't love reptilians?

Just with my understanding of general branches of science, statistics, and the bible, I can't give any credence to "extra terrestrial" origins of all this beautiful strangeness, but I have no problem believing in the inter-dimensional having a long history and rule in this universe prior to us coming on the scene as well as making ongoing appearances in the time since.

Grace and peace, thanks for the post!



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Hah, thanks for the quick response. I would just like to re-direct back to what I said later, though:

"Then again, there are no secrets or cover-ups even when texts disagree. If you actually take the time to look at pretty much any modern version of the bible, you'll see all sorts of footnotes talking about what is said differently in another manuscript when there is a disagreement. There's no effort to hide anything and you can get information on which version saying something different is older or in wider circulation or scholarly acceptance, or even when a popular verse (ending of Mark, for example, does NOT appear in the oldest copies and hence might not be trustworthy)."

Even if there might have been some shadiness going on, light an shine into the darkest spots. There aren't really many actual memory holes out there where something can outright disappear and not be validated later (OK, fine, on a short timeline the government does this, but there are usually leaks or will come out in a few decades anyway).

Point taken, though, as noted there ARE some variant texts and readings out there - but these tend to also get exposed through research and delineated as such, usually becoming a mere footnotes.




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


np man..




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaosComplex
 


I know I will catch flak for this but the bible is a conglomeration of many ideas over many centuries. It was first a verbal history, then written on and off from place to place, and then translated/transcribed multiple times. Trying to separate the Judean ideas from the Christian ideas from the Pagan ideas takes some effort.

Getting too hung up on one word or even one phrase in this context is to do the original message injustice. I fear too many "study" the Bible without learning its history. I am a person of faith but I do not blindly accept each and every pronoun and conjunction as the be all, end all. To do so truly misses the point.

With that being said, I find the idea of God being alien, by definition, plausible. The idea of God being a little green man from Mars, I find improbable but I am willing to listen.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by InnerstellarOne
you guys are absolutely abusing the word of god.

When it refers to one day is like a thousand years, Thats because god created time.... He existed before and outside the universe was formed, He created the firmament, And separated it between the heavens and heaven*.

As for god making man in OUR image, It refers to the Holy trinity, God the Father, God the Son, and God The holy spirit, He made us in the image of him, He put his spirit in US, and the father lives inside us, Cause we are his spirit.

Just clearing up when you got a little confused there.,

GOD is not an elien, Or a ancient astronaught, He is not a ET that billions of years split his dna and erased mankinds sub concious, I wont sit here and listen to this trot man...... Its garbage, If you have a problem with the bible its not our problem its yours, So deal with it



and you know this how? Seriously, I am curious as to how you know this as fact? (not flaming, interested in your anser. Thank you)




top topics



 
47
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join