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.

 

Who really....really wrote the Bible?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
ladyV not body realy knows. How and actually when the bible was compiled and written.


Yes...I know that, but, thank you...however, it wasn't my question, it was a question from the one who started this thread.




posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Genesis was meant to have been written by Moses, and Revelations by John. Every book in between has an attributed author. Some were better tellers of fairy tales than others, and some just told it as they saw it. Journalistic standards were different before the printing press and the internet, some would think better and some would think worse.

The period of history covered by the Bible is not all that long at all. To be a true believer in the Holey Bible you must suspend disbelief in favour of awe and fear.

There will be better scriptures written in the future than that one.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
As for the remark I made about UFOs, well.........I, like many others, have seen a UFO, have you seen God?


Do you have any hard proof that you saw a UFO?? I think that you seeing a "UFO", and telling others that they can't prove God is completly ignorant.

I know for a fact that I can talk to God and he will "talk" back to me through answering prayers. I have never phisically seen god with my own two eyes, but I see his awesome works, every day. Just because I haven't seen god physically, doesnt mean he doesnt exist. I have never seen a UFO, or a grey, or an alien, or anything like that, but I'm not completly ignorant to the fact that they COULD exist.


Originally posted by LadyV
But the point is that's only because you beleive that to be true...it doesn't make it fact!


As for this quote of yours, you may believe that you saw a UFO, but it doesnt make it a fact. It is only what you believe that you saw. As I stated above, all I have is faith that God exists, which is all I need. I dont need to prove it to anyone, at any time or any place. I know that when I'm dead and gone, I'll be in heaven and I will shed a tear for so many of the people that I have seen speak out against the existence of the Almighty.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Actually it did when the English version was written without permision of the church.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by IamIronMan

Originally posted by LadyV
As for the remark I made about UFOs, well.........I, like many others, have seen a UFO, have you seen God?


Do you have any hard proof that you saw a UFO?? I think that you seeing a "UFO", and telling others that they can't prove God is completly ignorant.

I know for a fact that I can talk to God and he will "talk" back to me through answering prayers. I have never phisically seen god with my own two eyes, but I see his awesome works, every day. Just because I haven't seen god physically, doesnt mean he doesnt exist. I have never seen a UFO, or a grey, or an alien, or anything like that, but I'm not completly ignorant to the fact that they COULD exist.


Originally posted by LadyV
But the point is that's only because you beleive that to be true...it doesn't make it fact!


As for this quote of yours, you may believe that you saw a UFO, but it doesnt make it a fact. It is only what you believe that you saw. As I stated above, all I have is faith that God exists, which is all I need. I dont need to prove it to anyone, at any time or any place. I know that when I'm dead and gone, I'll be in heaven and I will shed a tear for so many of the people that I have seen speak out against the existence of the Almighty.




Well, at least one question asked on this board has been answered!!! Read the quote above and figure it out for yourselves...the reason to the question asked in another thread is all right there, in black and white! Please shed no tears for me as I don't need them....it is my belief, and it is just as strong as yours, that there will be many surprised people come the end times.....
Blessings....



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
Yes, take the would "heaven"
the Old Testament ‘heaven’ is translated from other words only five times in the following verses:
Psalms 68:4 it is translated from the Hebrew, arabah, ‘ the desert ‘
77:18 the word is galgal, Hebrew for ‘ wheel or whirlwind '
89:6 & 37 where it is translated from the word shachaq, Hebrew for ‘ powder or thin vapor ’.
Isaiah 5:30 heaven is translated from ariyph, Hebrew for ‘ the sky ‘

The New Testament defines ‘heaven’ from the Greek word ‘ouranos’ meaning ‘the sky’ in all but 7 instances :
Philippians 2:10 Greek epouranos, ‘ above the sky, celestial ‘
Revelation 8:13, 14:6, 19:1, 11, 14, and 17 from the Greek word mesouranema, meaning mid-sky

...deletia...

King James
Inspired by God or Greed?

If one can grasp the reality of the Bible's historical setting, then there is only one more hurdle to conquer. Although the term "dumbing-down" did not exist in the early 17th century, that is exactly the intent of King James when he undertook the project of translating the Bible and it was the inevitable result of that work. This infamous King of England cast a veil over the treasures in this ancient writing. The language he chose was not the common English of the day, but the obscure language of the royal court he commanded. He chose a language not only foreign to the common people, but one so simplistic that it was totally inadequate to properly render the languages it replaced. The competence of the translators was really of little importance considering the true agenda of this despotic, authoritarian and repressive monarch. He had only two goals. One was his desire to be a god-king by affirming the "divine right of kings" and the other was to eliminate the access of the common people to these works. To accomplish this end, he gave his hand picked supervisor of the project, the Bishop of London, strict dogmatic instruction and gave final approval to the book that bears his name. Had it not been what he wanted, it would never have been published. The result is a language nobody understands, numerous purposeful mistranslations and so many words added or deleted, the toll is incalculable. The fruit of his labor has held fast over four centuries. In the world of Bible-based religions, there are more denominations than books in the Bible, more sub-denominations than chapters and more pastoral schisms than verses.


The Lady does present much history, methinks, albeit to fundamentalist chagrin.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 12:21 AM
link   
here's my take on the whole religion and bible subject. Not just christianity and the bible, but any religion and/or book of faith.
Basically I believe that books of faith and religions are pretty much like a very elaborate chain story that was written by many people throughout a fairly long timeframe. One person started with a story/idea and it was added to and grew through out time and peoples. I believe that alot of people would agree with this reasoning. what people dont seem to be able to agree upon is , WHY these people thought up these ideas/stories??
Anybody involved in these religions seem to think that there was some sort of devine intervention by whichever higher power they believe in. And that seems to be the ONLY possibility that they accept.
I believe there are many different motives and/ or reasons for the origins of these religions and books of faith. None of which has anything at all to do with devine intervention.
1. fear of the unknown-- it's very feasible that people started to think up reasons to explain away many of lifes mysteries. such as the meaning of life, what happens when you die ect. Who wants to go through life being scared that thier life is of no consequence and that when you die, you just cease to exist in all sense of the word existence.
2. Safety in numbers-- it's human nature to feel safety in numbers. A group of like minded people with the same beliefs tend to congregate in large groups. The reason for this being protection from outside threats be they physical threats or a threat to the way the group as a whole believes and lives thier everyday lives. If like minded people didnt congregate then there would be anarchy and in an anarchy, no one is safe. Thats one reason why religions recruit and convert. the more people that are in the group, the safer the group is.
3. Behavioral control-- All religions have a set of guidlines/rules which its members must live by. This goes back to the safety aspect. If a religions members didnt follow these guidlines/rules then , again you have anarchy.So you lay down these guidlines that have some sort of consequences so that people fear what will happen if they dont follow the guidlines/rules to keep people in order to guard against anarchy.
4. Prosperity/greed/ profit of the like minded congregation -- again to the power of a large group of like minded people. the more people that belong to a group the more prosperous and productive that group is toward meeting thier philisophical and material goals. this ties back to fear that ones life is for no greater reason.

There are other reasons, but i believe that whatever those reasons are and the four I have listed are all entwined and each has a tie in to one or more of these reasons. NONE OF WHICH INVOLVES DEVINE INTERVENTION IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER. It started with the first primates to walk on earth and has been passed on through the gene pool. Instinct led to emotion which led to thought. the strongest instinct in most any living creature is self preservation. this instinct led to the emotion/instinct of fear which led to conscious thought/instinct/emotion of how to succeed in the most primal of instincts-- self preservation.
This is some of my philosophy on how things are. I know it kind of goes in circles but life is very complicated. hope it made some kind of sense.
Personally I am not scared of death or of the thought that life had no meaning. I have had fun and enjoyed life and its experiences, be they good or bad, the best way I know how. And knowing/feeling that is enough for me.
I welcome any criticism or comments.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
I think the question was, "who" wrote the bible"


If you read the thread author's initial post, you will notice the point made about the improbability of any of the disciples writing parts of the Bible telling about the life of Jesus, due to the age factor. I would say some 30 years makes a significant difference here..



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 06:36 AM
link   
GOD WROTE THE BIBLE!!! END OF STORY!!!!!

well not really, but i personally believe the bible was written by numerous sources that probally had some sort of inspiration from god but where only revealed so much. so they filled in the blanks with thier own personal beliefs and theories. plus all the information they were giving was also very cryptic and had deeper more symbolic meaning to them.

blegh, not awake dont feel like f@#$ing with the smileys. screw it.




posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bjamison
This has confused me for years.

Apparently it was written 60 years ofter the death of Jesus Of Nazereth.

Now.
If the desciples were the same age as Jesus, at his death. they would have been 93years old.....

Call me a cynic, but hell, 2 + 2 is 4, ain't it


Your understanding seems to be relatively correct. There is definitely a temporal 'issue' regarding the oldest extant manuscripts and the actual events they are supposed to discuss.

But firstly, keep in mind, the text in the old testament was written long before the new.

Also, there -have- been gospels, some proportedly written by disciples, that were outright rejected. Others were more controversially rejected.

Also, the catholic bible is different than many protestant bibles (and who knows about orthodox ones, well, besides the orthodoxists).

I beleive the general understanding is that the original texts are simply and understandabley lost. I also think that some texts aren't even preserved in aramaic and the like, but rather greek and other languages (tho, to be clear, I am not clear on whether or not that means they aren't the original languages).

If you look at it, most of the stuff in the new test. looks liek 'letters' to this community or that. So they weren't even intended to be compiled into some sort of 'official' edition, which was done much much later.

I am editing this to add this link, this page is an excellent excellent resource for this sort of stuff:

www.tertullian.org...



[edit on 3-8-2004 by Nygdan]



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 03:36 PM
link   
People the Hebrew bible known as the Old Testament was compiled in the year 90AD

The New Testament was compiled in the year 180 AD

The English Authorized version of The Scripture better known in America as the King James Version was finish in the year 1611



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join