The Bible Is A Forgery

reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms


Here is an explanation of the difference between "literal" as most people define it and "literal" as Biblical scholars define it: link

How do you know?

Gods were merged into a single one (Forged), account of stories reinvented that happened before, it's a re re re tell of the story, some original stories manipulated.

None of which has anything to do with forgery, or with the original writings, or the earliest extant manuscripts.

It is because it was done with intent, or don't you know the original name of a forgery ? a forgery comes from a forge. I've been to this road before, forgery is a derivative word from forge-ry.

Here is what a forge is.

A forgery is when you melt something and out of the oven comes something else, like you put the "original stuff in" and out comes something else that is forged, shaped into something.

Forgery is a deliberate attempt to pass off a fake as an original.

More or less, look up.

Exactly. So whoever can prove beyond dispute that the Bible writers had ill intent can call it a forgery; until then, they can stop making the charge.

Some bible writers got the stories from some where else, and added a twist to it them selfs there for the change in the story, some stories tho are true, some not because of altering, further more when the bible got translated it sustain even more translation failure. Many stories in the bible are a re-tell, like the flood story with Noah for example, taken from Summeria. Of course not all the bible is a forgery, but the old testament where you have many gods. I would say the bible was created so you can get limited knowlege from it, it was really created more for people to gain an act of faith more I would say, rather than knowlege.

You have to remember that the bible was asembled by the roman empire, they forged many books into one book ? The perfect example of a forgery, and only the books they saw fit, leaving many books aside.

My opinion is tho that the bible is a good book for information, I would not toss it outside it does represent the concept of god but that it was mainly created for control of the population along with religion to control the crowd.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Not true, that's a fallacy. Because:

All Murders are killings, but not all killings are murder.

Ok…I will admit that it is complicated…

And although technically speaking, it may not be murder to kill an animal; it’s kind of a moot point, because God is clearly telling us, that animal sacrifices are not required.


- JC

Originally posted by Joecroft
reply to post by Akragon

 

Originally posted by Akragon
The OT gives you examples of how men acted before Christ. The use of sacrifice for atonement was a seriously misunderstood concept. Sacrifice of the flesh sure as hell doesn't mean kill anything, especially animals. They're God's creations, perfect in every way and completely inline with nature... Innocent. The men in the OT didn't understand "harmlessness" even though it was written in their own commandments "thou shall not kill".

Exactly!….well said…

The commandment does not say, “Thou shall not kill humans”, it say’s “thou shall not kill!”…period!

Also, there are verses in the OT, which allude to God being against sacrifices of animals… For example…Psalm 40:6 “Sacrifice and offering thou does not require…” and Isaiah 1-11:17 “I do not delight in the blood…” etc…And there are many other similar verses.

Originally posted by Akragon
Christ showed the narrow path, and few understood what he meant, even though he showed it not only in words but by example... This still holds true today actually

Yes, I agree with the above… most people don’t seem to understand, that it is Jesus life message and example, which is the most important thing, above all else.

You seem to have a lot of wisdom Akragon. May I enquire as to whether you are a Christian?


- JC

edit on 19-5-2011 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)

I was baptized Christian but at that point i didn't believe in God.

It was only after i studied the bible and many other scriptures, i came to the realization that God does exist, and most christians haven't got a clue about whats in their own book.

So to answer your question... No im not christian, i subscibe to no ones inturpretation of scripture other then my own. Though i have found many who understand scripture as i do.

And those people are almost never christian

reply to post by SaberTruth


Interesting link, and some good info on there. Have you ever read "Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians"? Very interesting book having to do with early Christian sects, and what happened when the Roman emperor decided to convert. It's certainly controversal, but it's some to broaden a person's view on the origins of Christianity. Many hardcore Christians would not approve of it I'm sure, so if you are one of those that believe that differing historical accounts are the workings of the devil, then it is not the book for you.

reply to post by Joecroft


it actually would have been better if the commandment said....."thou shall not harm"

Its closer to the truth then the original version.

reply to post by Joecroft

because God is clearly telling us, that animal sacrifices are not required.

Correct, if you read Galatians Paul explains that Abraham was justified by faith, as was Issac and Jacob. These men were alive before the Law was given. The Law was given for two reasons, 1. so that we'd all sin more, and 2. So that it would drive us to the cross/schoolmaster.

God commended sacrifice to atone for sin because it was a type/foreshadow of Christ's sinless perfect life given as a sacrifice for us, and God knows how repulsed we all are to see blood/death. God wanted us to recoil in horror over the blood and gore of sacrifice to teach us that's how He views sin.

But the Just have always lived by faith. Habakkuk explains this in the OT, Romans perfects the doctrine in the NT. Abraham was justified before the Law AND his circumcision. But as far as the commandment "Thou shalt not Murder" goes, it is meaningless when you need to protect yourself/family.

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
so if you are one of those that believe that differing historical accounts are the workings of the devil, then it is not the book for you.

Oh please. ::biting tongue::

In all fairness, it's the OP who thinks the Bible is the work of the devil.

Rest assured I've done more reading than the Bible, and more reading of the Bible than most of its critics. I've read parts of the LXX in Greek, I've read a range of anti- and extra- biblical writings from one extreme to the other (including the "Hebrew was never the original" to "Greek was never the original" and everything in between), and ATS isn't the first board I've been in that absolutely drips with anti-Christians. As one ex-atheist put it, "I wasn't born again yesterday". You may be shocked and surprised that I attended public schools and colleges (and earned my degrees and diplomas), wasn't raised on another planet, and have friends and relatives who are unbelievers.

I'm really, really tired of "more enlightened than thou" and the presumption that Christians are ignorant of the rest of the world. Really.

I have no problems with Christians, like I said most of my friends are Christians as well as most of my family members as well. I think fundamental Christians give the whole religion a bad name. But the same can be said about fundamentalist Jews, and fundamentalist Muslims. I find that most that call Christians (and when they do they call them as a "groupwhole") intolerant, tend themselves to be just as intolerant.

reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms

This is clearly the problem with literal interpretation of worded scripture. I've read that Jesus spoke in parables for this exact reason.

No, after the Jewish leadership said Jesus did miracles by the power of Beelzebub and not His divine nature through the power of His Holy Spirit, He never spoke in public without a parable from that point on. (Matthew 12) After that grave sin, He always spoke in public to the masses in parables, and unless He was saying a parable He never spoke publicly straightforwardly. He always gave the meaning of the parable in private to His disciples though. This also fulfilled OT prophecy:

"Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! they say of me, Doth he not speak parables?" Ezekiel 20:49


"That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world." Matt. 13:35 (Psalms 78:2)

Joecroft, in response to your reply.

Murder and killing, are one and the same thing! The word “kill” makes up part of the definition of the word “ratsach”

First, ratsach is a primitive root. That means it is a word in and of itself. It is not derived from another word. Strong's Concordance reference is 7523. It is the act of homicide, murder, with intent. It is translated in the KJV into 10 different forms: slayer 16, murderer 14, kill 5, murder 3, slain 3, manslayer 2, killing 1, slayer + 0310 1, slayeth 1, death 1.

The word for kill, (what most people assume is meant in Ex 20:13) is nakah, which is also a primitive root. It's primary use is to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill. Strong's reference is 5221.

They are two completely different words, used for two specific forms of killing. One for murder, the other for causing death. Only humans are murdered (ratsach) in the hebrew language.

The Ten Commandments, were written long before the Oxford Dictionary definition of the word “Murder”

Moot point, it does not change the meaning of the word in hebrew.

Yes, I agree, God wanted David, not his sacrifices, and by what he describes in the above verse, David finally realized that. He realized that God never required, or needed animals to be sacrificed, to begin with.

So are we to ignore Liviticus and the laws which God gave to Moses about the sacrificial system?

“I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.” “Stop bringing meaningless offerings!” Do you think that if the Israelites put more feeling and love, into the animal sacrifices, that God would then find the sacrifices more worthy and pleasing…

Here is where the OP also strays from the context of the OT. He will not read it because of all the violence (my paraphrase) therein. And, you have a misconception of the meaning. The offerings were not meaningless because God did not require them. They were meaningless because the Israelites were making sacrifices strictly in obedience to the law to appease God, not out of love (reverence) of God.

Leviticus 22:31 “Keep my commands and follow them. I am the LORD. 32 Do not profane my holy name, for I must be acknowledged as holy by the Israelites. I am the LORD, who made you holy 33 and who brought you out of Egypt to be your God. I am the LORD.” NIV

Now please do not misunderstand my intentions for responding to your post. It is for clarification. Although the response may seem curt or direct, because I want to keep it short and to the point, I do this in kindness and a gentle spirit. If I have offended you, I apologise.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms

 

This is clearly the problem with literal interpretation of worded scripture. I've read that Jesus spoke in parables for this exact reason.

No, after the Jewish leadership said Jesus did miracles by the power of Beelzebub and not His divine nature through the power of His Holy Spirit, He never spoke in public without a parable from that point on. (Matthew 12) After that grave sin, He always spoke in public to the masses in parables, and unless He was saying a parable He never spoke publicly straightforwardly. He always gave the meaning of the parable in private to His disciples though. This also fulfilled OT prophecy:

"Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! they say of me, Doth he not speak parables?" Ezekiel 20:49


"That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world." Matt. 13:35 (Psalms 78:2)

Could you explain further on this "grave sin" in Mat 12...

I just read it, and i didn't find anything refering to a "great sin"

Originally posted by SaberTruth

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
so if you are one of those that believe that differing historical accounts are the workings of the devil, then it is not the book for you.

Oh please. ::biting tongue::

In all fairness, it's the OP who thinks the Bible is the work of the devil.

Rest assured I've done more reading than the Bible, and more reading of the Bible than most of its critics. I've read parts of the LXX in Greek, I've read a range of anti- and extra- biblical writings from one extreme to the other (including the "Hebrew was never the original" to "Greek was never the original" and everything in between), and ATS isn't the first board I've been in that absolutely drips with anti-Christians. As one ex-atheist put it, "I wasn't born again yesterday". You may be shocked and surprised that I attended public schools and colleges (and earned my degrees and diplomas), wasn't raised on another planet, and have friends and relatives who are unbelievers.

I'm really, really tired of "more enlightened than thou" and the presumption that Christians are ignorant of the rest of the world. Really.

Your are starting to sound like your avatar looks, LOL

Originally posted by Gibborium

Your are starting to sound like your avatar looks, LOL

Drat those fangs, poking holes in my tongue! But hey, I can whistle through them in two different pitches!

reply to post by Akragon

Could you explain further on this "grave sin" in Mat 12... I just read it, and i didn't find anything refering to a "great sin"

Maybe I can shed some light on this for you. NOTurTypical is referring to the Pharisees opinion of Jesus. They claimed the miracles he did were a result of satan working in Jesus's life. That the miracles were a result of satanic influence. They were looking for a way to denounce his authority because they knew his miracles were real. They could not accept that it was God/Jehovah working through him.

Pardon me for my ignorance, but I was not aware that jews believed in satan. Do they share the same belief of hell as Christians?

Originally posted by Gibborium
reply to post by Akragon

 

Could you explain further on this "grave sin" in Mat 12... I just read it, and i didn't find anything refering to a "great sin"

Maybe I can shed some light on this for you. NOTurTypical is referring to the Pharisees opinion of Jesus. They claimed the miracles he did were a result of satan working in Jesus's life. That the miracles were a result of satanic influence. They were looking for a way to denounce his authority because they knew his miracles were real. They could not accept that it was God/Jehovah working through him.

I still found nothing refering to this being the reason he spoke in parables. This was a regular thing, there was many people trying to prove he wasn't the son of God. He spoke in parables because only the ones that understood him will understand what they meant.

I know the reason he spoke in parables, but i didn't find a great sin that starting him speaking in parables.

Originally posted by pepsi78
Gods were merged into a single one (Forged), account of stories reinvented that happened before, it's a re re re tell of the story, some original stories manipulated.

How do you know?

It is because it was done with intent, or don't you know the original name of a forgery ? a forgery comes from a forge. I've been to this road before, forgery is a derivative word from forge-ry.

o.O Do you know what the etymological fallacy is?

More or less, look up.

I said exactly that already, look it up.

Some bible writers got the stories from some where else... etc. etc.

Your opinion; I'm looking for proof from reputable sources.

Originally posted by pepsi78

... which has exactly nothing to do with whether the Bible is a forgery.

It is a forgery and it is not, it's a forgery because lots of the original texts were altered, bad translation, misinterpretation of the texts, depends how you look on to it.

For the historian or student of historical texts, the term "forgery" means something very specific, and none of what you said is it. If a text is deemed a forgery, it is because it is claimed to be written by someone that it was not. In other words, the content of the document isn't really relevant, it is the authorship that matters.

None of the Gospels in the New Testament can be considered forgeries, because the author never says who they are -- the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are traditional, dating back to at least the Second Century. In a similar fashion, the books of James and Revelation of John cannot be forgeries (well, most likely are not,) because they don't say that they were written by a specific James or John, just someone with that name.

On the other hand, The Gospel of Thomas, The Apocalypse of Paul, The Acts of Pilate, these are all forgeries, as they were not written by whom they are claimed to be, sufficient proof found in the age and content of the texts.

Why is authorship the criteria for stating something to be a forgery or not? Because the authority of the purported author was one of the factors in determining whether something would be considered for inclusion in the Canon or not.

There are plenty of interesting and worthwhile texts which are forgeries (a personal favourite is the Acts of Paul) that were written to demonstrate some aspect of Christianity or a heretical sect, but none of them were ever seriously considered for inclusion in the Bible for the simple reason that Paul, for example, could not have written yet another letter to the Corinthians two hundred years after he died.

reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms

This is a link to information on the Pharisees explaining their beliefs: Beelzebub It's kind of long and exhaustive, so the short answer is yes.

Also, here is some scripture that also supports it from Jesus's own mouth.

Matthew 12:22 Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23 All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?” 24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.” 25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. NIV