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.

 

Why Aren't The Jewish Religious texts edited to remove Racist and hate passages?

page: 14
12
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by DRAZIW
 





The perfection in English is the precision of the gematriaic content.


Youre exagerrating the significance of English.

Iis easily plausible that "h-a-n-d" was composed by studying the physical anatomy of the human hand. Before the word 'hand' became what it was, man was aware it had so many bones, and so got 'h-a-n-d'.

This is the essential difference the kabbalists note between Hebrew and other languages.

Hebrew was divinely bestowed; it came from without, a projection from the mind of God into human reality.

I dont know if youre new to this, but you will almost always encounter kabbalists/mystics who insist on the superiority and holiness of the Hebrew language to all other languages. It is fairly clear why that is.

English, as you can tell by the majority of the gematriot you have given, seems to deal more with mundane associations ie; the number of bones in the hand, and not expressing the abstract concept behind the idea of a hand. For instance, Yad - hand in Hebrew - has the gematria of 14. The concept of the 'hand', archetypally, is to 'extend' oneself, or ones being into something else,. It refers to a process of transmission. Other words with the gematria of 14 is 'hakehav', which means a 'gift' ie; something that is given (a gift is an extension of self. One takes something and gives it to another). Yevuv, to 'shout' , gematria of 14, is the extension of ones voice.

The more deeply one analyzes these gematria, the more clear the associations between different worlds and things become.

Hebrew is that 'primordial' language, united and at one with the giver of the world changing book called the Torah - 5 books of Moses. This language has been treated with such reverence throughout time that a scribe had to undergo the greatest afflications, fasts, meditations, ritual, in order to be "ritually" pure, ie; free from unconscious forces which might sabatoge his copying of the text of the Torah, in order to preserve each letter that was wrriten down.

Its an impressive fact that of the extant Torah scrolls, between Polish, Ukranian, Morroccon, Egyptian, Iranian, etc Jews, that there has only been found to be 9 letter discrepenacies between their versions of the Torah. So neatly, and with care, was the Torah transmitted, that wherever the Jews mirated, the Torah was the same. Only 9 letters amidst hundreds of thousands were either missing or different.




All that you present there is DA'ATH, the abyss, knowledge's infinite pit.


I have no idea what you mean by this.. Just mentioning "daath" doesnt mean anything. Were talking about two different languages. One conveys completely different information from the other. Hebrew, as the holy tongue, is conveying reality as the creator eastablish it.

Why in English does the word God = that of the name of God in Hebrew? Is that not a tacit acknowledgement of the centrality of the Hebrew tongue? And what "knowledge" is there, if you claim English conveys "real knowledge" in the concept of 26?




The imagination has no limit on it's associations and connections, there's no real quantifiable knowledge there.


Only someone completely unacquainted with Hebrew word say that. Where is there no quantifiable knowledge?? Its talking about CONCEPTS. And concepts when analyzed and compared can be seen to contain archetypal associations. This 'number' gives expression to this reality in an abstract-metaphysical way. Elohim, the name of God most used in the Hebrew bible, is the base idea of 86. This is a supernal power. Hateva - nature, is the expression of this power to our 5 senses. So its apt that Elohim, being a feminine principle, is composed of 5 letters. Kos, "a cup" is again a physical analogy of the concept of Elohim. "Vessel of YHVH", again, is a way of understanding what Elohim is relative to the source of all. Avdei, servants, expresses the ultimate purpose of the "elohim" the emanations of the creator into definite forms. These are "servants". What lack do you see here?

It is so bloody obvious. You need to show a little more reverence for Hebrew. It may be old, but is unique. Stands alone. Sanskrit, Arabic, English, may convey crystalized pieces of information about the cosmos, but is only a "relative" truth, which conveys an objective truth to the people, or culture connected to the language, but in itself, cannot be said to match reality as it actually is. Only Hebrew, i am willing to wager, can make that claim.




posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Reply to post by dontreally
 


You completely lost me at the beginning of your discussion a few pages back


But knowing you, it is probably spot on.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 


It is too simplistic.

Central Asians converted to religions which suited their lifestyle - you should read more about Huns and Mongols.

The Kushan that came to India (much before Huns and Mongols) converted to Buddhism first, but then converted to a type of Hinduism (different from Vedic religion) that suited them more than Buddhism.

Central Asians (that originated in Tarim basin) are opportunists, violent, and vile people.

They have destroyed the culture of many countries - including ancient Persia and ancient Bharat.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by graphuto
reply to post by ignant
 


Funnily enough, if you take those 21 versions and lay out each verse side by side, they all mean the same thing.


Not even remotely. Let me set the stage to address this. We all know that the bible in what amounts to its present day form came around a spot over 300 years after the alleged death of JC. Now in 415 AD the Catholic Church declared that they knew all that there was to know, Cyril, the Archbishop of Alexandria burned the worlds greatest repositry for knowledge, the library at ALexandria and was later made a saint by the church. Being as communication was poor at the time for most of the world the only way to dispute the historical accuracy of the bible was that library. Well now all of the books are gone so the church is the main source for historical information. Of course we know today that the bible isn't even remotely accurate but for most of the past 2000 years it was taken as, no pun intended, as gospel. Cyril's followers flayed the flesh from the bones of Hypatia, the woman who was in charge of the library. Yikes. Well the burning of the library was one of the major causes of the Dark Ages.

The Church didn't want William Tyndale's english translation of the bible to become widespread so they chased him across the continent, captured, tortured and murdered him after burning every copy of his english translation.

Do all of the copies side by side mean the same thing? No. I 1st wanted to solidify my position by showing how the church didn't want history to contradict the bible and how they didn't want the common man to be able to read the bible.

Reincarnation was a widespread and common belief of Jesus's contemporary followers. Historical evidence shows that references to reincarnation were declared to be heresy by Emperor Justinian at the Council of Constantinople in the year 553 A.D. After that date, there were no further references to reincarnation in Christian theology.

Here's a quote from Chapter VII of Facts From History About Our King James Bible, Written and Published by Rev. Ronald D. Lesley, Th. M., D.D. and available on the internet at www.fbinstitute.com...

"The dozen or so modern English versions in common use today should be greatly studied for their differences. The reader should know how, and why versions differ. There are words, and whole passages left out in all versions except the King James Bible. Yet to the greater number of Bible readers, these exclusions have never been shown, or displayed. "

Here's a couple of examples of changes version to version/

Original


"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

First Error


"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh."

Second Error


"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the spirit."

Third Error


"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk according to the flesh, but according to the spirit."

The statements are exact opposites. Changes the meaning significantly. Many historians claim that the gospels weren't written by whom they are listed as authored by. None of the originals even exist. And the gospels contradict each other from a historical perspective. One speaks of an earthquake and an eclipse and the other taking place at the same time makes no mention of it. The apostles that supposedly wrote them would have certain consistencies but if they were authored several hundred years later by different people then historical perspective and corroboration is lost. But lets give other examples.

When Matthew 9:13 has Jesus saying, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners," some copyists could not resist adding the words "to repentance" (from Luke 5:32).

"They were continually in the temple PRAISING God" and "They were continually in the temple BLESSING God" was combined to read "They were continually in the temple PRAISING and BLESSING God." (Luke 24:52).

The Jehovah's Witnesses were not the first cult to attempt to rewrite the Bible. It is known that Marcion edited his own version of the Bible, cutting out those parts which were inconsistent with his own personal beliefs.

To be continued



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Ou should look at the Codex Sinaiticus. It's the oldest existing Bible. The version of the New Testament has some few interesting differences. It includes two works which have since been dropped from both Catholic and Protestant Bibles – "The Shepherd of Hermas", a heavily allegorical work full of visions and parables and "The Epistle of Barnabas", which contains highly-charged language about the Jews as the killers of Christ. It also includes entire books which, after the Reformation, Protestants decided to drop from their Bibles: the Old Testament books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Maccabbees 1&2 and large chunks of Esther and Daniel. And the running order of the books is different, reflecting subtle shifts in the priorities of the believers over the ages. The Codex omits the words which Protestants add to the end of The Lord's Prayer, and Catholics omit: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever (Matthew 6:13).

Other differences include it saying that Jesus was "angry" as he healed a leper, where the modern text says he acted with "compassion". The story of the stoning of the adulterous woman – "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is not there. Nor are Christ's words about his executioners from the cross: "Father forgive them for they know not what they do". And its Gospel of Mark ends abruptly after Jesus's disciples discover his empty tomb – omitting the 12 verses on the appearance of the resurrected Christ – and leaving the disciples exiting in fear. The Codex leaves an unusual blank space where the verses should be. That's a very odd way of ending a Gospel.

There are 1000s of differences outside the additional books. But do any have real significance? Hell yes. The resurrection not being in the bible, the ending of the lords prayer not being original, that famous line, let he who is without sin cast the 1st stone not belonging to Jesus.... The versions don't mean the same thing. But you can read that bible as it was intended here... codexsinaiticus.org...

Apologies to the threadstarter for getting sidetracked. The Bible was edited to remove inflamatory things about the jews. he New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman, has claimed the persecution of the Jews down the centuries might have been far worse had the Epistle of Barnabus remained canonical. "His blood be upon us," Barnabas has the Jews cry. But that overlooks the fact that the Gospel of Matthew contains something very similar, if not worse: "His blood be on us and on our children!" And though the Resurrection is missing from Mark, it is there in the Codex's other gospels.

Books have no business being edited, they are what they are. An enlightened man can read his holy book and understand that much of the content is a reflection of the times and not applicable today. Some people will never do any research and look at a1000+ year old book and accept everything as fact without using common sense or doing their own research. You can help those folks. I seriously doubt that any religious text which existed during or prior to the dark ages exists in its original form. Information doesn't work as it does today. Once something is in the public domain today it's there forever. 1000 years ago you could get rid of the 1000 copies of the bible, only the churches and the very elite owned them, nobody else could read them, and you could get rid of them when you made a change. YOu change it, site papal infallibility and whatever you altered is forgotten by the next generation.

Anyone taking either book in the purest literal sense simply hasn't done their research. If they did, they would know that isn't the original Bible, the message has changed and even so the Bible in it's present form is about as historically accurate as the movie The Watchmen. And if they don't accept that, they are ignoring the facts(which means you aren't going to have an intelligent discussion anyway), their faith overrides the facts, they think the devil is testing them, etc.... Faith vs Fact is never a pretty argument. I think the problem is the person arguing fact is so busy trying to butcher religion that they don't appreciate the positives. Whether God gave them to Moses or not, the 10 commandments is a great way to live. Even if Jesus is fictitious, is he a bad guy to emulate? No.

Editing takes place. Should it? No. Has it changed the meaning? Yes. THat's why it shouldn't be done. And even if you did edit it, here in the information age, it would never take hold unless the mass populus was eradicated by a disaster or war and they only surviving texts were the edited versions.





edit on 5-10-2011 by DrJay1975 because: continuing previous post, edited placeholder.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by DrJay1975
 





We all know that the bible in what amounts to its present day form came around a spot over 300 years after the alleged death of JC. Now in 415 AD the Catholic Church declared that they knew all that there was to know, Cyril, the Archbishop of Alexandria burned the worlds greatest repositry for knowledge, the library at ALexandria and was later made a saint by the church. Being as communication was poor at the time for most of the world the only way to dispute the historical accuracy of the bible was that library. Well now all of the books are gone so the church is the main source for historical information.



They say timing IS everything !

Many scholars believe that the Library of Alexandria was actually taken into the possesion of the Vatican.

Julius Caesar may have been the first to "loot" and transfer the contents to Serboga.

The Vatican may the have some genuine historical material.

Makes it easy to re-write to suit.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   
I imagine they would have kept everything which supported the belief structure they were creating. I would also imagine the contradictory pieces were destroyed unless they had infinitely more significance than simply contradicting the historical accuracy of the bible.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrJay1975
I imagine they would have kept everything which supported the belief structure they were creating. I would also imagine the contradictory pieces were destroyed unless they had infinitely more significance than simply contradicting the historical accuracy of the bible.



perhaps not destroyed (physically).

but certainly kept deep in the archives.

they would have always wanted the "originals"....

easier to edit from a genuine starting point !

less chance of getting called out !



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrJay1975
I imagine they would have kept everything which supported the belief structure they were creating. I would also imagine the contradictory pieces were destroyed unless they had infinitely more significance than simply contradicting the historical accuracy of the bible.


Thank you for your contribution.

What can you tell us about the Scofield Reference Bible?

Is it fair to say that Christian churches in North America have shifted from seeing Christianity as a rejection of Judaism to seeing Christianity as a continuation of Judaism?

If so was that under pressure from Jewish groups?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
I guess the disappointing thing about this thread is the complete lack of acceptance that sin will be punished.
Read the Old Testament and you will see a merciful God holding his punishment back from evil nations till He had no choice but to judge them.
Go read Habakkuk, God states he is patient in judgment and slow to anger, yet he will judge a sinning nation, even the Jews got wiped out.
Jonah is a story about a prophet sent by God to an evil kingdom to call them to stop sinning.
If we keep sinning we will be cursed in our lives. We bring judgment on ourselves from God and other people.
Sin has to be punished, in the OT God used nations to punish other nations. Even the Jews were punished.
Sin and you will be destroyed. Still the same old message now.
Have faith in Jesus and He will redeem you.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by DrJay1975
 




Really?

Perhaps you missed this part:


"The Codex Sinaiticus has been corrected by so many hands that it affords a most interesting and intricate problem to the palaeographer who wishes to disentangle the various stages by which it has reached its present condition...." --Kirsopp Lake,Introduction of the New Testament Volume.

edit on 10/5/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by DrJay1975
 

DrJay1975,

Some very admirable work in your posts, but you don't need me to tell you that. I was curious, though, about your opinion on Codex Vaticanus. My understanding is that it is more reliable than Codex Sinaiticus. Any thoughts?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrJay1975

Original


"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

First Error


"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh."

Second Error


"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the spirit."

Third Error


"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk according to the flesh, but according to the spirit."

The statements are exact opposites. Changes the meaning significantly.


No it doesn't... How do you figure the meaning is changed?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Does it ring a bell that so many versions of the Bible exist?

There was only one Jesus who preached his gospel.

It is because he did not write any book.

Other people wrote it, after he was gone.

This is the problem with all religious books, they are interpretation by somebody of what a preacher said. This interpretation can be objective or subjective based on the intrepretar.

This is so different from Veda which is pure knowledge. Each mantra is what God says something to man. No human is preaching, or interpreting. There is only a single version of Veda.

A yogi learns Veda in a state of 'samadhi'. And any human can be a yogi without learning a single word of Sanskrit.

This is what I call the word of God. ('shabd brahm' in Sanskrit).



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by vedatruth
Does it ring a bell that so many versions of the Bible exist?

There was only one Jesus who preached his gospel.

It is because he did not write any book.

Other people wrote it, after he was gone.

This is the problem with all religious books, they are interpretation by somebody of what a preacher said. This interpretation can be objective or subjective based on the intrepretar.

This is so different from Veda which is pure knowledge. Each mantra is what God says something to man. No human is preaching, or interpreting. There is only a single version of Veda.

A yogi learns Veda in a state of 'samadhi'. And any human can be a yogi without learning a single word of Sanskrit.

This is what I call the word of God. ('shabd brahm' in Sanskrit).



i defend all ancient texts by first, pointing out that the ancient people kept oral histories before they wrote them down. secondly, it makes ZERO sense to suggest everyone lied before 300 years ago, and now everyone tells the truth (except people who claim that it's statistically impossible for everyone to be lying for 5700 years of human history - they are called either liars themselves or naive people who don't see the problems with ancient "myths." it bugs me that modern universities claim our ancient histories, the texts our ancestors went to so much trouble to carve into stone and pen to scrolls and etc is nothing but lies, confabulations, and myths, ).



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
people, pay attention to criticisms of the ancient texts. almost all critical thought on the subject today, stems from german higher criticism, 300 years ago, BEFORE the advent of archaeology. they just ignore the new data when it comes up .

"gilgamesh is a myth."

"hey look, they found gilgamesh's city"

"gilgamesh is a myth."

"but they found his city."

"gilgamesh is a myth."
---------------------------

"noah's flood is a fairy tale"

"hey look geologists are saying the black sea flood may be the flood of noah, the flood of atrahasis and the flood of the epic of gilgamesh."

"noah's flood is a myth because there's no way he could get all the pairs animals in the world on the ark"

"look it says right here in the text, that noah was instructed to take 7 clean animals in pairs (14 clean), 2 unclean in pairs (4 unclean) and 7 birds in pairs (14 birds). = 30 animals. that's not all the animals in the world in pairs. that's 30 animals. sounds like the royal barnyard. "

"noah's flood is a myth."

"oy and where did they find the sumerian civilization, pray tell? under 8 feet of flood silt, that's where.. odd isn't it that this flood coincided with the flood mentioned in three different texts of mesopotamian origin?"

"noah's flood is a myth. there's no evidence of a global flood."

"well actually, the words used to suggest the flood was global, were not in the original text. so it's entirely possible it is the same as the black sea flood. "

"noah's flood is a myth."

"
"


edit on 5-10-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DrJay1975
 


i'd like some back history on where that codex was found and who was using it, because 1) jesus' treatment of the woman caught in adultery is vintage jesus. that's his m.o. no mistaking it either. 2) why remove the resurrection from one book and not the others? kinda strange, doncha think? 3) if jesus' stance on women was different than what the adulterous woman story contends since the codex you mention doesn't contain that story, why then the verses regarding men and women, slaves and freemen, all being one in christ, and no longer are they separate, less equal people, as written by paul? where'd he get such an idea? if it's in the codex, you gotta wonder.

where i'm skeptical about the validity of verses in the text is paul's supposed teaching in 2 timothy, regarding women in the church, not teaching in the church because of the sins of eve. i mean, we ladies are either forgiven or we're not. we're either equal in christ jesus or we're not. there's no ..you're equal here, you're not equal there. it could also be that people are taking the ramblings of paul in those passages, and assuming they are divinely inspired, when he could just be having a human moment, that's been given more credence than it should.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
Youre exagerrating the significance of English.


You love Hebrew. I get it. But, what I say of English is true too.




Iis easily plausible that "h-a-n-d" was composed by studying the physical anatomy of the human hand. Before the word 'hand' became what it was, man was aware it had so many bones, and so got 'h-a-n-d'.


Yes. This is possible.

However, we only got information about DNA in the 20th century, yet way back in 1610 the English Bible wrote that the lord made man from the "DUST" of the ground. That word alone contains the 64 codons of the DNA with all the specific nuances in the code, and these things were not known by men 400 years ago, so it must have been "revealed" to the writers of the scriptures.




This is the essential difference the kabbalists note between Hebrew and other languages.
Hebrew was divinely bestowed; it came from without, a projection from the mind of God into human reality.


And so is English.

What you miss is the fact that God knows the end at the beginning, he stands outside of time, and all future languages are already known to him.





I dont know if youre new to this, but you will almost always encounter kabbalists/mystics who insist on the superiority and holiness of the Hebrew language to all other languages. It is fairly clear why that is.


They all err.

Hebrew is not superior. It is just "different".




The more deeply one analyzes these gematria, the more clear the associations between different worlds and things become.


There is no end to the clarity of associations between things. After all, all is connected to the one thing. If we peer at any two things closely enough, we will find a connection between them.





Its an impressive fact that of the extant Torah scrolls, between Polish, Ukranian, Morroccon, Egyptian, Iranian, etc Jews, that there has only been found to be 9 letter discrepenacies between their versions of the Torah. So neatly, and with care, was the Torah transmitted, that wherever the Jews mirated, the Torah was the same. Only 9 letters amidst hundreds of thousands were either missing or different.


But since the "vowels" were generally not written in Hebrew, the "sound" of the words were not constant. Only the "script" was constant. That is, Hebrew is focused on the writing rather than the speaking.




I have no idea what you mean by this.. Just mentioning "daath" doesnt mean anything. Were talking about two different languages. One conveys completely different information from the other. Hebrew, as the holy tongue, is conveying reality as the creator eastablish it.


All tongues are holy. Hebrew is holy writing, Sanskrit is holy speaking, English is holy architectural.





It is so bloody obvious. You need to show a little more reverence for Hebrew.


I give all the credit to Hebrew, for what it is. But, I also credit English, and other languages for what they are too.



It may be old, but is unique. Stands alone. Sanskrit, Arabic, English, may convey crystalized pieces of information about the cosmos, but is only a "relative" truth, which conveys an objective truth to the people, or culture connected to the language, but in itself, cannot be said to match reality as it actually is. Only Hebrew, i am willing to wager, can make that claim.


The power of Sanskrit, for example, is supposed to be in the sound. The sounds are used to create powerful evocations called "mantras." These mantras have power over the mind and the physical world and can alter reality simply by speaking Sanskrit correctly. The same cannot be said about Hebrew. For Hebrew is just about Writing.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by vedatruth
Does it ring a bell that so many versions of the Bible exist?

There was only one Jesus who preached his gospel.

It is because he did not write any book.

Other people wrote it, after he was gone.

This is the problem with all religious books, they are interpretation by somebody of what a preacher said. This interpretation can be objective or subjective based on the intrepretar.

This is so different from Veda which is pure knowledge. Each mantra is what God says something to man. No human is preaching, or interpreting. There is only a single version of Veda.

A yogi learns Veda in a state of 'samadhi'. And any human can be a yogi without learning a single word of Sanskrit.

This is what I call the word of God. ('shabd brahm' in Sanskrit).



i defend all ancient texts by first, pointing out that the ancient people kept oral histories before they wrote them down. secondly, it makes ZERO sense to suggest everyone lied before 300 years ago, and now everyone tells the truth (except people who claim that it's statistically impossible for everyone to be lying for 5700 years of human history - they are called either liars themselves or naive people who don't see the problems with ancient "myths." it bugs me that modern universities claim our ancient histories, the texts our ancestors went to so much trouble to carve into stone and pen to scrolls and etc is nothing but lies, confabulations, and myths, ).


Myths are not all lies. In fact myths contain a lot of historical facts. But they often also contain hyperbole ('atishyokti' in Sanskrit), and misrepresentations due to limited understanding of the person writing or telling the story.

The inscriptions have been done for varying reasons - some are just legal code. Some may be record of trade (especially clay tablets, which were used from Babylonia to China in ancient world). Only rare ones contain a myth, associated with an historical event.

Bharat always had a culture of writing on paper, made of leaves of bhoj trees.

Veda never changed (ever) because yogis have rediscovered Veda time and again.


edit on 5-10-2011 by vedatruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Isn't it more accurate to say that legends can be based on true historical events but we feel myths are not, even though both may have true elements.

The lives of George Washington and Daniel Boon have become legend but we don't consider them or their lives as mythical even though the legend of the cherry tree and telling the truth may be a myth.

Moses and everything about him might be a pure myth and probably since there is no evidence suggesting he ever existed and the events attributed ot his story ever happened - accept for a single account in the Torah which we know was written hundreds of years later.

On the other hand there is very good evidence to support the fact that Jesus lived even if much of what was written of him was myth.

I agree with you that we can learn as much from myth as we can learn from fact.




Myths are not all lies. In fact myths contain a lot of historical facts. But they often also contain hyperbole ('atishyokti' in Sanskrit), and misrepresentations due to limited understanding of the person writing or telling the story.

The inscriptions have been done for varying reasons - some are just legal code. Some may be record of trade (especially clay tablets, which were used from Babylonia to China in ancient world). Only rare ones contain a myth, associated with an historical event.

Bharat always had a culture of writing on paper, made of leaves of bhoj trees.

Veda never changed (ever) because yogis have rediscovered Veda time and again.




new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join