The Nature of Sin.

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

No, that's not what most likely happened. There is no basis in reality of the OT being first written in Greek, at all. It is only in your imagination that it's possible.
I didn't just come up with this idea myself. I got it from reading part of a book by a scholar who reviewed all the evidence and theories earlier scholars came up with on the origins of the Torah.

If the OT wasn't written when it's said to have been written, it undermines the entire NT and all of the gospels, books you seem to believe are the word of god.
The NT doesn't care when the Torah was written or by whom.

If church tradition named the author of Mark as Bartholomew, we would be calling it the Gospel of Bartholomew to this day and we wouldn't know any better, because we have absolutely nothing else to compare the author's work to to verify the author's identity.
Tradition plays an important role but is not necessarily accurate.




posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 

that is news to me... where did you get this theory from?

I brought this up in another thread on this sub-forum,

New book: 'Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver'
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I read the preview of this book,
Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch.

Read it yourself at
books.google.com...=onepage&q&f=false
edit on 15-9-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



ye know im not gonna read that...

how about a summarization?

where did that dating come from?

edit on 15-9-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 

ye know im not gonna read that...

how about a summarization?
Already did in my earlier posts.

Basically, the "Hebrew" version of the Torah appeared at exactly the same time as the Septuagint.

It appears that the Genesis and Exodus stories were plagiarized from Greek language writings of Egyptian history.
edit on 15-9-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


I've read through the whole of this thread and would just like to say the following.

Firstly, I want to thank you OP for another brave post. I admire you because you put yourself in the firing line for the sake of your faith and belief.

Notice the similarity between the word SINai and SIN. My own take on Scripture is that this is where humanity first became aware of sin. The BOSS made a covenant with the Hebrew people; HE would give them The Land of Milk and Honey forever if they would agree to HIS Law. Human behaviour that broke The Law became sin.

The Hebrew people in the wilderness made a deal. The LORD stuck to HIS side of the bargain and as we know the people so often did not.

To be a believer one must have FAITH. Faith is the all important ingredient. No man or woman can prove faith because it requires that one accepts something that cannot readily be proven to exist.

The Torah is not a forgery on any level. It is accurate, too.

David's psalms are amazing. There is real feeling and love expressed there beyond the depths of any other songs, poems or other writing I can think of. They are not ordinary. They are the work of genius.

The Hebrew Torah was written down in Hebrew by scribes long before the Greek TRANSLATIONS were made. These scribes put all their energy into copying the sacred texts accurately.

For example the Slavonic, Hebrew and Ethiopian texts of The Book of Enoch were separated for two thousand years. As they have been rediscovered we can see that they read almost exactly the same. That is how well the scribes have copied them through the generations. I know that a true historian and copyist knows the importance of his role in maintaining ancient texts and documents.

Many posters here assume that all humans are deceitful and tell lies. I feel sorry for those people because somehow they have lost trust in humanity.

Should we then not trust the works of Homer, Plato and others and regard them as forgeries? We cannot prove that these men wrote those. We cannot prove they existed with primary concrete evidence.

With FAITH in our approach to reading Scripture and years of study we can find The LORD. "Seek and you will find" says Jesus. The more I have read the more I have found.

At the end of the day it is really down to this. Jesus said that HIS sheep would know the voice of The Shepherd. I have come to know HIS voice. It is the only voice I listen to. If HE says go this way I will go this way because through HIS Teachings I clearly see that HE beats every other soul I have studied for HIS genius and understanding of Heaven and Earth.

Even gifted David and wise Solomon sinned against The LORD. Peter did. Paul did. Moses did, but Jesus did not!

You either believe Jesus or you do not. It is a free will choice. I could not find any other way out of the darkness of this world. Jesus lived up to HIS WORD and has given me release from the darkness. "Ask and the door will open"! It really does happen. It is a PERSONAL relationship. Everyone's relationship with HIM is unique. It is not just some boring brainwashing experience. It lives and grows. It develops and it changes.

I would recommend this to anyone. I am becoming all the good things I want to be and am gradually being freed from all the bad things I did not want to be.

The Kingdom, The Narrow Way, cannot be proved or even analysed in earthly ways. If you do not believe then you will obviously try and bash it all to pieces to satisfy the vanity of your own perception. What is that to me? However, I would always invite you to share with me the body and blood of The Messiah.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by Akragon
 

ye know im not gonna read that...

how about a summarization?
Already did in my earlier posts.

Basically, the "Hebrew" version of the Torah appeared at exactly the same time as the Septuagint.

It appears that the Genesis and Exodus stories were plagiarized from Greek language writings of Egyptian history.
edit on 15-9-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


You will not find a Biblical Scholar of integrity anywhere to back up such a wild claim; source please...



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by Akragon
 

ye know im not gonna read that...

how about a summarization?
Already did in my earlier posts.

Basically, the "Hebrew" version of the Torah appeared at exactly the same time as the Septuagint.

It appears that the Genesis and Exodus stories were plagiarized from Greek language writings of Egyptian history.
edit on 15-9-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


What about this?

Biblical Scholarship ’Breakthrough,’ Oldest Hebrew Text Found

Wikipedia articles sometimes need updating. The one you have obviously sourced is out of date with new archaeological evidence.


The scholar said this showed the current position held by scholars, that the Bible could not have been written before around 600 B.C., was wrong, The current view is that Hebrew writing was first invented in the sixth century BC. The newly deciphered potsherd is believed to be from the time of King David, around 970 BC.


There are many pre Septuagint sources for Hebrew Scripture. Your post is misleading and not accurate.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Revolution9
 

You will not find a Biblical Scholar of integrity anywhere to back up such a wild claim; source please...
See the links I put into my post right before that one.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
It is split into two posts, where I cite the source in the first, then give a summary in the second.
edit on 15-9-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


The authors of the NT most definitely did care when the OT was written and who wrote it because their whole basis behind Jesus being god relies entirely on the prophecies within it. To ignore that fact is to ignore reality. You cannot accept Jesus as god without accepting the OT prophecies, because they are ENTIRELY reliant on one another biblically.

Yet you believe church tradition that John, Mark, Matthew, and Luke wrote their gospels, tradition that you say is not entirely accurate. That's pretty backwards if you ask me. You have a pretty severe case of cognitive dissonance going on here.
edit on 15-9-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   
from the hebrew chatt'ath
i think it originally meant chattel, as in, a sinner was a slave. they were followers of en.lil, who was the god of this world. it was en.lil who dubbed them sinners (slaves). en.lil is the moon god. en.lil was the god of the black headed people. in effect, he enslaved the blacks and called them sinners (slaves). jesus taught us to be servants to each other, not to a particular leader or group of leaders, not to some other worldly authority, nor to some specific racial group, but to each other. we were to serve each other out of love and kindness. i do believe this means that a servant is different than a slave, not because of how its been applied in secular societies (servants in a royal household) but that a servant is one who helps another out of a desire to be kind and loving, not out of a desire to seek benefit at the expense of another.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

To ignore that fact is to ignore reality.
I don't believe that you can demonstrate how that is a "fact".
The reality is that Jesus was not what People were expecting based on their reading of the Old Testament.
The gospel writers had to resort to using vague oracles to retroactively draw a connection to.

. . . you believe church tradition that John, Mark, Matthew, and Luke wrote their gospels . . .
I already conceded that generally we don't know, and specifically in one case at least, we know the traditional view is wrong.
edit on 15-9-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


So you're telling me the NT authors were purposely connecting Jesus to something they knew was a fraud? Why would they try to connect him to a lie if he was the truth? You're not making any sense here.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

So you're telling me the NT authors were purposely connecting Jesus to something they knew was a fraud?
No. There were the Prophets, that are not the same thing as the Torah. "The Law and the Prophets" as a term recognizes the separateness between the two.
The Law would have been understood as an attempt to create a kingdom of God based on righteousness according to a list of guidelines of ethical behaviour.

Why would they try to connect him to a lie if he was the truth? You're not making any sense here.
God exists and is an influence on the world, including things that come out in prophecy regardless of how it is handed down.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


But according to you, the prophets of the OT never existed because the OT history is entirely fabricated.

Seriously, your thought process doesn't make any sense. God connected his son to a lie. Why? Because he's god and can do what he wants. Is that about right? Sounds like a cop out to me.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

But according to you, the prophets of the OT never existed because the OT history is entirely fabricated.
You have a similar situation with the Prophets as we do with the Gospels and some other books of the New Testament, where no one knows who wrote most of them.
The mythical origins of the Law is another subject.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


reply to post by jmdewey60
 


This topic is very interesting but it is sort of off topic since it is talking about the original language of the bible rather than "The Nature of Sin". Slowly, the we got off topic because this interesting conversation.

I will continue this discussion here: Primary Archaeological Source that Hebrew culture existed 97BC





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join