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.

 

California Pastor Says He Found Bibles in Costco’s Fiction Section

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Truth_Hz
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


Hmmmm Talking Snakes and Donkeys, Unicorns, an invisible magic genocidal man and his Zombie son...

All sounds real to me...


is that how Lord of the Rings is? I've never read it...

I have doubts that the scientific mind would dismiss a good mystery if they had all the facts...




posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   

signalfire
I've been known to move bibles (notice the lower case) to the fiction or mystery or 'hoax' section of libraries myself.

Just my passive-aggressive personality coming out.





And have probably never cracked a book having to do with legitimate biblical archeology ect. Just take it upon yourself to demonstrate your own ignorant bigotry and bias.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   

SisyphusRide

TownCryer
NEWS FLASH !!! Placing belief into a religion does not make that belief fact. The Bible is not the transcript of a documentary. The events descibed in the Bible can not be independently verified.


but the places and time frames can be independently determined so scientifically that leaves the subject open to debate.

archeological evidence spanning from 2000 BC to the 1st century AD being found all in one book just can not be dismissed ... nor can discovery of the Rosetta Stone and the information we've gleaned from the hieroglyphs about the historicity of the Bible.



Then by your reasoning, Charles Dickens 'A Tale of Two Cities' is a historical accurate record as well. It takes place during a recorded period of history, includes real cities, places buildings and some prominent people that can be verified by the historical and archaeological record. So given all of the anecdotal data we have the only logical conclusions is that Sydney Carton, Madame Defarge and Lucie Manette are also real and true people.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   

peter vlar

SisyphusRide

TownCryer
NEWS FLASH !!! Placing belief into a religion does not make that belief fact. The Bible is not the transcript of a documentary. The events descibed in the Bible can not be independently verified.


but the places and time frames can be independently determined so scientifically that leaves the subject open to debate.

archeological evidence spanning from 2000 BC to the 1st century AD being found all in one book just can not be dismissed ... nor can discovery of the Rosetta Stone and the information we've gleaned from the hieroglyphs about the historicity of the Bible.



Then by your reasoning, Charles Dickens 'A Tale of Two Cities' is a historical accurate record as well. It takes place during a recorded period of history, includes real cities, places buildings and some prominent people that can be verified by the historical and archaeological record. So given all of the anecdotal data we have the only logical conclusions is that Sydney Carton, Madame Defarge and Lucie Manette are also real and true people.


that's an interesting book... but there is a problem, the book itself has no historicity. These geographic locations already existed, they weren't dug up and discovered, Dickens' book it is a modern work of fiction.

the mysteries of the Bible date back to the Mesopotamian invention of writing.


edit on th105513p10u55R10 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
If the Bible is a work of fiction, is the Book of Mormon fanfiction?



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   

SisyphusRide

peter vlar

SisyphusRide

TownCryer
NEWS FLASH !!! Placing belief into a religion does not make that belief fact. The Bible is not the transcript of a documentary. The events descibed in the Bible can not be independently verified.


but the places and time frames can be independently determined so scientifically that leaves the subject open to debate.

archeological evidence spanning from 2000 BC to the 1st century AD being found all in one book just can not be dismissed ... nor can discovery of the Rosetta Stone and the information we've gleaned from the hieroglyphs about the historicity of the Bible.



Then by your reasoning, Charles Dickens 'A Tale of Two Cities' is a historical accurate record as well. It takes place during a recorded period of history, includes real cities, places buildings and some prominent people that can be verified by the historical and archaeological record. So given all of the anecdotal data we have the only logical conclusions is that Sydney Carton, Madame Defarge and Lucie Manette are also real and true people.


that's an interesting book... but there is a problem, the book itself has no historicity. These geographic locations already existed, they weren't dug up and discovered, Dickens' book it is a modern work of fiction.

the mysteries of the Bible date back to the Mesopotamian invention of writing.


edit on th105513p10u55R10 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)


Actually no, they date to about 2 millennia after Sumerian writing came onto the scene. The bible also discusses places that didnt actually exist during the times the bible attempts to ascribe them to. If a town is not contemporaneous with the the ascribed time frame it is then a work of afterthought no? These documents werent collected and written down until long after the fact had passed so I don't see a big difference.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by rupertg
 


now if Dickens wrote about Atlantis, and in 2000 years from now we dig up and discover Atlantis, and there was a big sign there proclaiming that this was in fact Atlantis, and we were able to view their history documenting them as a bonafied civilization which existed, and that they were responsible for the invention of writing... I'd have different opinions about believing Dickens' book.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


I kinda like this. Funny. But I do think our myths carry a good measure of truth.

S&F& : up :
edit on 26/11/13 by soficrow because: wd!



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   

peter vlar

SisyphusRide

peter vlar

SisyphusRide

TownCryer
NEWS FLASH !!! Placing belief into a religion does not make that belief fact. The Bible is not the transcript of a documentary. The events descibed in the Bible can not be independently verified.


but the places and time frames can be independently determined so scientifically that leaves the subject open to debate.

archeological evidence spanning from 2000 BC to the 1st century AD being found all in one book just can not be dismissed ... nor can discovery of the Rosetta Stone and the information we've gleaned from the hieroglyphs about the historicity of the Bible.



Then by your reasoning, Charles Dickens 'A Tale of Two Cities' is a historical accurate record as well. It takes place during a recorded period of history, includes real cities, places buildings and some prominent people that can be verified by the historical and archaeological record. So given all of the anecdotal data we have the only logical conclusions is that Sydney Carton, Madame Defarge and Lucie Manette are also real and true people.


that's an interesting book... but there is a problem, the book itself has no historicity. These geographic locations already existed, they weren't dug up and discovered, Dickens' book it is a modern work of fiction.

the mysteries of the Bible date back to the Mesopotamian invention of writing.


edit on th105513p10u55R10 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)


Actually no, they date to about 2 millennia after Sumerian writing came onto the scene.


Sumer and Ur are in Mesopotamia... not to mention all the Flood Myths and their historical significance... or the Epic of Gilgamesh... or the...



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   
In my personal opinion it is a book of fiction written by men, in others opinions it is a testament to live by full of stories. Really depends on how far down the rabbit hole your willing to go chasing the mystic sky wizard and his magician son.

I read the bible as a kid (religious family) didn't care for it, read it again as an adult, looked at it more as if the author was Steven King. The magic, the murder, the deceiving, chaos, book was actually pretty good fiction.... again as I said in my own opinion.

To have people up in arms though is just as well saying now other peoples "opinions" are "wrong" and how far must we all go till we know it's not right to try and dictate ones thought.

SaneThinking



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
It's all about the lessons of the Bible not about how literal it is. Of course it is fiction, you really believe in Adama and Eve as the beginning of humanity. Sure must have been a lot of God sanctioned incest in those days then. Like I said, look for the message in the words, not the words themselves.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   

SisyphusRide

peter vlar

SisyphusRide

peter vlar

SisyphusRide

TownCryer
NEWS FLASH !!! Placing belief into a religion does not make that belief fact. The Bible is not the transcript of a documentary. The events descibed in the Bible can not be independently verified.


but the places and time frames can be independently determined so scientifically that leaves the subject open to debate.

archeological evidence spanning from 2000 BC to the 1st century AD being found all in one book just can not be dismissed ... nor can discovery of the Rosetta Stone and the information we've gleaned from the hieroglyphs about the historicity of the Bible.



Then by your reasoning, Charles Dickens 'A Tale of Two Cities' is a historical accurate record as well. It takes place during a recorded period of history, includes real cities, places buildings and some prominent people that can be verified by the historical and archaeological record. So given all of the anecdotal data we have the only logical conclusions is that Sydney Carton, Madame Defarge and Lucie Manette are also real and true people.


that's an interesting book... but there is a problem, the book itself has no historicity. These geographic locations already existed, they weren't dug up and discovered, Dickens' book it is a modern work of fiction.

the mysteries of the Bible date back to the Mesopotamian invention of writing.


edit on th105513p10u55R10 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)


Actually no, they date to about 2 millennia after Sumerian writing came onto the scene.


Sumer and Ur are in Mesopotamia... not to mention all the Flood Myths and their historical significance... or the Epic of Gilgamesh... or the...


OK, please explain to me how in 1 Chronicles 29:7 it talks about 10,000 Daric, a gold coin at the time of David. the problem is that David lived approx. 1000 BCE yet the Daric, which was minted by Darius of Persia didn't exist for 500 years?
How about in Exodus 13:17 it says that "God did not lead them by way of the Philistines although it was near". How can this be so if the alleged dating/chronology of the Exodus is approx. 1495 BCE which is a few hundred years before the Philistines made their way to Canaan?
In Mark 2, where Jesus is confronted by the Pharisees because his disciples had been walking through a grain field, eating the grain on the Sabbath. Jesus wants to show the Pharisees that “Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath” and so reminds them of what the great King David had done when he and his men were hungry, how they went into the Temple “when Abiathar was the high priest” and ate the show bread, which was only for the priests to eat. One of the well-known problems of the passage is that when one looks at the Old Testament passage Jesus is citing (1 Sam. 21:1-6), it turns out that David did this not when Abiathar was high priest, but, in fact, when Abiathar’s father Ahimelech was.

But this entire book is a 100% accurate historical document? I'm sorry but I still see any Dickens novel as being more historically accurate than anything I've ever read in the bible.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


you may need to ask a biblical scholar... that I am not.

there are plenty of findings and I only bring to you a mystery... not a dismissal.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   

SisyphusRide
reply to post by peter vlar
 


you may need to ask a biblical scholar... that I am not.

there are plenty of findings and I only bring to you a mystery... not a dismissal.


Then perhaps you should be more careful when making such damning statements as you did earlier because it certainly walks and quacks like a dismissal. There's no mystery there at all, just a dismissal no matter how you try to paint it.



SisyphusRide
in the Bible the people were actually real, and the places actually exist. Take Babylon for instance, it was discovered at the beginning of the 19th century. I doubt the archeologist would have even known what it was or even where to go looking if it wasn't for the Bible.

there are many instances like this... Lord of the Rings is fantasy, the Bible is history.


For the record, I very much believe you're not a scholar otherwise you would be well aware that Babylon is mentioned through recorded history by all of the civilizations it encountered whether through war or trade. The bible is not a historical record. It is not very accurate and is full of anachronisms and misrepresentations that are far more well documented than any of the instances of genuine "biblical archaeology" you think you may be aware of. Are there instances where the bible or OT converge with recorded history? Absolutely, but that doesn't make it any more historical than A Tale of Two Cities or Great Expectations.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


hey brother you presented the questions... so its your mystery.

if you have the answer please do tell...



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Dickens just doesn't have the history or the fan base that the bible has for your mock comparison.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   

redoubt
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


This can't be challenged anymore. If retailers like Wally and Target choose to tag Bibles this way, complaints will only result in more negativity being tossed at the Christian faith. In the end, people can no longer opt not to shop at these stores because most independent retailers have long since fallen in the shadow of these big box stores. Locally, grocery stores are closing every year and smaller strip malls remain empty.

It's not right to treat your customers this way... to tag their lifelong beliefs in faith as 'fiction'. It is in large part because these people have shopped with you for the last two decades that you've become the sole supplier of so many things. But complaints no longer matter because there is no competition.

The concepts of that old game, Monopoly, come home in ways we could have never expected.


edit on 24-11-2013 by redoubt because: typo repair


I'm sorry, you have the right to practice any religion you want, but the book is FAKE. People don't walk on water, you don't randomly heal people and multiply food. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but "religious" texts are all biased, and wrong. Most of them have extremely questionable and contradicting information in them.

Not to mention, it isn't anything proven, like a mathematics books.

All-in-all it is really irrelevant what some conglomerate labels your holy text. Does it suddenly make you less of a christian since some store put a fiction sticker on the bible? If not, why are you concerned with it? It doesn't change anything.

Stop being offended by nothing. That's absurd.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   

SisyphusRide
reply to post by peter vlar
 


hey brother you presented the questions... so its your mystery.

if you have the answer please do tell...


Ok since it wasn't clear in the first few ways I framed it let me try to be more clear. You made the claim that the bible was a historically accurate document, so much so that archaeologists would not have found Babylon without it. It is my opinion that the bible/OT has pieces of history woven through it that it is not something that should be used to verify the historicity of anything at all and that it is on par with other classic literature such as A Tale of Two Cities, another story set in a historic tumultuous period but populated with fictitious characters. Does that mean that the entire bible is only useful as toilet paper? No. There are certainly some great moral parables in the NT but a historical document it is not. There are multiple errors and anachronisms litterd throughout the bible making all claims of accuracy silly at best. It may be a mystery to you but anyone with a library card and some time on their hands could solve it pretty quickly.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   

peter vlar

SisyphusRide
reply to post by peter vlar
 


hey brother you presented the questions... so its your mystery.

if you have the answer please do tell...


Ok since it wasn't clear in the first few ways I framed it let me try to be more clear. You made the claim that the bible was a historically accurate document,
please do quote me.

I said there is historicity to the bible...

it is you who laid claim to 100% total accuracy, which is not very scientific considering this link shows you historicity


edit on th545313p0300000053R54 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Put the bibles in the self help section. That seems to be the place where similar books reside.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join