It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Pew Statistics: How USA Believers see their "Holy Books"

page: 9
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 04:45 PM
reply to post by babloyi

I understand "pole shift" - but it seems you are talking about 'spin reversal'.....
There's a difference, no??

Anyway, I have no argument against what may have happened over the billions of years since Earth was. Is.

posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 05:53 PM

reply to post by racasan

I should have said mo posed as his god’s mouthpiece

Yes, if I'm not mistaken, all of the 'prophets' thought they were speaking "for God."
Jesus is the one that is the conundrum - did he say he was "God" or not?

As far as I've been able to tell, he did not. A lot of Christians (capital C - the Old Boy's Club) will take verses like "I and my Father are One", isolate them, and use them to "prove" their point of claiming that Jesus said he was God. They do not take into account contrary verses, such as where he said "The Father is greater than I", which clearly contradicts the claim that he IS God - one cannot be greater than himself.

To arrive at a logical conclusion in the matter, one has to account for ALL of the verses bearing on the Deity of Jesus, not just some of them, throwing out the contrary ones. My conclusion is that he claimed not to "be" God, but to be of one mind with God, or something of that nature. he claimed the authority to speak for God (among other privileges of position), rather than claiming godship himself.

Interestingly, he claimed merely to be the first "brother" among many, as you have pointed out, and that those who followed would be able to do what he did, and even more - they, too, would have that special position or relationship to God that he claimed, although not the primacy, or first position.

Neither would THEY be gods, however.

I don't think so - based on my interpretation of scripture. I just see way too many 'Eastern' philosophical stuff in his recorded teachings - and he said his followers could all 'do what he has done, and more.'

"Eastern" and "western" are relative things, depending on where you stand on the sphere of the Earth. Jerusalem is "east" of where I sit right now... unless I start walking in the opposite direction.
Either way, if I walk and swim long enough, I'll arrive at the same place. That statement has far deeper implications than a mere geography lesson, if you sit and ponder on it.

To me, that says: We are all part of the Divine, and these 'powers' that I have are accessible to everyone who will take the time and make the effort to understand what I am talking about, if you are capable.'

I see "the divine" as being part of US, rather than the other way 'round, but there again if you walk long enough in the opposite direction, you'll get to the same place as you would have originally.

And some were, clearly, not capable, which the Gospel of Thomas shores up. It is true that some people are simply not 'built' in a way to grasp esoteric, philosophical meanings. Therefore, the 'vulgate' is used by those incapable of seeing the 'hidden message.'

The Vulgate is just another translation of he Bible from the original - but translated into Latin for the "masses", the "vulgar" in the sense of "commoners". Where we run into trouble is translating the Vulgate into English, and calling it a "bible". It's just a translation of a translation, and anyone who has ever played "the whisper game" knows how that goes. it has some value if you speak Latin, and more value to a native Latin speaker - but there aren't any of those any more.

Another of my pet peeves is calling a "Good News Bible" a Bible - it's not. It's a paraphrase, and a paraphrase of the King James version... again, at least twice removed from the original. As a matter of fact, there was an uproar over the original paraphrasing, where the Good News Bible had king Saul calling someone a "son of a bitch", and they had to re-do the whole thing... again.

edit on 2014/1/1 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 06:13 PM


That is precisely the point of doubting the English-language Bible versions (all 5 bejillion of them)....

there is almost always Much Lost In Translation, and the translator's view will always influence the edition they produce.

That is all true, and it's why I read so many different versions of the Bible. I find that each translator or set of translators gives the translation a skewed nuance particular to their views and preconceptions. If one takes the same verse, and reads it in 6 or seven different translations, all those nuances tend to blend together into a more comprehensible whole. It's like looking at a 3 dimensional figure - if one only has one plane to view it in, a sphere shows as a circle, and a lot of the information is lost. It takes 2 separate viewpoints to resolve a circle into a sphere - and more viewpoints (think of them as "texture", "shading", etc - and other depth-cues) enhance the resolution of the view.

All of the translators start from the same point, the same language, and flavor the concoction to their own liking. In order to get back to the original meanings, one has to blend all those different flavors together until sense comes out.

posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 06:38 PM


Actually, pole shift is a very well documented phenomena. While it is generally understood to take thousands of years, there is even evidence for faster pole shift (such as change in orientation of the metals in the earth). The sun has risen in the west (and probably the north and south as well as the east) several times since the beginnings of earth, possibly even during the course of human history (although probably not recorded human history).

The pole shifts you speak of are magnetic shifts, not physical ones. They are determined to have occurred by checking the polar orientation of magnetic materials in set stone - the orientation of them was determined at the time the stone solidified, and doesn't change after that. The "magnets" align on magnetic north while the stone is in a plastic state, and retain that orientation because they can't adjust themselves any more in a matrix of set stone.

If you look at a topographic map, in the lower margin there is a "declination diagram", which has a date. it's used to orient the map on true north using a magnetic compass so that the map matches the lay of the actual land. The date is because magnetic north moves over time, at varying rates, so we have to know what date the diagram is good for in order to make use of it. Otherwise, the orientation is "off" by some number of degrees, depending on how out of date the diagram is.

Right now, magnetic north is galloping towards Russia at a faster clip than it has ever been observed to move since record keeping began. That is caused by motions in the liquid metal core of the Earth, which is what produces the magnetic poles.

it's a separate issue from the motions of the true or geographic north pole, the actual spin pole of the Earth. There is an astronomical phenomena called "precession", which causes the Earth's spin pole to "wobble" over large time spans. That is what causes the apparent star and constellation migrations seen in the precession of the equinoxes, so that Earth's orientation to surrounding space changes over time. the cycle last about 24000 years before it wobbles back around to it's starting point.

The Earth's actual spin pole changes over time in relation to external objects, like stars, but it doesn't change in relation to parts of the Earth, such as the surface. the spin pole is and always will be at the same point of Earth... but the sun (which is one of those outside stars) DOES seem to change it's position (where it rises, sets, and the width of the tropics that fall directly underneath it) over time as viewed from the Earth's surface, due to precession.

The regular yearly migration of the sun from north to south is caused by the axial inclination - the degree of tilt - of the Earth in relation to the sun, which is a separate issue from precession, although the two are sort of tied together over long time scales.

To make matters even worse, and more complicated, there are suggestions that the inclination, or amount of tilt, of the Earth's spin pole changes over time, too, becoming steeper or more shallow over geologic time scales (like a top slowly wobbling). The actual spin pole, in relation to the surface of the Earth, however, never changes. A change in that would be cataclysmic, and likely cause the Earth to dissociate into a floating swarm of rock chunks.

If that isn't enough to make one's head swim, there are even more "adjustments" in Earth's relation to everything "not Earth". The angle of the ecliptic, the argument of the perihelion, etc.

Nothing ever stays the same, but it changes so slowly as to usually be unnoticeable... except for the march of the magnetic poles. That can be sudden indeed!

ETA: One thing I just thought of - there are indications that the axial tilt changes over time. If the change were drastic enough - if the entire planet "flipped" and swapped ends such that what is now pointing to Polaris were pointing in the opposite direction, then the sun would "rise" is the west and "set" in the east, but the spin poles in relation to the Earth's surface would not change. The Earth would not really reverse direction, but the sun would appear to.

Since I just thought of it, I've not had time to work out the implications, but as a first guess, it wouldn't destroy much at all, other than our sense of direction. Venus has a retrograde rotation - the only one of the planets in the solar system to do so - and the sun "rises" in the west and sets in the "east" on Venus. I wonder if something like that pole roll may have happened there? it might be that Venus is simply "upside down" instead of actually retrograde. If so, then I suppose it's a possibility. One of the results of that might be a longer day as well - Venus's "day" is longer than it's "year", if I recall correctly - which I may not.

edit on 2014/1/1 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 03:50 AM
reply to post by nenothtu

All of the translators start from the same point, the same language, and flavor the concoction to their own liking. In order to get back to the original meanings, one has to blend all those different flavors together until sense comes out.

Agreed. No question about it. One needs to consider, however, that those doing the 'translating' are possibly unaware of the 'cultural' bias they are infusing into the work. Language is simply too malleable to expect otherwise.

I have a family member who is a brand-new high school English and Creative Writing teacher; we were discussing how the kids respond to, and their apparent boredom with assigned (by the district, not their teacher) literature. Recently it's been Shelly's Frankenstein, and since every session is supposed to include "read, write, discuss", often toward the end of class they'll be asked to spend 15 minutes reading silently. They asked, "If we read silently for 12 minutes, can we watch funny cat videos for the last three?"

Their teacher (my family member) allowed that they could. I suggested that it be used as a 'mini-lesson':

"Yes, if you want to watch cat videos, that's fine; if you do so, I want you to write about it; describe the video to me so that I get the story." This way, the kids can watch their videos, but ALSO learn about putting a visual and humorous experience into writing.

When a 'clerk' or 'scribe' was commissioned (or compelled) to 'translate' a Biblical passage into a separate language, the scribe has nearly carte blanche to 'tweak' the words into something they see, or glean from it, though this may not be what the original words meant to suggest at all. Of course, people in positions of "leadership" can 'approve or reject' the scribe's interpretation - but imagine if the leaders themselves are the ones who do all of the translating!

This is why I have reluctance to accept ANY translation of the Bible as "accurate to the original". We don't really have an intact "original". Who knows if the 'versions' used to compile the Constantine (Nicene Creed) Bible were anywhere NEAR actual, literal and figurative translations of the 'original originals'? Same thing happens when popular books are translated into other languages - esp literature with its subtle prose, it's hard to get the same "feeling and imagery" across. Or worse, when they're condensed into 'reader's digest' versions or movie scripts?!

So much of the original meaning can be missed, or misconstrued, or misunderstood, even by viewers/readers in the original language. The ability to effectively transcribe depends largely on one's own culture, vernacular, and education into literary criticism and reflection. Imagine, then, the 'power' in that position!

To be the 'editor' of something so important, but so vague to begin with - that will effect millions of people - would be akin to being given the keys to the kingdom, for sure!

That's why I'm definitely on the side of "written by men" in terms of the survey.

Thanks again for your thoughts, neno; very compelling stuff.
edit on 1/2/14 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 04:01 AM
reply to post by nenothtu

My conclusion is that he claimed not to "be" God, but to be of one mind with God, or something of that nature. he claimed the authority to speak for God (among other privileges of position), rather than claiming godship himself.

Precisely my conclusion as well.
Thanks for acknowledging that point, I've tried to make it before. As far as I can tell, he did not claim to "be God."

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 04:32 AM
reply to post by racasan

1 Dhul-Qarnain was at a very specific place -the setting place of the sun
2 He found the sun setting in a spring (a small area of water)
3 Dhul-Qarnain found people near to the spring

1. "The setting place of the sun" refers to the part of the sky where Dhul Qarnain saw the sun setting. People even now use words such as "sunrise" and "sunset", but its understood that the sun doesn't literally rise or set, but appears so to the observer.

2. If I were to tell you that I saw the sun set behind a high mountain, would you take it as meaning that the sun literally set behind the mountain? The verse simply describes a sunset over waters that were dark and muddy. This is only an issue for people looking to malign Islam.

3. And those people complained about Gog and Magog, who Islamic scholars have identified as being from the region around the black sea, where Dhul Qarnain witnessed the sunset. The verses are not about cosmology and astronomy.

top topics

<< 6  7  8   >>

log in