1500 Year Old Bible Claims Jesus Christ Was Not Crucified – Vatican In Awe

originally posted by: knoledgeispower

I personally don't believe in the bible for the fact that
A) It has been translated a zillion times
B) It is more of a story book that teaches you morals than an actual book of events that happened.
C) The scriptures that went into the bible were hand picked & some didn't make it in, even though this is allegedly a book written the way God/Holy Spirit wants it.

You are way behind, the Book of Barnabas was already known for a long time.

But here you go as a rebuttal to your claims

A) The Bible has been transliterated and translated for those who do not speak Greek, Latin or Hebrew. Just because it has been translated does not take away from the context.

The KJV wasn't just done on a whim, those were actual scholars who were fluent in all three languages and used previous texts to translate from. It was put into English so that you could read it and not rely on a priest to read it for you. That's kind of a good idea, I would think.

B) And just recently there was a coffin of Seti I found in Jezreel. And we know that archaeology is proving the Bible's events as real. We do know from the Assyrians of the captivity of the Israelites, we know from Egyptian sources about the Israelites who were slaves and the wars with the House of David. These are things that secular archaeologists are finding. But if we have to take Egyptian history as real because it was written in stone, then why not the Bible? Can't have your cake and eat it too.

C) Stop reading the conspiracy theories about how the Bible was compiled. Real academics don't read conspiracy theories, they invest time and study into learning history. The current Constantine conspiracy conspiracy theory is inaccurate. Dan Brown didn't expose anything and his "facts" were wrong.

Those who "wrote" this one, were Gnostics. It has been well-known for a long time the Gnostics were publishing books that were eventually tossed out. That was the reason for the Nicean Counsel in the first place, because all the different churches had leadership teaching different things and it was causing fights. So there had to be an agreed consensus, so people would stop fighting.

Do you want it to be accurate? What would it mean to you if it were?

And then it goes against the historicity of academic acknowledgement of Jesus.

originally posted by: knoledgeispower

Plus I believe the whole "man shall not lay with another man like he lies with a woman" crap is in the book of Paul & if Paul was full of #, that means that he could have been lying about homosexuality being a sin.

In another thread I actually provided a detailed explanation behind that line, and why it is a completely baseless fallacy to interpret it as a condemnation of homosexuality. It was a response to someone posting Corinthians 6:9 - "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." - But, I link it back to that infamous Leviticus line. I'll repost the majority of it here:

Most people who bring the Corinthians 6:9 verse up (and the scant couple of other passages that some use to try to justify their own vilification of homosexual people) have absolutely no idea about the many different translations of these verses, their accuracy, or how to understand them in terms of comparing them to the accepted values, culture, laws and restrictions of the time period.

The fact is, this verse in many later translations of the Bible has been changed to include the word 'homosexuals'. The problem with this travesty of an alteration is that it actually has no basis in fact whatsoever, so much so, that most earlier translations use so many different words or phrases and none of them directly infer homosexual relationships. The other inherent problem with the translation of Corinthians 6:9 is that if you have studied the history of the original texts, this is actually one of the sections of the New Testament that has grammatical errors in it and also contains words that didn't actually exist in language beforehand (indicating strongly that Paul actually made some words up as he wrote things down). There is nothing wrong with that in theory, of course, but it does make it very difficult to actually fully understand what Paul was trying to express. After all, how can people claim to be 100% accurate about their own personal interpretation of a text that contains errors in its inception!? It's ludicrous! Just think about how much the intrinsic meaning of a sentence can be altered simply by moving or changing a comma or a full stop. With this in mind, how can we possibly hold up Corinthians as "gospel"? Additionally, an older translation of this passage has the term 'wantons' instead of homosexuals! Now I ask you: what is a 'wanton?' It is just a person who is lewd, vulgar or otherwise lacks morals. Now, how the flipping heck did this word get turned into homosexual? Shoehorning, much!?

The word arsenokoitēs that you rightly refer to is actually a composite word that appears to have been invented by Paul. It seems that his creation of this word can actually be traced back to his own misinterpretation of the Hebrew text of Leviticus 18:22. This is the infamous: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Now, intriguingly all of the various English translations of the Bible conveniently MISS entire WORDS out from this verse. Yes! The passage in Corinthians that has been used constantly to try to justify ideas about God condemning homosexuality is a miswritten, mistranslated passage that comes from an older miswritten, mistranslated passage! You couldn't make it up. So, let's examine what's missing, shall we and see if we can come to a more accurate conclusion about what may be intended with this verse. As it turns out the word 'bed' is missing. A far more accurate translation of this verse is actually: "A man shall not lie down with another man in a woman's bed, for it is prohibited." Now, what is the significance of this? Well, the short answer is that culturally during the time period that this was written, there were a number of ridiculous laws and restrictions relating to married couples. A husband actually could only share his wife's bed at very specific times! And God forbid if a woman was found to be in her bed with two men at the same time. See where this is going yet? Because the two men in the verse are not in her bed alone, having sex with each other. They are in her bed with her, and all having sex together. The only thing this verse can be inferred to be condemning is promiscuity and a woman having multiple sexual partners at one time. But, a condemnation of homosexual behaviour? Nope. Sorry.

a reply to: knoledgeispower

Right 500 ad, after the roman empire, 448 years at least after the jew's lost there homeland, just withing 150 years of islam and so possible due to dating difficulty's if it has been dated a text writen at the start or more likely after the start of that religon.
Dark age's, Gnostic's and false gospel's go hand in hand.
The first christians saw the Cross as a insult and a sign of hatred as our lord had been crucified on it and do not tell me that a man whom married a six year old CHILD whom acording to the suras took her doll's with her and the day after the wedding night all her hair fell out is a prophet, a man whom never heard the voice of god but supposedly second hand from gabriel, whom never recieved the holy spirit and whom murdered men by his own hand and told his men that woman could be raped.
God help you,.

So is it 1500 years old OR 500? The article says 1500, but I'm trying to figure out where some of you are saying it's 500 years old.

a reply to: knoledgeispower

Text Plus I believe the whole "man shall not lay with another man like he lies with a woman" crap is in the book of Paul & if Paul was full of #, that means that he could have been lying about homosexuality being a sin. I've always thought that whomever put that in the bible, probably had a bad experience like being raped by a guy or something & therefore wanted to say it was a sin.

As far as homosexuality is concerned, that is your prerogative. If you want to believe that it is not a filthy perversion of the flesh then by all means no one can force you to not believe it is a disgusting and filthy practice. The ball is your court. You have the same freedom to free will than anyone else. If you do not fear judgment and eternal punishment then simply keep on keeping on. But now that you have gone to lengths to publicize your beliefs then it is justified to be criticized by others. In other words you have simply made a public proud statement that you are an atheist and approve of booty pumping. I disagree with you and that also is my prerogative.

Text I personally don't believe in the bible for the fact that A) It has been translated a zillion times B) It is more of a story book that teaches you morals than an actual book of events that happened. C) The scriptures that went into the bible were hand picked & some didn't make it in, even though this is allegedly a book written the way God/Holy Spirit wants it.

There you go. Sounds like good knowledgeispower is right on the money. Which bible has been translated a zillion times? I missed that in bible school. Which group of scriptures are you referencing? Would you mean Aramaic or maybe Hebrew or perhaps Greek?? You must be familiar with all to make the statement that you have made. Perhaps you are a biblical scholar and understand the languages of the thousands of manuscripts that are known in biblical circle? I wish you luck in life because you will need a lot of it.

a reply to: 8BitOperator

Text Leviticus 18:22. This is the infamous: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Now, intriguingly all of the various English translations of the Bible conveniently MISS entire WORDS out from this verse.

The Jewish Publication Society, 1917 Masoretic text, reads as follows in English word for word as it also does 100 years later in the present translation.

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.
Lev 18:23 And thou shalt not lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith; neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto; it is perversion.

Did you note the word (And) in the 23rd verse? when you read all in context then it is very clear that the Hebrews did forbid our understanding of homosexuality. Paul was foremost a Hebrew. You can nit pick and Paul bash to suit your program but the meanings are still understood by the Christian communities. It is a perversion. To whom is it a perversion? To the Creator God.

I did note that you did not finish your thought in Leviticus 18:22 when you said "Now, intriguingly all of the various English translations of the Bible conveniently MISS entire WORDS out from this verse." Would you care to finish that statement and give us those missing words and exactly where those missing words can be located in the proper manuscripts?
Also your word "Intriguingly" was not in my English dictionary. Could you tell me what the English definition is of that word?

originally posted by: 8BitOperator

originally posted by: knoledgeispower

Plus I believe the whole "man shall not lay with another man like he lies with a woman" crap is in the book of Paul & if Paul was full of #, that means that he could have been lying about homosexuality being a sin.

The only thing this verse can be inferred to be condemning is promiscuity and a woman having multiple sexual partners at one time. But, a condemnation of homosexual behaviour? Nope. Sorry.

You know what is really amazing, that the Bible speaks about homosexuality and yet because it does not directly say the word homosexual, then somehow the Bible is silent. But then we bring up the verses that deal with homosexuality, people reject them and then reinterpret them to suit their own worldviews. Does the Bible condemn homosexuality? Yes, it does, overtly and invertly.

Let's compare societies surrounding the early Hebrews and then after Judaism was an established religion. The number one thing to remember is that Judaism was founded on the principle of separateness, to be different than their neighbors, to have a separate God than their neighbors, to live with moral laws that were separate, because God is separate, God is holy. That's the premise you must understand when approaching the Bible. If the Bible is based on the words of a separate and holy God, then worldviews and moral relativism of neighbors will not be expressed, but the clear indication is that they were to avoid other gods.

Temple prostitution was found among the ancient religions from Egypt to India. If the idea was to be separate, then temple prostitution was forbidden. Homosexuality in religious rites were practiced also among the Greeks, the Etruscans (early Romans), Egyptians and Assyrians, along with Canaanites. Again, apply the idea of separateness and then the Torah is also clear in forbidding homosexual practices.

But let's look at the outcome of homosexual practices among the other groups.

Greeks were very fond of homosexuality, it is found in most of their artwork and in stories of their gods. Zephyrus and Hyacinthus is just one of many and we also know of Zeus kidnapping and raping Ganymede. While one might call these mythologies, to the ancient Greeks they were more than just simple mythologies because every cult had their own rites and rituals, with quite a few involving homosexuality.

But the Bible isn't the only text to address homosexuality, even Plato discussed it in The Laws and The Republic

Plato's The Laws and so even for Plato and the ancient Greeks who did believe in a God above gods, a singular being who did give laws, then one must assume that the Greeks derived some understanding from the Hebraic law.

Take it as you will, but Greek society was rampant with homosexuality and pederasty, the only issue they had was for homosexual acts between people of different classes. Plato addressed the problem, the same as what the Bible does, so there isn't too much of a disconnect.

The Romans copied the Greeks and not only practiced homosexuality, but descended into hedonism in grand fashion. And it is the hedonism forbidden in the Bible. To think the Bible does not address it overtly, is quite naive, because it was well-known. And we have seen throughout history, that when any society or people move across lines, it leads to eventual self-implosion and self-destruction. We shouldn't have to give a history lesson, but give another 500 years and there won't be an American culture, there won't be a USA. But there will be a whole lot of people wondering what happened and the pendulum will swing back to society that must recover.

Right now, we are on the edge of self-implosion. It didn't even take us a long as Rome. By the way, Michael Alig is being released from prison. I think he qualifies as grand hedonism, but hailed as a gay icon. Imagine that, party monster is an icon.

A lot of people have said stuff to me so I'm just going to reply to everyone in one post.

a reply to: bjarneorn
It's not just Christianity I dislike, I dislike all religions. Religions have held society back in it's dogmatic ways for far to long, disagree with me, look at the Dark Ages.

For those who are wondering & those assuming, I am not an atheist. People would call my views agnostic, I believe in a higher being that put everything into motion. How much of a roll it has/had on our lives, I don't know. I don't need all these silly rules about not wearing mixed material clothing & if you work on a sunday you get stoned to death. I follow the number one, universal rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I also believe in Karma, because of personal experience, so that rule applies to karma as well. As long as you follow that rule you don't have to worry about lying, cheating, adultery because that goes against the universal rule.
~~~~~~~~~

Warminlndy
Yes I am behind in knowing about the Book of Barnabas. I was way to preoccupied in 2000 because my 6yr old sister (at the time she was that old) was newly diagnosed with an incurable auto-immune disease & I was in Grade 8 so I had no interest in any bible stuff other than what my church had taught me. I grew up & have been baptized as a Presbyterian but as I got older I started to run into conflict with what I was being taught, with the number one thing being that I finally came to terms with my sexuality & being bi sexual is a sin according to a lot of religions. I do not believe that God would make a sinner with no hope of ever being able to get into heaven. Besides, if God is all loving & forgiving like I was taught, then when I die & ask God to forgive my sins, (Not being bi sexual but my actual sins) then I will go to heaven. By that same logic, Hitler could have done the same thing and now is in heaven too.

A) When trying to translate one language from another, there isn't always a word for it, so you have to come up with your best guess as to what would work. I heard that explanation from an expert translator when he was discussing the problems that can arise in translating one language from another. Especially back when there weren't as many different variations of a word or meaning.

B) Real events like slavery would be in the bible cause it's a good teaching lesson. There could be other real life events that can be put in the bible as teaching lesson as well, that doesn't make a book about morals any more factual. People write about facts & people write about fiction, Egyptians too. We don't know what was going with the Egyptians for them to write about the events but that doesn't mean all of them are fact.

C) That's funny telling me to keep conspiracy out of the picture on a conspiracy site. For your information, I've only been going to ATS in the last 3yrs and before that I was one of the ignorant people who didn't know most of the things talked about on here. I learned about how the bible was a bunch of books compiled together but with not all of books making it into the bible back when I was in church. It wasn't because my church was into conspiracy, it was something my Reverend knew about & talked about. I can't remember how he explained it because that was 16yrs ago & I was 10yrs old. Do you mean Dan Brown the guy who made the Da Vinci movies? I didn't know there was more to it then just a movie, I have no idea about any of his theories other then what I saw in the Da Vinci Code & the movie after that.
Are you saying that the bible was written by people of different religious background? Why would God/Holy Spirit have Gnostic people write bible scripture?

If this bible thing was accurate, it would mean that again we still don't know much about our history & we shouldn't say that we know everything, cause we don't. We shouldn't have the bible up on a pedestal & worship it (no pun intended), we should be focusing on the more important thing, "do unto others as they would do unto you". The rest all falls into place when you follow that motto.
~~~~~~~
LABTECH767

Dark age's, Gnostic's and false gospel's go hand in hand.
The first christians saw the Cross as a insult and a sign of hatred as our lord had been crucified on it and do not tell me that a man whom married a six year old CHILD whom acording to the suras took her doll's with her and the day after the wedding night all her hair fell out is a prophet, a man whom never heard the voice of god but supposedly second hand from gabriel, whom never recieved the holy spirit and whom murdered men by his own hand and told his men that woman could be raped.
God help you,.

I have no idea what you are talking about? I don't know anything about a man who married a 6yr old. I have no idea who Suras is or this prophet person who killed people & said that women can be raped. I nothing about false gospels or what Gnostics say. I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion.
~~~~

Seede
What makes homosexuality a perversion of the flesh? Is it because there is anal involved or dildos? Women have anal sex & dildos were invented to treat a women who was hysterical.
I do not believe a man loving another man or a woman loving another woman is a perversion of the flesh, there is nothing wrong with it. I will quote myself from what I said in response to someone else.

If God is all loving & forgiving like I was taught, then when I die & ask God to forgive my sins, (Not being bi sexual but my actual sins) then I will go to heaven. By that same logic, Hitler could have done the same thing and now is in heaven too.

So yes I will keep on keeping on, I won't stop being a bi sexual human & I won't stop following the rule of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" it's the only rule I need as all other fundamental rules derive from that one. Oh & I never said I was an atheist. If I was anything it would be agnostic like I had stated above.

As for your bible statement, you can read what I said above about the bible & it's translations. Last I checked we aren't reading a bible that is in its original language, therefore there the bible has been translated.

~~~~
WarminIndy So you are saying, society is going to fail & it's because we allow of people to take part in homosexual acts? WOW!!?! How about the fact that homosexuality isn't just found in humans, it is also found in nature. So tell me does that mean that those animals, who know nothing of God, are going to be punished for being gay? If not, why do humans get punished, because we know better? that doesn't seem like a fair & logical God.
Homosexuality has been around forever & it will continue to be around forever as GOD makes people homosexuals just like he makes people heterosexual, bi-sexual, Caucasian & African American.

Ah, the Gospel of Barnabas. Here's my favourite quote from the text:

"And having said this, Jesus smote his face with both his hands, and then smote the ground with his head. And having raised his head, he said: "Cursed be every one who shall insert into my sayings that I am the son of God."

Gospel of Barnabas — 53:6

a reply to: Rainbowresidue

Big fish, lol

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: 8BitOperator

Text Leviticus 18:22. This is the infamous: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Now, intriguingly all of the various English translations of the Bible conveniently MISS entire WORDS out from this verse.

The Jewish Publication Society, 1917 Masoretic text, reads as follows in English word for word as it also does 100 years later in the present translation.

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.
Lev 18:23 And thou shalt not lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith; neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto; it is perversion.

Did you note the word (And) in the 23rd verse? when you read all in context then it is very clear that the Hebrews did forbid our understanding of homosexuality. Paul was foremost a Hebrew. You can nit pick and Paul bash to suit your program but the meanings are still understood by the Christian communities. It is a perversion. To whom is it a perversion? To the Creator God.

I did note that you did not finish your thought in Leviticus 18:22 when you said "Now, intriguingly all of the various English translations of the Bible conveniently MISS entire WORDS out from this verse." Would you care to finish that statement and give us those missing words and exactly where those missing words can be located in the proper manuscripts?
Also your word "Intriguingly" was not in my English dictionary. Could you tell me what the English definition is of that word?

Yes, because I'm the one nit picking; not some of the more bigoted Christians who want to use the Bible to justify their own prejudices. The meanings are actually NOT understand by most Christian communities, because they have little understanding of the actual original Hebrew text. They have never attempted to, nor care to go back to the source and discover how erroneous the translations of this verse are. You can either place your trust in commissioned translated releases of the Bible that contain tens of thousands of translation errors, and fail to take into account grammatical mistakes that can directly alter inference and meaning; or you can examine the actual base texts from a scholarly and historical standpoint. You need to understand the original texts from a literary basis, and understand how they relate to the time period culturally from a historical basis. And, I wasn't aware that there was any point in my argument where I "bashed Paul", but if you want to use hollow straw man tactics, and claim that I'm simply "attacking", then go right ahead. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

It is in no way a 'clear' condemnation of homosexuality, and the 1917 Masoretic text is absolutely NOT a word for word translation of the original Hebrew. If you'd read my post, I did point out the important missing word in this verse, but just for clarification I will point it out again:

The word BED is missing in translations of Leviticus 18:22.

A much, much closer reading of the original text is as follows:

"A man shall not lie down with another man in a woman's bed, for it is prohibited."

I'll explain again why this is crucially important:

The term prohibited is used; meaning restricted or forbidden by law or authority. The specification is made that this incident is happening in a woman's bed (if this were about homosexual relationships, then why not the man's bed?). So essentially, all this passage is stating is that it's forbidden by law for two men to be in a woman's bed. Now, if you have any historical understanding of the culture and laws of the time period, this makes perfect literal sense. There were many laws regarding a woman's bed at the time. It was, in fact, even forbidden for a husband to lay down on his wife's bed at certain times of the day. And, most assuredly only her husband was allowed to do this. Any sort of promiscuity or a woman having more than one sexual partner (more than one man in her bed) was a completely restricted offence. Leviticus is simply a restatement of these laws. This line is referring absolutely and directly to promiscuity, having more than one partner, or indeed threesomes and orgies. It is in no way, shape or form a condemnation by God of homosexual behaviour.

As for the word intriguingly, it means curiously; or having aroused curiosity; or created intrigue. And, since when does bestiality taken in context become synonymous with forbidding homosexuality?

Cool find.

I wonder how this changes the dynamic of the Jewish/Palestinian relationship or if it changes it at all?

a reply to: knoledgeispower

Text Seede What makes homosexuality a perversion of the flesh? Is it because there is anal involved or dildos? Women have anal sex & dildos were invented to treat a women who was hysterical. I do not believe a man loving another man or a woman loving another woman is a perversion of the flesh, there is nothing wrong with it. I will quote myself from what I said in response to someone else.

As said before, that is your prerogative to believe anything that you want to believe. I am not ordained to judge anyone of any sin against the God of Abraham. The only judge you must fear is the judge in death. I have no power to judge you. You judge yourself and it is you who must be sentenced for all of the unjustified deeds of the flesh. The good news is that you can become justified if you want to accept the Prophets and Apostles teachings. That is all I am doing is to show you the Prophets and Apostles of Jesus as has been given to us. That is why I defend the rule book of Abraham's God in the only way I know how to defend it.

We are discussing theology and nothing more but this is your thread and this is the subject that, by choice, you decided to make public. I am entitled to respond in this forum and I did respond as I believe the God that I worship would approve. The God that I believe in has said through His Prophets, Apostles and Disciples that there are rules and regulations that, as the Creator, He reserves the right to like and dislike. I am not the Creator and I do not make the rules.

You are under the belief that the God of Abraham will not punish you for willfully disobeying His rules. In fact that is this new culture that exists today but that is not to be found in His rule book. In order to justify disobedience against God is to change the rule book and that is the main topic in this country today. But through all of this life God has given you the gift of choice.

Text So yes I will keep on keeping on, I won't stop being a bi sexual human & I won't stop following the rule of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" it's the only rule I need as all other fundamental rules derive from that one. Oh & I never said I was an atheist. If I was anything it would be agnostic like I had stated above.

You accept "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" yet disregard other rules in the book. You claim to be a believer in a Creator and you infer that a bible of your choice makes you this believer. The confusing part of your reasoning is that it is unlawful to choose only the laws of God that you wish to obey. There is not a society in existence that allows you to choose only their laws you want to obey. That is why the cultures change the laws. One hundred years ago it was against the law of this republic to practice the perversions homosexuality promotes. Today it is common practice but the difference being that the laws of this republic are not the laws of the Creator. The laws of this nation are ever changing but the laws of God never change. To justify the laws of God cannot be compared to the laws of man.

Yes the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek must be translated to English Just as Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek must also be translated among themselves for those who cannot understand. But a translator should be foremost a learned scholar in his native language first. If not then the translated word may be corrupt or incomplete in meaning. This is why you have so many denominations as well as bibles. Even though you are entitled to choose by God's gift of free will does not necessarily mean that you have made the right choice. Common sense will tell you that after all is said and done that most all will be wrong.

Now if you have the credentials to understand languages of which most bibles are shown, then you could better understand the intended meanings of those languages. But most all of us do not have that understanding and therefore we must make a decision as to which manuscripts to embrace. I took that chore very seriously as a youngster and did spend some years in study from various institutions before my decision. That does not mean that I understand the many new developments that have emerged or that my comprehension was correct. It only means that I made an effort to try to make the right choice. Even then I study daily because I realize that this is a life time of study and learning. Out of this I have come to believe that regardless of the brilliance of a person we all sin daily and sometimes willfully against the rules of the Creator and that many of us who think we are justified are not justified. There are many sins of the flesh but only one judge. That is why we die and each one of us stand in judgment. I hope you change before you die.















If God is all loving & forgiving like I was taught, then when I die & ask God to forgive my sins, (Not being bi sexual but my actual sins) then I will go to heaven. By that same logic, Hitler cou

So yes I will keep on keeping on, I won't stop being a bi sexual human & I won't stop following the rule of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" it's the only rule I need as all other fundamental rules derive from that one. Oh & I never said I was an atheist. If I was anything it would be agnostic like I had stated above.

As for your bible statement, you can read what I said above about the bible & it's translations. Last I checked we aren't reading a bible that is in its original language, therefore there the bible has been translated.

a reply to: 8BitOperator

Text The meanings are actually NOT understand by most Christian communities, because they have little understanding of the actual original Hebrew text.

Yes I agree that most congregations do not understand even their own origins. Most follow their family traditions. I also agree that most of us do not have much understanding of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. That is why we use reference material to help us in the complexities of these languages.

Text They have never attempted to, nor care to go back to the source and discover how erroneous the translations of this verse are. You can either place your trust in commissioned translated releases of the Bible that contain tens of thousands of translation errors, and fail to take into account grammatical mistakes that can directly alter inference and meaning; or you can examine the actual base texts from a scholarly and historical standpoint.

In this case I have shown you the original translation of the Masoretic manuscripts from Hebrew to English in this discussed topic. It has stood for many decades from the scholars of the Hebrew language. Are you inferring that this is erroneous and has tens of thousands of translation errors? If you are then you do not know one whit of what you stated. Are you prepared to show your "grammatical" mistakes in the English from the Hebrew as you claim? In the Hebrew language there is nothing to show inferences. They do not exist. This subject has nothing to do with historical matter as it is strictly a discussion in literature.

TextAnd, I wasn't aware that there was any point in my argument where I "bashed Paul", but if you want to use hollow straw man tactics, and claim that I'm simply "attacking", then go right ahead. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

You wrote -quote "The other inherent problem with the translation of Corinthians 6:9 is that if you have studied the history of the original texts, this is actually one of the sections of the New Testament that has grammatical errors in it and also contains words that didn't actually exist in language beforehand (indicating strongly that Paul actually made some words up as he wrote things down). There is nothing wrong with that in theory, of course, but it does make it very difficult to actually fully understand what Paul was trying to express. After all, how can people claim to be 100% accurate about their own personal interpretation of a text that contains errors in its inception!? It's ludicrous! Just think about how much the intrinsic meaning of a sentence can be altered simply by moving or changing a comma or a full stop. With this in mind, how can we possibly hold up Corinthians as "gospel"? "unquote

Now tell me just what am I to digest from that rant? Did you not criticize Paul and say that he made up words and that Corinthians (both?) could not be reliable as scriptural? You are inferring that you are a literary professional in both Hebrew and Greek. You have not given any references to prove any of what you claim in this discussion. Where is this manuscript that describes this "bed" that you insist is in the ancient Hebrew texts? Why not share this proof ?

Here is the Greek Septuagint translation of the Leviticus 18:22 of the year 1851.
22 And thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman, for it is an abomination. 23 Neither shalt thou lie with any quadruped for copulation, to be polluted with it: neither shall a woman present herself before any quadruped to have connexion with it; for it is an abomination.

Here is the Hebrew text from the 1560 Geneva bible-
Leviticus Viii:22- Thou shalt not lie with the male as one lieth with a woman:for it is abomination.

Now I do know where you got this information on the internet but that is a bogus conception and I will try to show you why. You should consider the dead sea scrolls which are about 1,000 years older than what we have been using. The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek in about 250 BC while the Masoretic text was translated from manuscripts in about the 9th century AD. But that original Hebrew that the Septuagint was translated from is now lost. But then the dead sea scrolls come into play and now we are once again looking at the Hebrew Masoretic text being once again revived to be the oldest language of Torah by at least 700 years.

These specific verses read:
(1) Leviticus 18: 22; which states: ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה תועבה הוא "Do not lie (sexually) with a male like as you would with a woman, since this is an idolatrous perversion (תועבה TOEYVAH)".
And:
(2) Leviticus 20: 13, which states: ואיש אשר ישכב את זכר משכבי אשה תועבה עשו שניהם מות יומתו דמיהם בם "If a man has sexual intercourse with a male person, like as with a woman, they have both committed a תועבה TOEYVAH (aמ idolatrous perversion). Their death is their own fault".

These verses were written in the Book of Leviticus originally sometime about 1350 BCE. This was a full millennium prior to Jews being in contact with a hedonistic, militant non-Semitic culture that had a Syrian-Greek-Hellenistic AND A missionizing Hellenizing religious premis that was openly promiscuous and a bi-sexual modality.

The facts are there for you to digest but if you want to refute this then I cannot offer any more to this subject.

The program crashed due to no fault of mine so will try to continue --

Did you not say - quote " Paul actually made some words up as he wrote things down). There is nothing wrong with that in theory, of course, but it does make it very difficult to actually fully understand what Paul was trying to express. After all, how can people claim to be 100% accurate about their own personal interpretation of a text that contains errors in its inception!? It's ludicrous! Just think about how much the intrinsic meaning of a sentence can be altered simply by moving or changing a comma or a full stop. With this in mind, how can we possibly hold up Corinthians as "gospel"? ' unquote

By that it is plain that you are actually calling Paul a fraud and that his literature is bogus. Wouldn't you call that bashing a guy? About as plain as the nose on your face.

I do understand where you got your information off the internet and i believe it is very misleading and only partially correct. You have not considered the Greek Septuagint nor given it a fair comparison. The article you read was primarily critical of the Hebrew Masoretic text.

While it is true that the Hebrew Masoretic text is from the 9th century CE and the Greek Septuagint text is from about 250 BCE you have not considered the dead sea scrolls which pre date the Septuagint by over 1,000 years. Also the original Hebrew which the Septuagint was translated was lost. Now you are looking at the Hebrew as being the oldest text available today thanks to the completion of the dead sea scrolls. This opens the field for more bible translations in the future. So if you want to say that the older the better then you will have to rely on the Hebrew once again.

These specific verses read: from the Hebrew --

(1) Leviticus 18: 22; which states: ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה תועבה הוא "Do not lie (sexually) with a male like as you would with a woman, since this is an idolatrous perversion (תועבה TOEYVAH)".

And:

(2) Leviticus 20: 13, which states: ואיש אשר ישכב את זכר משכבי אשה תועבה עשו שניהם מות יומתו דמיהם בם "If a man has sexual intercourse with a male person, like as with a woman, they have both committed a תועבה TOEYVAH (aמ idolatrous perversion). Their death is their own fault".

These verses were written in the Book of Leviticus originally sometime about 1350 BCE. This was a full millennium prior to Jews being in contact with a hedonistic, militant non-Semitic culture that had a Syrian-Greek-Hellenistic AND A missionizing Hellenizing religious premis that was openly promiscuous and a bi-sexual modality. This public display of what Jews held as sacred and private behavior was why the very first Talmudic references are to PUBLIC DISPLAYS of homosexual like, sexual activity, mostly by non-Jews, which was spoken of as an idolatrous perversion (תועבה TOYEVAH) of JEWISH mores and religious practice (Sanhedrin 54a) if practiced by Jews.

originally posted by: Rainbowresidue
a reply to: knoledgeispower

So this happened in 2000.
I assume the Vatican found a way to discredit it,or deem it fake.
Otherwise we'd be saying prophet Jesus today.

The bible has gone through a lot of change/edits.
I'd take it with a grain of salt.

I especially remember reading 1 story in the children's bible when I was a child. It was about a man living in a whale for 3 days. I was only 8 years old and knew already that I was reading fiction.

Just my 2 cents.

Thanks for sharing.

You haven't heard the story of James Bartley

www.ycaol.com...

This is a gnostic text not a christian text, and is not new but old. Also, everything is open to interpretation, not just the Bible.

And the Bible has not gone through "edits" as this appears to imply that it was changed multiple times, but was "canonized" which is the process of eliminating writings that don't fit into the underlying theme of the Bible. An example: lets say Batman comes from a comic book, right? Now that comic book has a timeline. In the timeline a theme is in place, the establishment of the character of Batman, and his exploits. Now 50 years later someone comes up and says "I'm gonna write a story about Batman, too". Only this story doesn't fit the comic book Batman's storyline, and changes it entirely. This is what the canonization actually did. It removed these later writings that didn't fit the original meaning, but changed the meaning entirely. The words themselves where unchanged.

The later writings, of which Barnabas was one, are pretty much all believed to be a Gnostic interpretation which was prevalent 300 to 600 years after Yeshua died. It is similar in scope to what is going on now, with people trying to say the Bible is fake and using gnostic documents to support their theory. It was used in the same way then, also. To foster division in an attempt to subvert a established understanding to sway power to other alternate agendas. It is, quite literally, the oldest trick in the book.

a reply to: Seede

Did you know that they actually have a very interesting Bible which is an accurate translation from the original text? Not just like the NIV, but with all the intricacies of the Hebrew included. Like the word "Elohim" can be translated both singular and plural thus in this Bible it says "In the beginning there were G-d(s)." Very interesting and educational. But I have found that generally, the meaning of the text is the same.