You're correct, even the Bible states that "... we see through a glass, darkly;..." 1 Corinthians 13:12
The Bible only scratches the surface of what God is, but it scratches deeper than any other religious text while staying historically, and scientifically accurate at the same time.
Now with regards to the "only truth" I'm not sure what you are referring to.
Certainly the Bible is true, and there are of course other truths, and none of them disagree with the Bible. Otherwise they wouldn't be called a truth.
Now if you want to make the "entire bible" and "single perception" interchangeable then just swap "the Bible" with "this perception" in my earlier posts and that's pretty much my argument.
What parts of the bible are you so positive are actually true? Especially since a lot of the stories told in the bible, are taken from other pre-Christian myths. In fact, the whole idea of Jesus (God) being born by the virgin Mary sounds like a completely transformed version of the myth which the Goddess gave birth to God after he sacrificed himself for the fall harvest. In fact, the timing is conviniently almost in perfect sync with the myth, and the myth is in sync with the natural season cycles. In fact, if you distiled everything that wasn't rooted in pagan faith, from Christianity or the bible, you wouldn't be left with much. The bible just adjusted the stories and changed names and re-associated it with a single all knowing God.
I would suggest reading some books that had no Christian affiliation, about paganism and also broaden your horizon to other faiths. You might quickly discover how Christianity is just one of many other religions that all make just as much sense (complete sense to those who believe, and no sense to people who don't believe).
The idea of Christianity didn't come about until after Jesus was born, and his birth was prophesied in many other ancient texts prior to the ones included in the Bible itself.
Jesus's birth fulfilled over 400 prior prophesies that existed in texts much older than the Gospels contained in the New Testament.
Mary didn't stay a virgin her whole life, she had other children with Joseph after Jesus was born, and she wasn't the mother of God. God existed before Mary, and in fact created Mary. She was a human just like the rest of us. She was overshadowed by the God and allowed her to conceive a child which was then simply a manifestation of God. All of this information is in the books Matthew and Mark.
His name was Jesus because Jesus is also God's name.
John 14:8-10
"Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. "
Those passages pretty much speak for themselves.
Remember that other pre-Christian myths were created by people who were descendents of Noah and thus heard the same stories that had been passed down from generation to generation. It's not too difficult to imagine that these pre-Christain myths were heavily influenced by them.
I've said this at least three times now, so maybe I should be a little more straight forward. Unless you can cite me a source besides the bible, it wont mean anything to me and wont support your argument at all. Like I've said many, many times in the past few pages... your bible references are as valuable to me as Wikipedia is to a college professor. It's sourced material edited many times from other sources and edited limitless times by too many people. I don't really care how historically accurate it is. I will not take anything you say as credible unless you can cite it outside of the bible. If the bible is so historically accurate, than you shouldn't have too hard a time finding me real, unbiased, historical evidence or records.
Forgive me if I come across as an asshole, but I assumed I was pretty clear before. Unless you can find me an unbiased source of everything you're telling me, outside of the bible, I'm not going to take anything you say as credible. I do not believe in the bible, I don't care how historically accurate you claim it is. I simply do not believe in it. It's not a history book, it's not a science book. Of course cities written about it, actually existed. We have movies about aliens attacking New York. New York is real, does that mean the aliens are? Don't answer that, it's just a vague example - not a direct challenge.
My point is... the bible is NOT a credible source, so please stop referring to it, at least when you're trying to discuss this with me. Surely someone with such a strong faith can find a source that's unbiased toward your specific religion, to actually support what you believe, and not be easily dismissed through some other, potentially more rational explanation. Right?
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE I've said this at least three times now, so maybe I should be a little more straight forward. Unless you can cite me a source besides the bible, it wont mean anything to me and wont support your argument at all.
When I cited the Bible I was correcting your false statement about Jesus's birth that you mentioned in the quote below.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE In fact, the whole idea of Jesus (God) being born by the virgin Mary sounds like...
So to make things more clear next time you chose to use a story in the Bible as an example to compare to something else make sure you quote it too.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE It's sourced material edited many times from other sources and edited limitless times by too many people.
This is false, as I've already showed a few posts up. The Bible was not edited. Please show me where it was edited and give solid proof and I might be inclined to agree, and please don't cite the History channel, they're bias against any kind of religious worldview, so that "source" is as credible as Wikipedia as you like to put it.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE Of course cities written about it, actually existed. We have movies about aliens attacking New York. New York is real, does that mean the aliens are?
Ok this made me laugh,
Jericho an actual city that existed was found. The walls of the city were found underground, so not only was the city real, but the destruction of the city existed as well and matches the Bible's description exactly.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE My point is... the bible is NOT a credible source, so please stop referring to it, at least when you're trying to discuss this with me.
I don't see any reason not to refer as long as no inaccuracies have been found. At what point does something qualify as "credible?" I'm sure your answer will be something along the lines of anything that agrees with your worldview, or something about being un-bias which by the way is a matter of opinion.
ANYONE can write about stuff that ACTUALLY HAPPENED... that DOES NOT MEAN that everything that's written, also happened too. ESPECIALLY when it talks about encounters or stories about God. You want a better example? Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, but God came before us and provided us with the technology of nuclear weapons... so we bombed them, twice. Sure, the evidence of all three bombings actually exists, but that does not mean Gods intervention had absolutely anything to do with it.
Also, your references to the bible and how Jesus was born, is exactly what I'm talking about. You trust so well that your bible is telling you the truth all the time, that the instant you read it in the bible, it must be true. And yes, I will cite the History Channel, because the history channel is about as unbiased to any religion as you can get. Why? Because they need to be so that they can tell as much of the whole story as they can.
In fact, your complete unwillingness to stand in front of an argument made by the History Channel, single handedly proves to me how weak your argument is. The History Channel explains religious history, not bible history... but you don't like that, do you? Because it might actually mean that your bible isn't as perfect as you thought it was. It might be a blemish on your religion's credibility. I've watched enough of The History Channel to know for a fact that what they talk about in their shows, though biased toward attracting the ignorant mainstream watcher into questioning things so they sit through commercial breaks, is extremely reliable to someone who actually knows and see's past the commercial tricks and cares to learn the information - and I've learned a lot of information.
I mean hell, if you're going to dismiss The History Channel as being too biased against any kind of religious worldview, you mid-as-well dismiss Discovery Channel's Planet Earth as being too biased against the world logging and petroleum organizations, since they show the beauty of the real world and try to convince people to stop destroying it. Oh no! That's biased!
"I don't see any reason not to refer as long as no inaccuracies have been found." Then you, my friend, won't have any problem... delivering me the information from which the bible was checked against, to be found for potential inaccuracies, and proven to be so right. Because unless you can find me information outside of the bible, I don't care. I do not believe in your bible, it's as simple as that. Prove to me what you're saying, without using the bible.
Also, your stab at the History Channel is making it increasing, if not impossible to feel like I can continue on with this discussion because it single handedly proves to me that you're completely dismissing an extremely rational, very credible source of information, simply because it spits the truth right in your face.
anyways then thats something people are already doing for hundreds of years and guess what they wont stop so this might as well get 500 pages. all of which i won't read a single word of so i just post a somewhat related cartoon that might offend people
Remember that other pre-Christian myths were created by people who were descendents of Noah and thus heard the same stories that had been passed down from generation to generation. It's not too difficult to imagine that these pre-Christain myths were heavily influenced by them.
This blows my mind. Every pre-Chrisitan myth was seeded by a descendant of Noah?
I'll give you one example of a non-Christian faith that was co-opted by Christian converters. The Norse mythos. This is the short, short version:
For generations, the Norse believed that one day, there would be a great battle that would shake the heavens, rattle the earth, and change the world as they knew it. Christians come along, study the Norse religion, and then introduce another character named Gimle, or light. Then the Christians convinced the holdouts that Ragnarok (the end of the world) already happened, and that Gimle arose from the world's ashes. Those who did not believe attempted to defend their faith, but were suppressed by the Christians through militaristic means.
How does that coincide with your explanation that "it's not too difficult to imagine" Noah's descendants first coming up with the Norse mythos, then centuries later re-writing it to suit their own ends?
In other words, Gimle was completely fabricated by Christians to co-opt the Norse faith. The only equivalent to this occurring for Christianity is if there was suddenly a race of Greek god-worshiping people that somehow erupted from the earth itself and presented a heretofore undiscovered book of the bible stating that, in fact, the world had already experienced Armageddon and that from the ashes the Greek gods emerged, like seedlings from the soil, and ascended to Mount Olympus to rule over the world, unseen.
I'll re-state my opinion again: religion was created to keep the masses in check. It is a "happy idea" that rationalizes some things of historical significance as acts of divine retribution. By persuading or coercing people to adopt the belief system, religious leaders gain prominence and influence in their respective civilizations; their own beliefs of "what is right" are combined with common-sense doctrine to lend legitimacy and become adopted as fact. It is not legitimized coincidentally because some of the beliefs "make sense" or are "the right thing to do." Rational thought is blended with the magical thought of those who want to advance the religion to make it more appetizing to the masses. Those who resist have historically been marginalized and/or subjugated through militaristic means.
Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have experienced success and proliferation due to their access to resources. Other belief systems have been crushed under their heel for not having the resources to "spread the word" and simultaneously defend themselves from religious invasion.
You want my opinion? It's "not too difficult to imagine" that the truth of the world (in whatever shape it may come or have come) has long since been crushed by invasive faith systems such as Christianity, and the earth's inhabitants have been robbed by the imperialistic maneuvering of humanity.
...I really should have written off this thread back when I said I did.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE ANYONE can write about stuff that ACTUALLY HAPPENED... that DOES NOT MEAN that everything that's written, also happened too. ESPECIALLY when it talks about encounters or stories about God
I also contains prophesy which were written prior to the actual events occurring.
Danial received visions from God about our modern war machines before they even existed, but of course he didn't know what they were so he had to explain them using terms he knew.
Revelations 9:13
"And thus I saw the Horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone."
A horse as in the animal doesn't issue "fire and smoke and brimstone" out of it's mouth.
Modern-day war "horses" refer to tanks or transport vehicles.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE Also, your references to the bible and how Jesus was born, is exactly what I'm talking about.
You're still misunderstanding me. When I referenced to when Jesus was born I was correcting your original statement about what you thought it was about. If you're going to try and compare a passage in the Bible to a mythical story then at least make sure you know what the passage actually says and not what you think/remember it saying. So yes, if you incorrectly recall a passage in the Bible and try to use that to justify your argument, then of course I'm going to quote what it actually says. Just so we're clear.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE In fact, your complete unwillingness to stand in front of an argument made by the History Channel, single handedly proves to me how weak your argument is.
What argument are you referring to?
There was no argument, just a misrepresentation of history.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE Also, your stab at the History Channel is making it increasing, if not impossible to feel like I can continue on with this discussion because it single handedly proves to me that you're completely dismissing an extremely rational, very credible source of information, simply because it spits the truth right in your face.
Ok well go ahead and cite it if you must. If you really need it that badly.
EDIT:
Originally Posted by s-m-r I'll give you one example of a non-Christian faith that was co-opted by Christian converters. The Norse mythos. This is the short, short version
Very good. There are countless other mythical stories, and religious rituals that have been modified by "Christian" believers.
Such as replacing gods of other religions with "saints" that believers could pray to...ect. This was all done to help them convert people of other religions.
I however do not agree with, or support such nonsense, and to make it clear I don't believe that praying to a dead person will do any good.
Ecclesiastes 9:5
"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing..."
This thread was a very good thread through most pages! Too bad that it had to boil down to wall-to-wall-nyeha-I'm-right-your-not-because-[non-sensical babble].
Urban: I hold the bible in very, very, high regards. However, you won't catch me trying to prove the vast majority of the world's view on history wrong by ONLY referring to one source. That, plus the fact that the bible is indeed a heavily edited scripture (claiming otherwise is simply proving a serious lack of facts) makes your argumentation very weak to readers of this thread. Regarding pointing to the Jewish way of copying the Torah; that doesn't apply to the bible you hold in your hands. The old testament was not treated with the same respect by early Christians, it is indeed also edited.
I for one won't engage in this thread, but just believe me when I say I know what I'm talking about. I've spent the last several years at uni studying these things with the aim of becoming a lecturer on the subject, so I wouldn't say things I'm not 100% sure off.
With that said, can we let this thread move on now? TDC has got quite a clear view of your opinion on the subject. Perhaps others would like to enter and share their views instead?
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Urban: I hold the bible in very, very, high regards. However, you won't catch me trying to prove the vast majority of the world's view on history wrong by ONLY referring to one source
I haven't tried to prove any history wrong. To what are you referring?
I've simply showed that the Bible agrees with the history we already know, quite the opposite from what you've stated I've tried to do.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] That, plus the fact that the bible is indeed a heavily edited scripture (claiming otherwise is simply proving a serious lack of facts) makes your argumentation very weak to readers of this thread. Regarding pointing to the Jewish way of copying the Torah; that doesn't apply to the bible you hold in your hands. The old testament was not treated with the same respect by early Christians, it is indeed also edited.
They match our modern Bible by %99 and they're significantly older than any known copy of the Bible.
Not only that but the Jewish method of reproducing the Torah does indeed apply to the Bible we hold in our hands because the Torah is in fact the first 5 books of our modern Bible, which is what contains the history that we've been talking about this whole thread.
So it sounds to me sir that you're just making things up off the top of your head, so I'll have to carefully examine any father claims from you.
At least Brandon (silverfire) researches his replies.
First off, I have to say that your tone is quite reeking with the thick headed discussion approach common for most self-appointed, elitist, religious zealot would-be's.
Secondly, before replying in an overly rude manner, make sure you have COMPREHENDED the post you're replying to. Twisting words and implying other intentions =
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Urban: I hold the bible in very, very, high regards. However, you won't catch me trying to prove the vast majority of the world's view on history wrong by ONLY referring to one source
I haven't tried to prove any history wrong. To what are you referring?
I've simply showed that the Bible agrees with the history we already know, quite the opposite from what you've stated I've tried to do.
Worlds view on historical event = A
The bible's view on same historical event = B
A<>B
You: A<B
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] That, plus the fact that the bible is indeed a heavily edited scripture (claiming otherwise is simply proving a serious lack of facts) makes your argumentation very weak to readers of this thread. Regarding pointing to the Jewish way of copying the Torah; that doesn't apply to the bible you hold in your hands. The old testament was not treated with the same respect by early Christians, it is indeed also edited.
Me: "The bible is indeed a heavily edited scripture" (bible>OT)
Me: "The old testament [...] is indeed also edited" (edited<>heavily edited)
They match our modern Bible by %99 and they're significantly older than any known copy of the Bible.
Not only that but the Jewish method of reproducing the Torah does indeed apply to the Bible we hold in our hands because the Torah is in fact the first 5 books of our modern Bible, which is what contains the history that we've been talking about this whole thread.
This whole thread has not been about the bible, this thread is about people's view on the matter of God. And that statement is inaccurate, OT, Torah and the bible are not interchangeable words. Stop using them in such a manner. Read my post again.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] First off, I have to say that your tone is quite reeking with the thick headed discussion approach common for most self-appointed, elitist, religious zealot would-be's.
You're tone is quite the same, so I don't know why you even made such a statement.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Worlds view on historical event = A
The bible's view on same historical event = B
A<>B
You: A<B
Please quote me where I did this and I might be inclined to agree.
You won't be able to find any good quotes however since I've yet to make any statements that disagree with history.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Me: "The bible is indeed a heavily edited scripture" (bible>OT)
Me: "The old testament [...] is indeed also edited" (edited<>heavily edited)
So, what's your point?
Whats the difference between heavily edited, and simply edited?
%5 ? %10 ?
Regardless it wasn't edited, so this is a moot point.
If you can't prove any of your claims and back them up with evidence, as I have, then why make them?
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] This whole thread has not been about the bible, this thread is about people's view on the matter of God. And that statement is inaccurate, OT, Torah and the bible are not interchangeable words. Stop using them in such a manner. Read my post again.
And?
The Old Testament and the Torah are contained in the Bible.
The Old Testament is the first 39 books, and the Torah is the first 5. Happy?
I figured you would already know such a thing, so I didn't think I'd have to clarify it for you.
The first 5, of which I've been referring to the majority of this thread, and of which were copied by the Jewish scribes.
The New Testament wasn't edited either, and are significantly younger since some of the original documents still exist.
It's pointless of me to answer your first bit, I'll let the public decide that on their own.
For your second bit, see-->[insert almost entire latter dialog with Silver] and apply what I actually said, not your misinterpretation of what I mean.
FYI: Editing=editing to some degree, heavy editing=editing to the degree that it has impact on the actual context of the contents. And if you, as a Christian, don't even know how your holy book has come to be in the state you find it in your hands, then you have homework to do.
Your last bit is incohesive and incorrect.
But rest assured, I won't spend my time arguing to a self-blind brick wall, so you'll get the last word.
Urban, those men and women you typically see in between cuts, being interviewed during shows on the History Channel? Those are REAL scholars who actually know what they're talking about. They study the bible in aways you couldn't even imagine, make connections you couldn't have ever seen, and dig up truths you wish didn't exist.
"Brandon Cassata I find the History Channel very enlightening and entertaining. Especially when they focus on religious subjects only because it gives me more perspective on things. But you did say "most," and sadly I think you might have it right there. There are too many Christians who are just ... stupid."
A Christian friend of mine even whole heartedly admits that not only was the bible edited, but that the History Channel is a very reputable place to get information. And no, I'm not saying cite "The History Channel", you obviously need to go deeper and cite the people that The History channel got their information from... but I can tell you right now, the information I get from The History Channel is going to be a hell of a lot more accurate than your interpretation of history. The fact that you single handedly refuse to acknowledge the bible was edited, is a major red flag of your ignorance - and the first real red flag I've seen from you. Sure I've disagreed with you and I was willing to work with you to find out an agreement, but this is just a major red flag and you have no idea how wrong you are.
"Tell him to read about King James and how he just decided to edit out what he didnt like and put in what made it look better. Some say all he did was translate it, but im sure he did more than that. Plus, if you translate something enough times, information will be lost anyway." Another friend of mine, also religious, who disagrees with you.
You can't even agree with other people of your own faith, how in the world can you expect me to believe you?
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by UrbanMonk
