Bible Origins -- discussion

[PLAYER57832]

Playert his topic pg3 17 post on that pg, you cited both Levictus and Romans, yes you followed up with things have changed and most chrisians disagree with outdated views.Player your words in no way say You think that it is wrong, are you a politician or a lawyer? Because you still don't declare Your beliefs on this, and when it comes up you cite verse from the bible. So Player it is wrong or its not.Your thoughts, not other christians.

Well if you tell me what your complaint is, other than that I have not fully agreed with you, I can address it. Right now, it just sounds like insults.

and... strange that you complain that I am citing the Bible. It is, after all the foundation of my faith.

[PLAYER57832]

It's not stoopid because I never heard this idea before. It's stoopid because it's stoopid.
A bad idea is a bad idea.

Frankly the who concept of a "First Man" or "First Woman" is just plain stoopid.

Yeah, more "brilliant debate, there.
at any rate, moving on from your decent into insults...

You are claiming I proved your point... but you have it ass backwards.

You are saying that early Church Leaders (intentionally and/or through ignorance) modified and misinterpreted the Bible.

This is what I have been saying the entire thread!!!

So... if this is true;

1) How can we believe that the Bible is the Word if we acknowledge it's been modified?

Because the details that have been changed are insignificant, at least in the long run. Faith is a guide to humanity. Are you truly claiming that humanity has not changed, not learned anything in time?

2) How can we believe some "Church Leaders'" interpretation if we know that they have a bad track record when it comes to interpreting the BIble in the past?

Two answers. The first come from Roman Catholicism (not my faith):
They believe in the spiritual descent of the Popes, beginning with Peter. Their view is that when the Pope is interpreting scripture, he is inspired/protected from making serious mistakes. There are some technicalities here, and I am not completely versed in the Roman Catholic faith, but the gist is that when he is actually giving certain pronouncements (and more or less only then), God works through him. At other times, the Pope is a fallible human. One point they make about some of the worst is that they did not make pronouncements "because they were too busy sinning to listen to God". As to why God would allow that in the first place.. you get into why evil even exists. That is a very complicated issue, indeed.

The Protestant view differs. We give no importance to the Pope, and only some importance to other prominent Christians. We see them much like you might view a college professor -- people who have knowledge, etc. (some intellectual and some guided in their acts, etc.). Note, this is not an exact comparison, just as close an approximation as I can get.

At any rate, neither the traditional mainline Protestant nor the Roman Catholics consider the Bible fully and 100% "the word of God" in the way Fundamentalists do (see below). We do consider it "inspired". That means that the faith comes through, not all the details.

To contrast, the Fundamentalist view is that there were no real changes. Some might acknowledge very minor changes/misinterpretations/errors, but basically they will say that the entire Bible is the fully inspired word of God. Again, not my faith.

One other major difference between Roman Catholics and Protestants is that Roman Catholics look to not just the Bible, but tradition as their guide. Again, you are better to ask someone else about that, but I mention it as a contrast to my own beliefs. Protestants don't completely ignore historical tradition, but consider the Bible the ultimate source, most particularly, modern Protestant theologians tend to go back to the Greek Bible, precisely because it is the closest we have to the time of Jesus. Scholars will look at older texts, too.

Some things have been in debate basically since the beginning of the church. Some matters were settled fully within the text, for example, Christians do not have to be circumcised as Jews. That goes back to Peter, etc. Other issues, like infant baptism have more complicated histories. I am told there is evidence of infant baptism in the ancient church, but the group collectively known as "anabaptists", of which Mennonites and Baptists are a part feel that baptism is an adult right.

3) You can argue that we are "more enlightened" now... but how can you think that brings us any closer to God's true intention? If our forefathers misinterpreted the Bible, we may modify our interpretation to fit into our modern world; but how can we do this with any degree of reliability? More likely people from 1000 years from now will laugh at our simple and grossly inaccurate understanding.

Perhaps they will laugh.

Even the most liberal Protestant views holds that God guides the general church view. Unlike the Roman Catholics, though, we don't feel that certain people are given something like greater access (again, when it comes to Roman Catholicism, I am only approximating.. mostly not speaking with true expertise, though I do have the basics down). We believe that anyone can hear and be led by God. We further believe that because people are different, God can guide people differently, though not contrary to the biblical text. (actually most Roman Catholics will agree here, though for them , the Pope's pronouncements take precedence) ALL Christians, regardless of the "branch" acknowledge that people can be seriously misled, believe they are following God when they are not. We differ somewhat in how we counter that, but basically if you try to reach God with an open heart and truly listen, you find his word. The problem is that there is so much "noise" out there that it can be difficult for some people to hear God as opposed to words that sort of sound like God. Protestants, again feel that the individual has the power and faith. Roman Catholics look for more guidance from the church and its leaders.

4) The idea that God would "allow this misunderstanding" has logical flaws. If God is Omniscient an All Powerful; could He not have just given us the ability to fully understand His meanings? If he created us and gave us our brains, why go halfway?

Why allow evil at all? Why allow us free will? Either we are robots or we have the propensity to do wrong.

I am not sure if you were involved in the thread way back where Woodruff, myself and others (you??) talked about free will, but that would provide what I consider the best set of answers to this question.

But note, one very important fact. I never said that God allows errors of significance.

He's a pretty sadistic fucking God if that's the case.

He's let us misinterpret the Bible for thousands of years. All the misinterpretations have (and still) cause countless wars, suffering, pain, humiliation...

I would argue this is not the case. It is not the misinterpretations allowed within the Bible that have caused these things. These things are the result of pure human error, only "allowed" in the sense that God gave us free will.
Again, to get back to the Bible, I would argue that the text has always been there, ready to be read. People, fallible people can see the same words and, because of their errors, read wrong things.

Per the gender issue specifically, the point is that much of society, for a very long time, has just been incapable of seeing anything other than "men first". Also, I am not suggesting that the Bible is saying men and women are equal/the same. (different, of course) My interpretation is that originally Adam was male/female, then separated, but it was the fully female Eve that tempted the male Adam.
What a nice guy.

If He just explained Himself properly and/or gave us the ability to understand, how much less suffering would there be?

Free will.

You can protect your children by locking them up in a padded room, only giving them fully nutritious food, good words, etc. Care to try it? No? why not.. it would keep them perfectly safe? Does that make you evil, that you allow your children into situations where they might be harmed, even greatly harmed? If this is true for us humans, then how much more for God who is far greater and more knowing than us.

This leads to another point, Fundamentalists place great store in God individually interceding in individual lives. Other Christians tend to be far more nuanced. We see God as directing the whole of humanity and offering individual guidance and "life lines". God does, for example, perform miracles, but not always. God answers all prayers, but sometimes the answer is "no". Sometimes it is to offer strength to deal with a situation rather than, say, curing a child who is sick. This is very hard for we humans, but Christians believe that ultimately, God has our best interests at heart. And.. note, I said "belief". None of this is fact.

[riskllama]

so, @ thanksgiving, I was playing a game of "eradicate the red savages" with my niece when she asked "uncle llama, what's brimstone?". I told her it's what you stand on in hell. not bad, eh?

[jimboston]

You are claiming I proved your point... but you have it ass backwards.

You are saying that early Church Leaders (intentionally and/or through ignorance) modified and misinterpreted the Bible.

This is what I have been saying the entire thread!!!

So... if this is true;

1) How can we believe that the Bible is the Word if we acknowledge it's been modified?

Because the details that have been changed are insignificant, at least in the long run. Faith is a guide to humanity. Are you truly claiming that humanity has not changed, not learned anything in time? [/quote]


This (your bolded words) is our main point of contention.

I don't think the changes were insignificant. Nor do I believe there's any way either of us can KNOW if the changes were serious or minor. The likelihood is high that older versions were burned or destroyed because they would now be considered heretical. There's evidence to support this, but you choose to ignore it.

I tried to read everything else you wrote, but I couldn't force myself to finish it. Sorry.

[jgordon1111]

Okay Name, donde naciste?

[jgordon1111]

Lmao doom, it seems bird's of a feather. Why don't you try reading the fing thread, instead of of 8 and ask a question that has been covered over and over boy. And Player you seem to be having moments of obtuse as well as selective memory loss,unlike you I have clearly stated my reason for speaking in this thread over and over, and my previous post was very clear about what I expected from you,I you refuse to give a clear answer to what was clearly asked, then there is no other course but to say indeed you are a hypocrit of the foulest type, hiding behind blind faith and using it as a shield to push your hate agenda onto others, in the guise of religious piousness. Now answer the damn question.So all can see what you are.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't think the changes were insignificant.

Perhaps "insignificant" was not the right term. Perhaps insignificant or for some reason necessary would be better.

Nor do I believe there's any way either of us can KNOW if the changes were serious or minor. The likelihood is high that older versions were burned or destroyed because they would now be considered heretical. There's evidence to support this, but you choose to ignore it.

You can view that how you like. It is not something I or anyone else can prove to you scientifically. It is a matter of faith. I would also say that anything truly significant will appear in time, when humanity is ready. You don't wish to believe that. That is fine, but claiming that gives you the right to ridicule those who disagree... well, does not exhibit great intelligence or thought, it shows bias and prejudice.

[PLAYER57832]

I have clearly stated my reason for speaking in this thread over and over, and my previous post was very clear about what I expected from you,I you refuse to give a clear answer to what was clearly asked,

Well, I seemed to have missed that point, because all I read were a bunch of accusations that really had nothing at all to do with anything I have ever said.
As per the rest... you can either respond or not. Your insults show far more about you than anyone else.

[tzor]

I don't think the changes were insignificant. Nor do I believe there's any way either of us can KNOW if the changes were serious or minor. The likelihood is high that older versions were burned or destroyed because they would now be considered heretical. There's evidence to support this, but you choose to ignore it.

Now that is just plain old silly talk. Biblical manuscripts can be dated quite early in church history. We are not talking about gaps of several hundreds of years between the works in question. The biggest "evidence" for the lack of more of these manuscripts is the material they were made on in the first place. (source)

Parts of the New Testament have been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian. The dates of these manuscripts range from c. 125 (the \mathfrak{P}52 papyrus, oldest copy of John fragments) to the introduction of printing in Germany in the 15th century.

An important issue with manuscripts is preservation. The earliest New Testament manuscripts were written on papyrus, made from a reed that grew abundantly in the Egyptian Nile Delta. This tradition continued as late as the 8th century.[12] Papyrus eventually becomes brittle and deteriorates with age. The dry climate of Egypt allowed some papyrus manuscripts to be partially preserved, but, with the exception of \mathfrak{P}77, no New Testament papyrus manuscript is complete; many consist only of a single fragmented page.[13] Beginning in the 4th century, parchment (also called vellum) began to be a common medium for New Testament manuscripts.[14] It wasn't until the 12th century that paper (made from cotton or plant fibers), which was invented in 1st century China, began to gain popularity in biblical manuscripts.[15]

Of the four Gospels we have large fragments from the 2nd century (save Mark whose fragments come from the third century). In other words we have large fragments from Matthew and John that are less than 100 years away from the originals (and in john's case probably less than 50 years). I can't imagine who would have made considerable changes to the originals, considering that the originals might have actually been the source of these manuscripts in the first place.

[PLAYER57832]

I tried to read everything else you wrote, but I couldn't force myself to finish it. Sorry.

Yeah, you do seem to have a problem understanding anything that disagrees with your points. Too bad. You might otherwise actually appear intelligent, but denying anyone who has opinions with which you disagree shows ignorance and laziness, not strength.

[jgordon1111]

I tried to read everything else you wrote, but I couldn't force myself to finish it. Sorry.

Yeah, you do seem to have a problem understanding anything that disagrees with your points. Too bad. You might otherwise actually appear intelligent, but denying anyone who has opinions with which you disagree shows ignorance and laziness, not strength.

Lmao a bit of the kettle calling the pot black, PLAYER, aside from dogging, insulting, sluring and just plain hate mongering, you don't bring anything to the table, except to spout erroneous dogma, and use the bible as a shield to do so,

[warmonger1981]

And the Commentary on it says: The Scales of the Balance are designated as Male and Female. In the Spiritual world Evil and Good are in equilibrio, and it will be restored, when of the Evil Good becomes, until all is Good. Also this other world is called the World of the Balance. For, as in the Balance are two scales, one on either side and the beam and needle between them, so too in this world of restoration, the Numerations are arranged as distinct persons. For Hakemah is on the right hand, on the side of Gedulah, and Binah on the left, on the side of Geburah; and Kether is the beam of the Balance above them in the middle. So Gedulah or Khased is on one hand, and Geburah on the other, and under these Tephareth; and Netsach is on one side, and Ho_d on the other, and under these Yeso_d.

The Supreme Crown, which is the Ancient Most Holy, the most Hidden of the Hidden, is fashioned, within the occult Wisdom, of both sexes, Male and Female.


Hakemah, and Binah, the Mother, whom it impregnates, are quantitatively equal. Wisdom and the Mother of Intellection go forth at once and dwell together; for when the Intellectual Power emanates, the productive Source of intellection is included in Him.

Before Adam Kadmon was fashioned into Male and Female, and the state of equilibrium introduced, the Father and Mother did not look each other in the face; for the Father denotes most perfect Love, and the Mother most perfect Rigor; and she averted her face.

There is no left [female], says the Idra Rabba, in the Ancient and Hidden One; but His totality is Right [male]. The totality of things is HUA, HE, and HE is hidden on every side.

Macroprosopos [Adam Kadmon] is not so near unto us as to speak to us in the first person; but is designated in the third person, HUA, HE.

Of the letters it says:

Yo_d is male, He is female, Vav is both.

In Yo_d [‏ו ?Y‎] are three Yo_ds, the upper and the lower apex, and Vav in the middle. By the upper apex is denoted the Supreme Kether; by Vav in the middle, Hakemah; and by the lower apex, Binah.

The IDRA SUTA says:

The Universe was out-formed in the form of Male and Female. Wisdom, pregnant with all that is, when it flowed and shone forth, shone altogether under the form of male and female. Hakemah is the Father, and Binah is the Mother; and so the two are in equilibrium as male and female, and for this reason, all things whatsoever are constituted in the form of male and female; and if it were not so they would not exist.

This Principle, Hakemah, is the Generator of all things; and He and Binah conjoin, and she shines within Him. When they thus conjoin, she conceives, and the out-flow is Truth.

Yo_d impregnates the letter He and begets a son; and she, thus pregnant, brings forth. The Principle called Father [the Male or Generative Principle] is comprehended in Yo_d, which itself flows downward from the energy of the Absolute Holy One.

Yo_d is the beginning and the end of all things that are. The stream that flows forth is the Universe of things, which always becomes, having no cessation. And this becoming world is created by Yo_d: for Yo_d includes two letters. All things are included in Yo_d; wherefore it is called the Father of all.


All Categories whatever go forth from Hakemah; and in it are contained all things, unmanifested; and the aggregate of all things, or the Unity in which the many are, and out of which all flow, is the Sacred Name IHUH.


Albert Pike
Morals and Dogma

[PLAYER57832]

I tried to read everything else you wrote, but I couldn't force myself to finish it. Sorry.

Yeah, you do seem to have a problem understanding anything that disagrees with your points. Too bad. You might otherwise actually appear intelligent, but denying anyone who has opinions with which you disagree shows ignorance and laziness, not strength.

Lmao a bit of the kettle calling the pot black, PLAYER, aside from dogging, insulting, sluring and just plain hate mongering, you don't bring anything to the table, except to spout erroneous dogma, and use the bible as a shield to do so,

Still waiting to hear what questions I have avoided....

As for "erroneous dogma". There are many branches of Christianity, many claiming to have the "better truth",though most will accept the fundamental Christianity of most others. I have never claimed my beliefs were absolute facts, but they are my beliefs. And, sorry if you are offended by my citing the Bible. It is the foundation of my faith.