online dating service
REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES

 

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest 100% free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > shouldnt the bible evolve to encompass what we know now?... and not w      Mod Threads Home login  
Page 7 of 7 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
 Author Thread: shouldnt the bible evolve to encompass what we know now?... and not what we knew then?
 pujakama

Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 150
shouldnt the bible evolve to encompass what we know now?... and not what we knew then?
Posted: 7/10/2007 5:00:55 AM

John F. Kennedy died reminding us of internal corruption and trying to do something about it. Martin Luther King died reminding us that we should all enjoy equal rights


Sure. Heroes, both of them. Ill do you one better and call your magic jew a hero too.

The big diffrence is of corse rather than mistake these heroes for divinity, we take them for the mortal men they were. We have not assumed their divinity, then made up some story about our peaceful, benevolent, and all powerful god requiring a human sacrifice before he can forgive us our sins.

I do agree, when we look at jesus as a peace-talking iron age hippy that was trying to lead his people thru a non-violent resistance to roman occupation...he does seem like a man fit for mention as one of the greats from world history.




Why do you think Jesus did not save himself from the cross?


Because he shook up the status quo, and the roman empire lacked the first amendment.




The way to freedom is through the truth


Yes, this much is true. Learn enough of the truth and this whole judeo-christian mythology falls apart and you are left only with some discarded egyptian legends. So yes, this is true, moreso than you seem to know.





Will you now condemn me for believing so?


I know its vogue for you monotheists to have your condemnation fantasies and have that thirst to be the underdog, but for the last few (dozen) generations it was you folks doing the condemning.

I really dont care if you worship a magic jew, mohammuds camel, or a plate of spagetti. I think it would require me to care for an actual condemnation to occur. If by codemn you mean am i still going to judge the value of the faith based on the fruits it bears (its history), I sure as hell will. I put one condition on my generalisation... that is if you will clearly state for me here that jesus was WRONG when he said to judge a tree by its fruits, and that you cannot get a fig from a grapevine, etc.... If you will say that, I wont judge you on the standards set by your carpenter-lord.




Or do you ignore the voices of faith


No... the voices of faith are not ignored here. But the voices of a corrupted faith that is only a recent rehashing of truly ancient concepts and stories, then those voices carry less value.





so that you can live the style of life you want to live without any conviction of error on your part.


Nice try. I am living exactly the life I want, and I will reguardless of the "voices of faith" that may sing... if those voices come from such a corrupt tradition as the monotheist church. Perhaps its the anthropologist in me, but i cant swallow something so new and clearly a rehashing of older better traditions... I prefer to dig back to the start and get the message before it was distorted.



If you lack any idea that you yourself may be wrong, you are missing something. Doubt is not the opposite of faith, but rather its most essential element.




a freedom that is a bondage in disguise if we unintelligent christians are correct.


I could point out that older wiser faiths claim that to eat beef is to commit the worst of sins and will damn you to hells many times worse in imagining than a simple lake of fire. Have you given up beef yet? There are still many more that claim the same for anyone eating meat.

There are PLENTY of other people in this world that think other than you do, and if they are wrong YOU will be the one roasting in some creative torment-eternity. So if you want to toss around this silly logic, you really need to rethink your religion and become a pantheist. Thats really the only way to save yourself from all these hells. Besides, you CAN be a muslim and christian at the same time. While islam dosnt accept christs direct divinity, it dosnt discount it either.... best brush up on your arabic, because if they are right, then your religion is just bondage in disguse. (can you risk that? allu akbar!)

J
 smileybear

Joined: 3/9/2007
Msg: 151
shouldnt the bible evolve to encompass what we know now?... and not what we knew then?
Posted: 7/10/2007 7:04:39 AM
If God is all knowing why wasn't it written to cover all the ages ,then and now?
 statueman

Joined: 2/11/2006
Msg: 152
view profile
History
shouldnt the bible evolve to encompass what we know now?... and not what we knew then?
Posted: 7/10/2007 8:50:45 AM
J, thanks for your reply...


Nice try... If you lack any idea that you yourself may be wrong, you are missing something.


Amen bro... it was a nice try though wasn't it?
 anunnaki

Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 153
shouldnt the bible evolve to encompass what we know now?... and not what we knew then?
Posted: 7/10/2007 5:18:52 PM
Yes we should "evolve". It's called "growing up" and also known as Breaking the Godspell.
There is a book by that title.
 onesimpleneed

Joined: 7/5/2007
Msg: 154
shouldnt the bible evolve to encompass what we know now?... and not what we knew then?
Posted: 7/10/2007 6:50:52 PM
Secret codes...hidden messages...puhleeze...

How many books have been excluded? What about all the books encompassed in the Nag Hammadi? What about screwing up one word during translation. Throws EVERYTHING off.

Sorry, it's all Matthew 7:7-8, no need for cloak and dagger secret coded messages...

and also Thomas 5, of course, me being the freaking heretic I am...I'd have a good knowledge of these scary evil books too...

"5. Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you. For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed."

I can find all sorts of secret messages in the Gita, Moby Di ck or Atlas Shrugged for that matter.

Shalom...
 themadfiddler

Joined: 10/16/2006
Msg: 155
shouldnt the bible evolve to encompass what we know now?... and not what we knew then?
Posted: 7/10/2007 7:15:26 PM


The Composite List

Now let's put it all together:
Hebrew English
Adam Man
Seth Appointed
Enosh Mortal
Kenan Sorrow;
Mahalalel The Blessed God
Jared Shall come down
Enoch Teaching
Methuselah His death shall bring
Lamech The Despairing
Noah Rest, or comfort.

That's rather remarkable:


Not really...if I fudge words into meaning whatever I want them to mean, I can come up with any number of fanciful unsupportable things out of the Bible...probably from Moby****too...

The kicker is the notes...



1. Eastman, Mark, and Missler, Chuck, The Creator Beyond Time and Space, The Word for Today, Costa Mesa CA, 1995.
2. Jones, Alfred, Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids MI, 1990.
3. Kaplan, Rabbi Aryeh, The Living Torah, Maznaim Publishing Corporation, Jerusalem, 1981.
4. Pink, Arthur W., Gleanings in Genesis, Moody Bible Institute, Chicago IL, 1922.
5. Missler, Chuck, Beyond Coincidence (audio book with notes), Koinonia House, Coeur d Alene ID, 83816, 1994.
6. Rosenbaum, M., and Silbermann, A., Pentateuch with Onkelos's Translation (into Aramaic) and Rashi s Commentary, Silbermann Family Publishers, Jerusalem, 1973.
7. Stedman, Ray C., The Beginnings, Word Books, Waco TX, 1978.


The sheer chutzpah of this schlameel...using Kaplan and some of those others to try and add validity to his pile of dreck as if they actually support his crackpot theories.



A Study of Original Roots

The meaning of proper names can be a difficult pursuit since a direct translation is often not readily available. Even a conventional Hebrew lexicon can prove disappointing. A study of the original roots, however, can yield some fascinating insights.

(A caveat: many study aids, such as a conventional lexicon, can prove rather superficial when dealing with proper nouns. Furthermore, views concerning the meanings of original roots are not free of controversy and variant readings.)


Ironic as you are then expected to buy into his particular variant but not any of the myriad others which make just as much or even more sense...but then they don't support a Christinized narrative.

From the wiki entry on The Generations Of Adam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generations_of_Adam

It's sources include:
Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic, Robert M. Best , page 105.
Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, pages 11, 352.



Methuselah Man of the javelin

Interpretations

Aside from Cain, and Lamech, his descendant, two other names in the lists are traditionally given significance. Firstly, Methuselah has the oldest age appearing in the bible, and so the name of Methuselah has become a general reference to longevity. Most traditional translations interpret the name as man of the dart or man of the javelin; however, some critical scholars have proposed it should simply be read as man of Selah, since Selah is the title of the Mesopotamian moon god Sin (also known as Nanna). The question of the correct interpretation of his name is further complicated, as the Septuagint renders Methuselah and Methusael with exactly the same name, the latter meaning champion of God, and by the fact that Methuselah is a very northern (Kingdom of Israel), or Babylonian, style name for an otherwise southern (kingdom of Judah) set of names. The ages given in the Lucianic Septuagint for Methusaleh implies that he died 14 years after the year of the Great Flood. Some scholars allege that later Septuagint manuscripts were altered by giving Methuselah an extra 20 years before his son's birth so that he would die before the flood.[1] The Bible as currently translated lines up Methuselah's death in the year of the flood, because most modern editions of Genesis are translated from the Masoretic (Hebrew) text.[2]

The enigmatic description given to Enoch in one of the lines, that he ...walked with God, and was not, has led to the extensive esoteric mythology surrounding him, particularly dating from the 2nd century BC, such as the Book of Enoch, which is canonical in Coptic Christianity. The age of Enoch that is given in the Masoretic text, 365 years, is noticeably similar to the number of days in the solar year, and so some critical scholars have suggested Enoch originally represented the deified sun.

Other interpretations of the names of the Sethite line from the traditional English renderings may better convey the words meaning from their etymological derivations.

Methuselah - His Death Shall Bring - This translation disagrees with the traditional in taking the first root from "mûth"="death" rather than "m@th"="man" neither is definitive since vowels are implied in ancient Hebrew, "shelach" comes from a root meaning "to send forth" which came to refer to ballistic weapons in later Hebrew but more basically referred to any sending forth. Notably, the Masoretic text gives his year of death as the same as the Flood came.

The similarity seen in the lines has been noted since ancient times. Traditionally, this is explained by intermarriage between the lines, such as by the daughter of the Cainite Lamech marrying Methuselah, and naming her child after her father. The names of the Sethite line are traditionally interpreted as being more positive than those of the Cainite line, reflecting a negative attitude towards Cain, for example Jared being ruler compared with Irad being dragon, and Mehalaleel being praise of God compared to Mehujael being smitten by God.

In modern critical scholarship, it is explained more simply as the lines being copies of one another, the Cainite line being ascribed to the Yahwist, and the Sethite line being ascribed to the Book of Generations, the only differences being corruption of a few names, and the reversal of the position of Enoch and Mehujael/Mehalaleel. A moderate proportion of critical scholars also believe that the Sethite line was inserted into the torah in such a way as to deliberately attempt to distance Noah, traditionally seen as a hero, from Cain, traditionally seen as a villain, and consequently separating Lamech into two different people.

Some biblical critics have drawn the conclusion that, since Seth appears in the same place that Yahweh takes in the Cainite line, Seth must originally have been a god, with the biblical etymology given for his name (substitute) being a later folk etymology. Taking into account the Sumerian king list, the a prominent candidate is identifying the name Seth as a transliteration of Shitti (more obvious in the Hebrew alphabet), which was an epithet of Marduk, the Babylonian chief deity (c.f. the Elamite prince Shitti-Marduk who fought with Nebuchadnezzar).

Comparison with the Sumerian king list

While, in the story of Cain and Abel, Cain is presented as being forever condemned to being a nomad, in the Cainite line, he is described as being a city builder. This has led biblical critics to suggest the two accounts of Cain derive from different sources, and even though the documentary hypothesis still places them both as the Jahwist source, it is nevertheless believed that the Jahwist inserted the list into his work from another source.

Upon the discovery of the antediluvian portion of the Sumerian king list, its striking similarities with the Sethite line have been noted by critical scholarship. Several surviving inscriptions of this list predate the biblical text by at least a millennium. On the Sumerian king list, identical to the biblical manner, the kings have significantly larger reigns before the deluge than after it, roughly by a factor of 20. The Sumerian list in fact measures the reigns of the kings in sars, units of 3,600 years (the Sumerians primarily used base 60, so this is merely the next unit up - 60x60).

There are several different copies of the list, each mostly listing the same antediluvian kings, in the same order, but with differing amounts of sars for their reigns. Over time the names became more corrupted, resembling the originals only vaguely by the time of Berossus' 3rd Century BC copy of the list. The significant feature of the list, as far as the biblical Sethite genealogy goes, is in the translation of the names and attributes of the kings it lists

Many of the connections are readily apparent, but two require non-traditional etymologies for the two corresponding Sethite names. The first is Methuselah, which as mentioned before can be interpreted as Man of Selah, a reference to the moon god, Sin. The second is Lamech, which specialists in the ancient Akkadian language have proposed is derived from the Akkadian Lamaga, meaning priest. This would accord with the greater likelihood of association with the Akkadian version of the king list, which mostly used 10 names, than an association with the original Sumerian list of 8.


The kinship tables can be viewed at the article site.

Needless to say as Missler is also an plagiarist, I am inclined to be wary of any bill of goods he is peddling.

http://www.christianmediaresearch.com/cmc-21.html
http://cultlink.com/plagiarism/plgchart.htm



(You will never convince me that a group of Jewish rabbis conspired to hide the Christian Gospel right here in a genealogy within their venerated Torah!)


Nope. Me neither. If it walks like an egg-sucking dog, talks like an egg -sucking dog, and has one hand in the hen-house...I'm fetchin' mah varmint gun!
 Carsch

Joined: 6/26/2007
Msg: 156
view profile
History
shouldnt the bible evolve to encompass what we know now?... and not what we knew then?
Posted: 7/17/2007 6:43:20 PM
You come up with very good points.



Rather than sticking to ancient text that was written in a different age. Should'nt the bible evolve as well to encompass all what we know now, rather than what was known then?


That's because we are for the most part still in the same stages we first accepted the bible for what it is. But the day will come, all of this will change.....everything will be clear then. The bible, probably even religion, will be a thing of the past. We will then all naturally understand. For god is within each and everyone of us. We will simply and naturally accept this fact for what it is. We are part of what god is.....we are one with god. There is no division, no separation here.....there never was, but in our minds alone.
shouldnt the bible evolve to encompass what we know now?... and not what we knew then?
Posted: 7/17/2007 9:00:54 PM
The bible is a historical record of what happened then. It was written by men, not by god, and as God is not George Lucas, it will not be re-written to be more politically correct.

Oh and as for the "bible code"... what a crock.
The bible that you have in your bookshelf is a poor manual translation filled with inacuracies and edited to support the beliefs of the group that commisioned the translation.

You can't honestly expect peopel to believe that a mulit million dollar organisation intent on conqoring the world would let something like accuracy get in the way of their goals?

(remember the crusades which re-nterperted the 10 commandments so that they shoudn't kill, unless you were trying to convert a heathen.

 Merc4aGoodCause

Joined: 2/10/2006
Msg: 158
shouldnt the bible evolve to encompass what we know now?... and not what we knew then?
Posted: 7/17/2007 9:51:11 PM
The Bible Evolving or the interpretation of the Bible evolving? Those are two very different questions. I would however question our own motives for re-interpretation. It may come from the want to better suite our own lifestyles. This of couse resignates in the origonal posting regarding the issue of homosexuality. But I am not saying that some of those who are of the church do not suffer from the same fallability (hence making homosexuality a more promiment issue over pre-maritial sex; because the former is not of interest to them and the second gets in the way)

I will point out other issues raised in this post that are off-mark

1. True Xians do not put faith in men but God alone. Those men from "2000" years ago (a bit off with the dates. That would be about correct for the formation of the canon but many of the writings came much earlier) are believed by the faithful to be inspired by Holy Spirit.

2. The Pope IMO is no different than any other man, and no holier than any other man.

3. The paradigm or focus rather on strife caused by religion I pose the following points
3a. When a religion becomes official in the state, non-believers pose as the faithful in order to secure wealth and/or power. Now are you going to scourge those with true convictions alongside those who wear sheeps clothing?
3b. religion is often used as a cover for true motives. The Catholic church in Europe siezed much land from the heritics . Motive: Greed Cover: Religion.
3c. secularism should not be excluded. It is in itself a religion. This ideology places each man at the center of the universe. Its the lookout for #1 principle, and is the antithesis of any faith that I know of- and this selfishness has been the root cause of all conflict.
3d secularists have as much agnst against faith as those who claim different faith have with one another. This post is case in point. You can find the faith/religion bashing rhetoric in any bookstore.

What I ask do we know now that was not known "then" that warrants a change in the language of the Bible?
 Swabbas

Joined: 6/5/2007
Msg: 159
shouldnt the bible evolve to encompass what we know now?... and not what we knew then?
Posted: 7/18/2007 12:53:14 PM
"seek and ye shall find"......I guess pertains to inadequate answers (or lies if you so chose)...for some...and 'truths' for others. "Faith" is what I have when I cannot not always see or always understand and sometimes cannot always feel...but I still 'believe'.........and I beleive in Love. And I believe God gave us Love...the illogical, unexplainable "feeling"..for things, for people, and for him. I could move mountains, if I had yet a tenth of what I should have....Faith.

I know, believe and have faith...that long BEFORE I was born...he knew every strand of hair on my head....therefore, he also KNEW long before I was born, of every mistake, every stumble I would make through my life. I believe I was born of free will...as I believe he created me as such...to make those mistakes, and have those stumbles...to eventual bring me closer to the 'Truth" him...in all his wisdom...I would come to him as a babe...willingly....open heart.....and knowingly of the free will he gave me...and through Faith. God, chosing to have those that find him and love him..do it through 'free will'....so that we may be his followers...not his created self serving 'robots'. I believe at times, "high levels of intelligence, argumentive to every small concept...disecting each and everyone..." keeps us all from the simple easy truth'................that is my uneducated blind faith view on it. Something not much different a child can feel for their parent.
 Swabbas

Joined: 6/5/2007
Msg: 160
shouldnt the bible evolve to encompass what we know now?... and not what we knew then?
Posted: 7/18/2007 1:02:34 PM
It was. It was in every conceivable way.
Page 7 of 7 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
 
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > shouldnt the bible evolve to encompass what we know now?... and not what we knew then?