Bible Origins -- discussion

[PLAYER57832]

This is a spin-off from the Thread entitled "Re: Religion vs Homosexuality". Several earlier posts are quite pertinent, but I am only going to post a link to the thread, not all the pertinent posts.
link: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=215383&start=175

Since you insist.....

ugh... why do I both. You're right. I just need to ignore your BS.

Not true. Both "some" and "largely" mean fewer than all. If you want to get truly technical, then "some" usually means "more than 4" and "largely" means more than half. Neither means "the vast majority", as you claim -- though the exact number is indeterminate enough to include a large majority, generally one would say "nearly all" if that is what one meant.

Please tell me that you are not trying to say the words "largely" and "some" are synonymous.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/largely
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/some

Now its my turn to say "reread" .. want me to cite various style guides as reference? I can y'know, but it could be that some out in the past 10 years have decided to alter the previously accepted definitions. I am a tad stubborn in that regard.

I never said "some" of the BIble was written by witnesses. If anything my comment implies that very little if any was written by witnesses.

You gave a couple of examples, you hardly stated that every book is written by non-witnesses. Also, yYour examples were disputed opinion, not verified fact.

I gave enough examples (be it opinion or fact) to dispute your claim. Again, your post... the entire post...

first point of fact, the bible,koran or whatever text you follow wasn't written by any actual wittness of any of the events spoken of therein.

The New Testament was written largely by witnesses. Parts of the Old Testament were as well.

To prove you wrong I just have to prove that it wasn't "largely" written by witnesses. Or at least put the question of authorship in doubt. We can both claim that neither of us "knows" the right answer... hence the authorship is in doubt. Hence you are wrong.

No, to prove me wrong you would have to prove that virtually all of the Bible is not written by, or for that matter, based upon witness accounts. You provided exactly 3 examples, and ones I and many others dispute. Hardly the "proven fact" you claim.

We are not in agreement.

Let me be clear on my understanding and position here.

I think very little if any of the Bible (New or Old Testament) was actually written down by witnesses. Furthermore, the Bible has been edited and translated so many times... that even if some small parts were written by witnesses, the end-result of what we have today (in the US; English versions, like the King James version), is substantially different than what was written supposedly 2000 years ago.

If this were not true, why is there more than one version of the Bible?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_E ... anslations

If the book was written by witnesses and handed down without dispute, there should be only one... no?

No. Having witnesses and being without dispute are 2 different things from the outset, also I never every said the Bible is without dispute, but this is getting into an involved tangent. its interesting, but way off topic... and a better subject than the topic.

I said "handed down without dispute". Perhaps this is not the best way to say what I meant... I meant that it was "handed down without changing". If it was written by witnesses, and handed down over the centuries without change, then we'd only have one Bible. Wether or not the witness's version is in dispute is moot.[/quote]Now you are changing the entire meaning of the discussion. You said the Bible was not written by witnesses. I said it largely was.

I stand by what I said.

My whole point... it's not really written by witnesses. Even if parts were... these have been changes and translated so many times, that they are really nothing like the original. So to say "the Bible" as we read it today was "written" by witnesses... it's so much of a stretch that it becomes false.

This is so incredibly untrue I have a hard time believing you are actually trying to argue this point.
Among other issues,scholars typically look to the Greek text as the essentially unchanged whole Bible, and other texts that predate that Bible. Some of the more recent translations were as a result of better scholarship in translation. English was not even a language back then and by the time it was written or the first translations made.

[mrswdk]

Everyone knows it was written by J K Rowling.

[jgordon1111]

Player, you just couldn't be done with it, I stayed away from the thread to avoid doing this, but here you are again. So this is for you, name one thing about your religion other that was not done by a previous religion, in other words something original to your religion. In case your thinking immaculate conception, nah don't at least 14 accounts of it predating Christianity by 4000+ yrs, do your diligence for once, forget blind faith and learn something.also Christmas was not your prophets birthday nor was Easter the day of his resurrection.you should have stopped when given the opportunity,

[DaGip]

Bible Origins = The Book of Enki. Read it.

[jimboston]

Bible Old Testament - Copied from previous religions... fiction.

Bible New Testament - Nice work of Fiction
Modified at the order of the Roman Emperor Constantine to help him better control his Empire.
He may very well have believed his victories were assisted by God.

... end of story

I actually didn't want to have to state it this plainly.
Sorry to you those of you who are devout.
Player made me do it.

Honestly though... it could all be 100% real.
Well.. no it couldn't.
It could be somewhat real or mostly real.

I can't prove that it's not accurate.
... of course you can't prove it is accurate.

I can point out some fallacies based on science...
-> The age of the earth and civilization. The bible gets this very wrong.
-> The whole Noah story. It's just not possible that all animals alive today are descended from single pairs.
-> The whole Creation story. We evolved from ape-like primates. We are not the super-great grandchildren of two people.

The New Testament stories are not as far-fetched as those in the Old Testament.

I would also suggest that the God portrayed in the Old Testament is vastly different than the God portrayed in the New Testament. It's like they are two different Gods entirely. You can argue that God was changed when His Son became a man... he was then able to "see" things from our view point. This is logical if you believe the Father and Son are part of One God as the Trinity suggests. Of course it's illogical if you believe God is Omniscient... if he's Omniscient why would he need to experience life as man??? He should be able to just feel what we feel... no? So then why does God change so radically from one book to another??? This just makes no sense to me.

if you say the "Bible is the Word of God". Then you must believe EVERYTHING in the Bible. You can't believe the Bible is God's word... and then only believe parts of it that you like. It's illogical. So if there is even ONE LITTLE THING wrong with the Bible... then you must accept that it's not 100% God's word... in which case how do you know which parts are "really" God's word, and which parts aren't.

Unless you read it and have your own spiritual enlightenment... that's possible I suppose. In which case, everyone has their OWN bible that works for them.

I know some parts of the Bible that you think aren't actual fact, you can play off as "allegories". That's fine I suppose. There are other parts (mostly in the Old Testament) that are just weird. Like the whole Book of Leviticus. Then there are parts that are just wrong.

If He created us "in His image", why are we not also Omniscient? Why would he create separate sexes? How can we be created "in His image" and all be "unique"? If we are all created in his image... how can there even be sexes? If you believe the Bible's creation myth then you have to also believe women are inferior... it's just logical.

Finally... and this is the most egotistic view of most Religions...
If God is a Super Omniscient Being... he can make universes and worlds... create life and knows everything. Why would he care WTF we little humans do? Maybe he'd want us to be nice to eachother... maybe not. He certainly wouldn't care if we eat Pork, or eat meat on Friday, or sing hymns, or worship him. None of that would matter to him at all. Why would he be so vengeful in the Old Testament... nearly wiping out humanity. In fact, why would he even need a Flood to wipe out humanity in the first place??? Couldn't he just wave his hand and make people disappear? Seems a lot more efficient.

Anyway. Sorry.

[waauw]

Everyone knows it was written by J K Rowling.

Little did we know Jesus was actually Dumbledore all along.

[jgordon1111]

Jim, I figured you would know what this one, how you didn't surprises me. Originally it was taught 5 pair's of the clean beasts 2 pair's of the unclean revised because a ship of that size to hold that many animals was just to unbeleiveable to teach the masses back Then so it was revised to what is taught today

[warmonger1981]

Here's a list of flood stories.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... Y_DXW5IHyQ

Or trees and Tree of Life
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... Rr8fuDRaSg

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... DkfjN-1tIQ

Or resurrection
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... dPbo1-KIPw

The question is why do these religions that had no contact with each other have similar stories?

[Dukasaur]

Here's a list of flood stories.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... Y_DXW5IHyQ

Or trees and Tree of Life
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... Rr8fuDRaSg

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... DkfjN-1tIQ

Or resurrection
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... dPbo1-KIPw

The question is why do these religions that had no contact with each other have similar stories?

Why do you assume they had no contact with each other. All the Mid-eastern, Asian, European, and African cultures definitely had contact with each other. Certainly Sumerian, Babylonian, and Jewish writers cribbed off each other regularly.

The only ones that can be said to have "no contact" with the others are the Amerindian ones (and even that is not 100% certain) and those are the least similar. Even if they were more similar, so what? The reason all cultures have myths about things like floods is the same as why all cultures have military marches in their musical repertoire. All cultures have encountered devastating floods in real life, just as all cultures have encountered war, so naturally enough those elements are used in their creative arts.

[jgordon1111]

Welcome to the topic Dagip, and for bringing the Summerians in, I was saving them for later,so its out. My point in this conversation was not to say the almighty creator does not exist, even the beings spoken of there had a creator, I will shorten this up, all three of the major religions of that area have a common ancestor, Abrahams family line includes both Jesus and Mohamed, so what gets me is theologians and the respective heads of these religions have known it all along, also it doesn't matter if you say Yahweh, Allah, or God, you are speaking of the same being, and a common thread taught in all three THOU SHALT NOT KILL, so to those of you who follow your faith blindly do you really think that the creator will accept you supporting a bastardization of what he meant, and you didn't know better. Maybe,Maybe not. And yet in their pettines for wealth these leaders have continued to remain silent and let men KILL each other in his name many times at their behest.

[/]

The question is why do these religions that had no contact with each other have similar stories?

I'd say that even if cultures didn't travel and share stories with each other (which they obviously did), certain iconic thoughts naturally occur in human psychology for some reason.

For example, the Iroquois, Gabrielino, Chinese, Ainu Japanese, Hindu, Norse, Arabian, Hurrian, and Greek mythologies all have massive creatures supporting the entire earth with their bodies, yet we don't need an episode of MythBusters to debunk that.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

The question is why do these religions that had no contact with each other have similar stories?

I'd say that even if cultures didn't travel and share stories with each other (which they obviously did), certain iconic thoughts naturally occur in human psychology for some reason.

For example, the Iroquois, Gabrielino, Chinese, Ainu Japanese, Hindu, Norse, Arabian, Hurrian, and Greek mythologies all have massive creatures supporting the entire earth with their bodies, yet we don't need an episode of MythBusters to debunk that.

Don't forget Berilia, Tubul, Great T'Phon, and Jerakeen, who all in turn stand on Great A'Tuin!

-TG

[jgordon1111]

/ Good point, here is food for thought humans on occasion have a collective mind, proof the invention of the telephone the odds two people would apply for patents on the same day for same device and the radio just another example none of those men ever crossed paths had no known associate's, btw my mention of the summerians was not me advocating that what was put forth there was correct either

[DaGip]

The question is why do these religions that had no contact with each other have similar stories?

I'd say that even if cultures didn't travel and share stories with each other (which they obviously did), certain iconic thoughts naturally occur in human psychology for some reason.

For example, the Iroquois, Gabrielino, Chinese, Ainu Japanese, Hindu, Norse, Arabian, Hurrian, and Greek mythologies all have massive creatures supporting the entire earth with their bodies, yet we don't need an episode of MythBusters to debunk that.

Africa:


Native American:


Asia:


Europe:


Israel:


Chinese Communist:


The swastika can be found across the world. I don't know if that is why Hitler chose that symbol, but certainly all these differing civilizations were separated by geography and great distances; yet they seem to all share a similar symbol (although be it differing meanings).

I think as humans, we all share similar geometric patterns that we are familiar with (circles, triangles, squares...); why then can't stories be the same? Let us also not forget "The Dragon" that is shared through out the world. The dragon flies, has talons like an eagle, the head and mouth of a serpent, fire that burns, etc. Our human psyche plays on primeval fears that are shared by all, the same can hold true with similar stories that appear worldwide as well.

This I agree.

[jimboston]

Jim, I figured you would know what this one, how you didn't surprises me.

???

[jgordon1111]

Jim, I followed that statement up with the original ark animals numbers. That is what I meant with the statement.

[mrswdk]

The question is why do these religions that had no contact with each other have similar stories?

I'd say that even if cultures didn't travel and share stories with each other (which they obviously did), certain iconic thoughts naturally occur in human psychology for some reason.

For example, the Iroquois, Gabrielino, Chinese, Ainu Japanese, Hindu, Norse, Arabian, Hurrian, and Greek mythologies all have massive creatures supporting the entire earth with their bodies, yet we don't need an episode of MythBusters to debunk that.

Africa:


Native American:


Asia:


Europe:


Israel:


Chinese Communist:


The swastika can be found across the world. I don't know if that is why Hitler chose that symbol, but certainly all these differing civilizations were separated by geography and great distances; yet they seem to all share a similar symbol (although be it differing meanings).

I don't know where that last flag is from but the script at the bottom is not Chinese. My guess is that it's Nepalese.

The use of the swastika in China has nothing to do with communism. It's a Buddhist symbol, and in China it is used and recognized as a Buddhist symbol. Even during and since the Second World War it has continued to represent Buddhism, not Nazism.

I suspect that pretty much anywhere in the world that the swastika can be found, it has arrived there due to the spread of Buddhism and/or Indian culture and influence.

[Bernie Sanders]

Arguing about religion is futile. You ain't going to say, "Look at me, I WON the religious debate!"

You guys better admit, religion is great for some who need faith to continue believing that death is not the END.



Others don't believe in angels and demons.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, you just couldn't be done with it, I stayed away from the thread to avoid doing this, but here you are again. So this is for you, name one thing about your religion other that was not done by a previous religion, in other words something original to your religion. In case your thinking immaculate conception, nah don't at least 14 accounts of it predating Christianity by 4000+ yrs, do your diligence for once, forget blind faith and learn something.also Christmas was not your prophets birthday nor was Easter the day of his resurrection.you should have stopped when given the opportunity,

What relevance does this have to whether parts of the Bible are written by witnesses?

Also, how would that even prove the Bible wrong?
I would argue that truth resounds throughout cultures, but that the Biblical version is correct. It was not the first written down, but that does not mean it is incorrect.
Similarly, the fact that different cultures report the same events but in slightly different ways does not mean the events never happened. In many cases, it would add to the likelihood of validity.

You are arguing many points I have not even begun to address here and assuming things I have not said anywhere. Take one issue at a time, please.

if you say the "Bible is the Word of God". Then you must believe EVERYTHING in the Bible. You can't believe the Bible is God's word... and then only believe parts of it that you like. It's illogical. So if there is even ONE LITTLE THING wrong with the Bible... then you must accept that it's not 100% God's word... in which case how do you know which parts are "really" God's word, and which parts aren't.

Not even close to true and here is why:

The Bible, though combined in one bound book is not really one book. Nor are all the books even having the same intent, purpose, etc.

Genesis, for example, is patently not written by witnesses. Nor is it a scientific text of our origins (though for you young earth creationists, I state that the order in the Bible does match the order in Genesis -- search for some of my old threads on creationism if you wish the full run-down). It is God's word, but as understood by a non-scientific desert shepherding people and passed down to us, a very scientific people. Amazing that there is any consistency.

The Psalms, proverbs, etc are pieces of cultural advice/worship helps, etc. Basically, poetry and songs of the people.

The history sections do have errors/gaps. These are records of the people, not in the sense you wish to imply God's commandments or such. We learn from history. The points that are important are included, the lessons pass through, but not all the details because they don't matter in the context of the lessons needing to be taught.

etc, etc, etc.

Oh,and I am not, most Christians are not offended by someone saying the disbelieve. We will debate you, but generally are not offended. Offense comes if you begin saying we are stupid, etc. Frustration comes when you continue to make points that are either irrelevant to what we have said or just plain wrong.

My issue with your words was that you stated to be fact things that are opinion. You are welcome to your opinion, but say they are fact and I will dispute.

[PLAYER57832]

Bible Origins = The Book of Enki. Read it.

see my response to J.

There are several thoughts. One, common is that yes, it was borrowed, back when the Jews were taken to Babylon.

The second is that it was actually the reverse, that the Babylonians wrote it down first, but actually took it from the Jewish people with whom they had contact.

A third is that this was such a momentous event that each culture had it independently within their traditions, but each varied minor details to make it fit their people's understanding of the events. (Babylonians, for example would have referred to a round reed boat instead of the ark mentioned in the Bible, etc.)

A fourth thought is that this was a true invention, a teaching story, not meant to be taken literally at all.

It is important to understand that this idea of the Bible being fully literal is basically a newer Christian thought and not really a part of ancient Jewish tradition -- or at least, there is variation in how the ancient Jews viewed these texts, and many would say they are not meant to be entirely "literal" in the sense J and many modern churches wish to assert.

[AndyDufresne]

--Andy