The Bible

[cybercoma]

It was obvious. You didn't need to confirm it.

[Moonlight Graham]

Kimmy, great video, thanks for posting.

[Guest Manny]

What matters is inspiration leading to right action. "Evidence" is irrelevant.

[dre]

It appears that Betsy has been raptured, and it feels a little weird adding to this thread without her.

Nonetheless, I just watched this fascinating video that I think would be interesting to a lot of people who participated in this thread:

The video is based on "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong, which I have not yet read but will add to my always growing list. The claim presented is that Yahweh was, initially, just one member of a pantheon of gods of a polytheist mythology. Yahweh was the war god; others were Baal, Asherah, and El Elyon (the chief). Early versions of the stories made clear that Yahweh was just one of several, and only later when Yahweh's cult had gained ascendance (600BC, the time of Jeremiah and the conquest of Judah by the Babylonians) was worship of the other gods forbidden. Later everything was rewritten to replace references to the other gods with Yahweh. And the first chapter of Genesis, the start of everything, was written last, as a version of a Babylonian myth rewritten to feature Yahweh in the starring role.

That's the claim, anyway. I have not read Armstrong's book, and I haven't read the criticisms of it (which I am sure exist; too many people have vested interest in her being wrong for the criticism of her work to be anything less than ferocious.) Nonetheless, the warning "thou shalt have no other gods before me" suddenly makes a lot more sense.

-k

Really interesting video, thanx.

[Jack Weber]

It appears that Betsy has been raptured, and it feels a little weird adding to this thread without her.

Nonetheless, I just watched this fascinating video that I think would be interesting to a lot of people who participated in this thread:

The video is based on "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong, which I have not yet read but will add to my always growing list. The claim presented is that Yahweh was, initially, just one member of a pantheon of gods of a polytheist mythology. Yahweh was the war god; others were Baal, Asherah, and El Elyon (the chief). Early versions of the stories made clear that Yahweh was just one of several, and only later when Yahweh's cult had gained ascendance (600BC, the time of Jeremiah and the conquest of Judah by the Babylonians) was worship of the other gods forbidden. Later everything was rewritten to replace references to the other gods with Yahweh. And the first chapter of Genesis, the start of everything, was written last, as a version of a Babylonian myth rewritten to feature Yahweh in the starring role.

That's the claim, anyway. I have not read Armstrong's book, and I haven't read the criticisms of it (which I am sure exist; too many people have vested interest in her being wrong for the criticism of her work to be anything less than ferocious.) Nonetheless, the warning "thou shalt have no other gods before me" suddenly makes a lot more sense.

-k

Interesting...

I enjoy Armstrong's work,although,I think she goes off the rails sometimes...

I note that,at no time,does the maker of this video mention the New Testament or the "New Covenant' we've all been given by the life and death of Jesus Christ on this earth...I suspect that he feels that Old Testament is such a potential fraud that he thinks the New Testament is equally fraudulent?

I definately understand the contradictions of the Old Testament.However,is'nt it entirely conceivable that Yahweh had to embody Himself as a failed human male to understand what we wrestle with on Earth?

What our earthly failings are?

And how we can find "Salvation" from the "demon(s)" that bind us all?

It seems to me that this is the entire thrust of the New Testament,in that, it took Yahweh to become a physical man (Jesus) and live an life as a man (34 years),die a natural death (crucified),and be reborn as a new being...To fully understand the "human condition" and the daily potential sin we all encounter?

Edited December 18, 2011 by Jack Weber

[cybercoma]

The Old Testament is shared between religions and is the foundation of Christianity. The Armstrong book and the video are discussing the history of the Judeo-Christian God and how we came to understand it in the form that it's in today. The New Testament doesn't offer much in the way of conceptualizing God. It talks more about the Messiah figure of Jesus.

[kimmy]

I note that,at no time,does the maker of this video mention the New Testament or the "New Covenant' we've all been given by the life and death of Jesus Christ on this earth...I suspect that he feels that Old Testament is such a potential fraud that he thinks the New Testament is equally fraudulent?

Probably because it was off-topic. The video presented questions regarding the historical origins of the Old Testament.

You seem to interpret the author's intent to be attacking Christianity. And it is, indirectly, because casting doubt on the infallibility of the Old Testament has to bring into question the whole story, doesn't it? But the main focus is on the evolution of the mythology of the ancient Jews from polytheistic to monotheistic.

What the implications of that would be for modern Christianity are interesting to contemplate. I would think they would have some esplainin' to do.

Personally, I think Christianity would be better off without the Old Testament. The stories are just so ridiculous, and so at odds with the claim that God is loving.

I definately understand the contradictions of the Old Testament.However,is'nt it entirely conceivable that Yahweh had to embody Himself as a failed human male to understand what we wrestle with on Earth?

What our earthly failings are?

And how we can find "Salvation" from the "demon(s)" that bind us all?

It seems to me that this is the entire thrust of the New Testament,in that, it took Yahweh to become a physical man (Jesus) and live an life as a man (34 years),die a natural death (crucified),and be reborn as a new being...To fully understand the "human condition" and the daily potential sin we all encounter?

If Yahweh is omniscient and omnipresent, doesn't he already know? If God is really everything that the book says he is, why would he need to conduct a 33 year science experiment to find out stuff he already knows?

Supposing he really did need to become a human to find out about the "human condition", howcome he didn't try spending a lifetime as a chick as well? Seems to me that would have been a much gutsier thing considering what society was like 2000 years ago...

-k

[jbg]

Personally, I think Christianity would be better off without the Old Testament. The stories are just so ridiculous, and so at odds with the claim that God is loving.

You are joking I hope.

My religion has only the Old Testament and we find G-d quite loving.

[GostHacked]

You are joking I hope.

My religion has only the Old Testament and we find G-d quite loving.

But yet you fear to type out his full name? Why?

[jbg]

But yet you fear to type out his full name? Why?

Jews are not supposed to. It's part of the Ten Commandments.

[Guest Manny]

Jews are not supposed to. It's part of the Ten Commandments.

Hmm... what about cartoons, are you allowed to do those?

[monty16]

Do you have to be a believer to post in this section or can you tell the truth?

[Moonlight Graham]

Jews are not supposed to. It's part of the Ten Commandments.

I thought that one was saying thinks like "God d*mn it", or "Jesus Christ" as a swear word?

[jbg]

I thought that one was saying thinks like "God d*mn it", or "Jesus Christ" as a swear word?

It could be, but hyphenating that word takes so little work and is so un-costly in the scheme of things.

[Guest American Woman]

jbg, on 21 December 2011 - 01:52 PM, said: Jews are not supposed to. It's part of the Ten Commandments.

I thought that one was saying thinks like "God d*mn it", or "Jesus Christ" as a swear word?

I think some Jews write G-d as a precaution to never take God's name in vain.

[kimmy]

You are joking I hope.

My religion has only the Old Testament and we find G-d quite loving.

Between the murders and massacres and genocides committed at Yahweh's command or with his assistance... the plagues and death he visits upon people for often no fault of their own... the part where he becomes disappointed with humans and decides to wipe out every living thing on the planet except for 1 family and a boatload of animals... guess I'm not feeling the love.

I suppose that since the Jews were the beneficiaries of much of this smiting and slaughter, you might have a different outlook. But I think that if a modern adult reads the Old Testament without any predisposition to like Yahweh or Moses or Jacob or any of the other heroes of the Old Testament, I think they'd come to the conclusion that it's a story about psychopaths.

-k

[monty16]

Can one of the Christians here tell me: The bible seems to promote the young earth theory so I would suppose that is supposed to be taken literally. Therefore my question is, is there a possibility that science is wrong and the earth is really quite young?

[Moonlight Graham]

I think some Jews write G-d as a precaution to never take God's name in vain.

Does that mean they can't say God's name?

"Hi I'm a Jew and I believe in...well, I can't actually say it. But, y'know, the big guy upstairs!"

[monty16]

One thing for sure fellow evolutionists, we've got em on the run now. It was bound to happen considering that the fairy tales are just too incredible for them to even stand behind anymore. And so they run from the debate with their shrinking quasi-tails between their legs.

[GostHacked]

deleted

Edited December 28, 2011 by GostHacked

[betsy]

Heavens to Betsy wants to teach

deal with the contradictions before you preach:

The Order of Creation

Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.

Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.

Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27 Birds were created before Adam.

Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Birds were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before Adam.

Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Animals were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time.

Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 Adam was created first, woman sometime later

Well sorry for the long delay.

There is no contradiction.

There is actually no contradiction between the accounts of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. The best way to understand the creation story is to see Genesis chapter one as an overview of all God did to create the heavens and the earth. In chapter two, the story zooms in to look at day six and study those events in a more detailed fashion.

It's a technique of storytelling used even today by many movies. The film will start by saying something like "This is a story of two people. They met and fell in love. But then they lost each other. But after a while they finally found their way back to true love again. How they did so is the beginning of our story..." The movie will then show exactly how that all takes place.

The creation of man is written in the same way. Genesis 1:26-27 says, "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.' God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

From the General to the Specific

Once we get to chapter two, verse four we read, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. Then the LORD God formed man of (8) dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

As you can see, verse four is a transitional verse. It starts, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created..." much like the "How they did so is the beginning of our story..." line above. Chapter two talks about God planting a garden toward the East - and growing plants there. This doesn't mean that there weren't plants in other parts of the world; it just means the focus of the story has shifted to man and his situation now.

Read more: http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con005.asp#ixzz1vDfuhMfM

[betsy]

Genesis 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.

Genesis 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.

not to worry the above was written for a Jew

oh but wait more contradictions from Christians too...

Psalm 58:10-11: The righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked. Then men will say, "Surely the righteous still are rewarded; surely there is a God who judges the earth.

Revenge is celebrated.

Proverbs 24:17-18: Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice, or the LORD will see and disapprove and turn his wrath away from him.

Colossians 2:13: When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins.

"All" of our sins are forgiven.

Refer back to your Bible and read Psalm 58. Not just part of it. All of it. Same with Proverbs.

Here's one study explanation for that.

"In this supposed contradiction, a portion of a psalm attributed to David (Psalm 58:10-11) is thought to oppose a general proverb in “the words of the wise” (Proverbs 24:17-18). Before concluding that these passages contradict one another, one should consider how they differ from one another. Here are some examples: they were written at different times and under different circumstances. The psalm describes what “will” happen, the proverb is counsel about what one should do. The psalm speaks of “vengeance,” the proverb speaks of rejoicing/gladness at someone else’s downfall. The psalm is specifically about unjust leaders (cf. Psalm 58:1-2), the proverb is about people in general, whether good or bad. From these examples one can see how difficult it is to line up the passages for a direct comparison. The supposed contradiction does not take any of this into account.

Now, regarding the psalm, it is important to note that the rejoicing in this case is a reaction to God’s decisive judgment of the wicked. It does not describe personal revenge but the feeling of vindication one experiences when a wicked person receives deserved justice. The psalm describes punishment unto death (n.b., “blood”), which would prevent the wicked from attacking the celebrants.

The proverb does not assume someone’s death but merely his stumbling. The proverb urges a person not to take joy in part because the enemy has the opportunity to rise up again. In other words, suspend the party, the war is not over! On top of this counsel, the proverb notes that the Lord has a habit of helping the downtrodden. Your rejoicing over the enemy (remember that the enemy in this case could be either a good guy or a bad guy) may compel the Lord to have compassion on your enemy---an ever worsening circumstance for you.

Principle: When comparing passages, do not just consider how they say things that are similar but also how they speak differently. Watch for general and specific features."

http://lutheranwriter.blogspot.ca/2011/12/silly-bible-contradiction-26-rejoicing.html

Edited May 18, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

OOopsy daisy let's pull down Heavens to Besty's pants

to see what's really behind those rants:

http://www.entheology.org/POCM/index.htm

http://rawbible.blogspot.com/2010/11/horus-son-of-god.html

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm

http://www.logoi.com/notes/babylonian_myths.html

Careful Besty you so sure your unique

or you just part of another son God clique...

you may think you are head of the class

but honey to me yer just parroting Mithras

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/386025/Mithra

For those of you interested in this co-called pagan-influence, here's a long-read article.

"Christianity was not influenced by paganism

A review and response to claims that Christianity was influenced by paganism and other religions.

By G.R. Konig

Written Aug. 15, 2006

Revised Oct. 29, 2006

About-Jesus.org

There is no shortage of scholars and writers who claim that there are striking similarities between Christianity and paganism, or that Christianity was influenced by paganism.

G.R. Konig is a Christian who believes in the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and that the Bible is the infallible and inerrant word of God.

Christianity has been accused of borrowing from paganism virtually every important detail in the New Testament, including the virgin birth, the baptism, the Eucharist, the offer of salvation, the crucifixion, and the resurrection. The implication is that Christianity does not come from God, but from a stew of pagan ideas and concepts.

Many of the claims grew out of the 19th and 20th century works of Franz Cumont, James Frazer, and Kersey Graves, who continue to be influential among scholars and writers today who continue a tradition of:

1. Using Christian terminology to describe pagan traditions,

2. Then remarking on the alleged similarities,

3. And then claiming that Christianity copied from paganism.

With this as an approach, any ancient tradition involving water could be described as a "baptism," any pagan artwork depicting food and beverage could be characterized as a "Eucharist," any tradition involving an unusual birth of a pagan deity could be framed as a "miraculous birth" or as a "virgin birth," and any deity related to the agricultural cycle could be made into examples of "saviors" who "died" and were "resurrected."

Many novels, books, magazines and web sites have made and repeated allegations that the New Testament writers borrowed ideas from the ancient mythologies of Egypt, Greece, Rome, Babylon and India. The most commonly cited examples involve the traditions of Adonis, Dionysus, Krishna, Mithras and Osiris, that these pre-Christian deities supposedly had much in common with Jesus Christ.

This article will review some of these ancient traditions, showing that they have not influenced the theology of Christianity or the "creation" of Jesus."

http://www.about-jesus.org/paganism.htm

Edited May 18, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

... guess I'm not feeling the love.

How can you? Who can feel the love when one is so proccupied with rebuffing that love?

How can one feel any love if one's determined to keep her heart closed?

Edited May 18, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Dear Rue, one of the basic rules to reading and understanding the Bible is not to quote-mine or pick-out a verse here and a verse there. You've got to read the whole chapter to see the whole premise and so as not take it out of context.

There's the matter too of understanding the culture of the time....word meanings....history...etc..,

A Bible with bible-study footnotes will be most helpful.

I usually use KJV or NKJ.

I'm still learning....and just trying to do my part, in my own way of spreading the Good News.

Edited May 18, 2012 by betsy