What do you think about the Bible?
- Thread starter Pavel123
- Start date
Mycernius
The Hairy Wookie
- 4 Feb 2005
- 4,511
- 198
- 84
What I think of the Bible? I find it is a mixture of myths, rantings of zealots and very biased history. It is worth reading, if only to gain an insight on how Christianity and Judasim work. It also helps on seeing how it influenced the Koran and Islam, but remember that it is a translation of a translation of a translation. Many things that people assume is inncorrect because of translation errors, or from people who were not fully aware of how the original text should be read. The best example is the name Jehovah. A combination of YHWH with vowel points added and combined with Adonai overtime. Then translated into German, changing the Y to a J fro German pronunciation, and then into English leaving the J still there, but with English pronunciation.
The best person I know of on this site about translation problems within the Bible is Mars Man.
Incidently, these types of threads have caused problems in the past. Try to keep it nice and no preaching, otherwise it will be locked.
The best person I know of on this site about translation problems within the Bible is Mars Man.
Incidently, these types of threads have caused problems in the past. Try to keep it nice and no preaching, otherwise it will be locked.
Hey everyone!
It was interesting to read the opinions of people about the bible, but I just want to make a few comments since there are here a few inaccuracies.
First of all, the manuscripts of the bible have been copied on from another throughout the generation, but not translated. The translations were made when people wanted to make the bible available for reading in different languages.
We do have a good evidence for the preserving of the bible as accurate, and besides, the occasions that are recorded there have been authenticated as trustworthy according to history. Whoever wants can make a research of his own.
If I could, I would have posted here a few good links about this.
Now, about the name of God, namely, YHWH, is not an issue at all, since it doesn't matter in what form you pronounce this name. It doesn't influence the accuracy of the story or the facts.
One last thing that I want to say is that the bible is a book where God reveals to us the true way and meaning of life.. I mean, guys, you maybe say that it's all not for you, but if being honest... so many people in the world have saved their life thanks to it...
The main message to all is this: Whoever of us did not commit a sin? Who is so honest with himself? Our life is so short, then it is worthy of thinking for a few minutes about our fate.
Each of us told a lie, stole something, had lust, disobeyed his parents etc...
If God needed to judge each of us according to his holy standard of his Law- we all needed to finish our destiny in punishment in hell. However, nobody wants to go there, nobody!!! Not even the worst man in the world.. and that's why he sent us Jesus to die on the cross, to take all our sins upon himself, to suffer for us and pay for us for all the evil things we've done.
Is that so bad? Is it so bad to hear the good news of God's salvation to every person in the world?
I only hope that this message will not be deleted, but everyone would think deeply for himself about what he read.
Thank you for reading, and best wishes to everyone here...
- 8 Aug 2005
- 6,742
- 2,570
- 337
the Bible is full of parables, not facts.
In my opinion, I'd rather be a good person for the sake of having a good and fulfilling life, not because I'm afraid of judgment and punishment. The ancient religions have a lot going for them, but this argument is perhaps the most repulsive thing about Christianity today.
In my opinion, I'd rather be a good person for the sake of having a good and fulfilling life, not because I'm afraid of judgment and punishment. The ancient religions have a lot going for them, but this argument is perhaps the most repulsive thing about Christianity today.
Look at the book of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles- these are books of facts.. other books do contain parables, like the book of Proverbs, Job etc...
People, who of you knows enough to determine X,Y,Z?
God simply commanded us to repent and leave our evil way, and put our trust in Jesus as saviour...
Who of you has the wisdom to know everything?? Let him then confidently say that he is right, and I am wrong...
Come on guys, give it a chance, just pray, and God will reveal himself to those who seek him truly, read, study, check and see yourself that the evidence of God's truth is there...
Let every man be blessed from now and forever more...
People, who of you knows enough to determine X,Y,Z?
God simply commanded us to repent and leave our evil way, and put our trust in Jesus as saviour...
Who of you has the wisdom to know everything?? Let him then confidently say that he is right, and I am wrong...
Come on guys, give it a chance, just pray, and God will reveal himself to those who seek him truly, read, study, check and see yourself that the evidence of God's truth is there...
Let every man be blessed from now and forever more...
- 8 Aug 2005
- 6,742
- 2,570
- 337
circular logic. This discussion will go nowhere.
thanks alex but please stop, this site is for everyone, and we don't like if people come here to advertise their religion, i'm (神道, shintō). i have my own religion and im happy that you are katholic, christian, protestant, orthodox... i also respect God in a sort of way, but please make a poll about religions instead of making propaganda for those who are non-christians. Because i know they won't turn over to another religion.
pugtm
Jewish Samurai
- 21 Apr 2007
- 562
- 13
- 28
Pavel i understand that you want to explore your faith and whatnot and as a Jew i respect that. But don't you think that doing this is just a little bit anti productive? There are many religious websites were you can do that or maybe in your synagogue(i'm assuming you are a yid
) but doing it here causes a chilul hashem and makes us all look bad. This is a Japanese forum lets stick to Shinto and Bhudda here for the most part and if you cant get anyone else to argue with you send me a pm ill be most happy to discuss it with you.
And alex please stop with the radical Christian missionary stuff some of us really find it offensive.
A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. - Winston Churchill.
) but doing it here causes a chilul hashem and makes us all look bad. This is a Japanese forum lets stick to Shinto and Bhudda here for the most part and if you cant get anyone else to argue with you send me a pm ill be most happy to discuss it with you.And alex please stop with the radical Christian missionary stuff some of us really find it offensive.
A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. - Winston Churchill.
pugtm
Jewish Samurai
- 21 Apr 2007
- 562
- 13
- 28
i agree herbal shin in fact my favorite religions(beside my own) are Hindu and Buddhist just because they are so tolerant. I live in Texas so i have missionary's banging at the gates constantly.
i love it when they tell me i am going to hell because i as a Jew don't believe in hell.
i love it when they tell me i am going to hell because i as a Jew don't believe in hell.
Mycernius
The Hairy Wookie
- 4 Feb 2005
- 4,511
- 198
- 84
Alex this is not a site for expanding your religious views. Many members are christians, but an equal measure are not. There are even those of us who are atheists, myself included, and so by saying the Bible is Gods word is not going to impress many people. The bible is not more holy than any other book of religious text. It holds no more value than the Koran, Talmud, Vedic texts etc.
- 28 Jul 2005
- 5,172
- 168
- 123
Well. . . I'll be a monkey's uncle !! And somehow I didn't even catch this one yesterday.
I'd like to join in here, and I'd hope to be able to expound on things in as detailed and objective a manner as possible. Those who wish to follow along, join in, or discuss/debate with me, are fully welcomed !!
Alex18 san, you are in no way a criminal !! AND you are in no way unwelcomed here at JREF !! This particular forum is the Chit Chat and Misc. fora, so non-Japanese matters are quite OK !! It is true, however, that preaching should not be undertaken. I, for one, however. see some of your statements as simply a presentation of your understanding, and to that degree, for that amount, do not take it as preaching. You are new here, and I give you the benefit of the doubt. . . you know more now than yesterday, so enough of that.
Here, and I ask that we take our time with this, there is always one problem when the word 'Bible' is thrown around. Just what is it we are talking about? Mycernius was correct, from the more obvious perspective that he had been looking from, when he said the Bible was a translation of a translation of a translation. That is because we can take it that he had been looking at the King James Version, which is primarily English on the Latin from the Vulgate, which, in turn, was on the Greek of the LXX. The Jewish writings which made up the LXX were in Greek--although they evidently have Hebrew sources/translations as well.
I'll send this much for now. Let's first get a definition for the term, 'BIBLE.'
(dinner time calls...sorry.) MM
I'd like to join in here, and I'd hope to be able to expound on things in as detailed and objective a manner as possible. Those who wish to follow along, join in, or discuss/debate with me, are fully welcomed !!
Alex18 san, you are in no way a criminal !! AND you are in no way unwelcomed here at JREF !! This particular forum is the Chit Chat and Misc. fora, so non-Japanese matters are quite OK !! It is true, however, that preaching should not be undertaken. I, for one, however. see some of your statements as simply a presentation of your understanding, and to that degree, for that amount, do not take it as preaching. You are new here, and I give you the benefit of the doubt. . . you know more now than yesterday, so enough of that.
Here, and I ask that we take our time with this, there is always one problem when the word 'Bible' is thrown around. Just what is it we are talking about? Mycernius was correct, from the more obvious perspective that he had been looking from, when he said the Bible was a translation of a translation of a translation. That is because we can take it that he had been looking at the King James Version, which is primarily English on the Latin from the Vulgate, which, in turn, was on the Greek of the LXX. The Jewish writings which made up the LXX were in Greek--although they evidently have Hebrew sources/translations as well.
I'll send this much for now. Let's first get a definition for the term, 'BIBLE.'
(dinner time calls...sorry.) MM
Last edited:
- 28 Jul 2005
- 5,172
- 168
- 123
Well, now with a full stomach, I'd like to offer one definition of the word 'Bible' for the purpose of our discussion.
How about if we hold the term 'Bible' to be any collection of religious writings considered to be authoritative by any relatively major group within Judaism and Christianity up to the first council of Nicene in 325 CE?
This means that within the perimeter of our definition we could include works such as Wisdom (that of Jesus son of Sirach), 1 & 2 Enoch, To the Corinthians 1 (the valid letter by Clement of Rome to the Corinthians in the latter decades of the first century), or Baranabas, etc.
It would mean that in some quarters we could consider works such as Judas, the Gospel of the Hebrews, and the likes of the unknown gospel to have been, and thus be part of the 'Bible.'
Are there any objections to this definition? If so, please do elaborate. Thanks !! MM
How about if we hold the term 'Bible' to be any collection of religious writings considered to be authoritative by any relatively major group within Judaism and Christianity up to the first council of Nicene in 325 CE?
This means that within the perimeter of our definition we could include works such as Wisdom (that of Jesus son of Sirach), 1 & 2 Enoch, To the Corinthians 1 (the valid letter by Clement of Rome to the Corinthians in the latter decades of the first century), or Baranabas, etc.
It would mean that in some quarters we could consider works such as Judas, the Gospel of the Hebrews, and the likes of the unknown gospel to have been, and thus be part of the 'Bible.'
Are there any objections to this definition? If so, please do elaborate. Thanks !! MM
Mycernius
The Hairy Wookie
- 4 Feb 2005
- 4,511
- 198
- 84
I have a feeling that Pavel and Alex are most likely be refering to reformation Bibles, but I see nothing wrong in the text laid out by the council of Nicene that went on to be the Catholic Bible. I am not sure whether any texts that were left out would be considered 'biblical' by most modern Christians, Catholic and non-catholic alike, especailly evangelist preachers, who like to think they are God (bad experience with one on another forum. Utter nutter
). They would most likely regard them as non-canonical or heretical, such as the Gnostic texts, but their inclusion in a discussion would help give insight into the modern Bible.
). They would most likely regard them as non-canonical or heretical, such as the Gnostic texts, but their inclusion in a discussion would help give insight into the modern Bible.
- 28 Jul 2005
- 5,172
- 168
- 123
You may very well be correct about what might they had had in mind, Mycernius. My tendency is to see the 'reformation Bibles' as being too narrow in scope because then one couldn't easily include the Greek Orthodox Church and or the Roman Catholic Church--as far as Christian groups go.
I think you are also correct in your judgment about most Christians today not taking a number of texts which, as is now understood by the major players in Biblical Literature circles to be more accurate than not, were common enough among written codexes in the first century CE to be considered having been authoritative to those groups. Three good examples are, actually, the letter of Clement of Rome, Baranabas, and The Shepherd of Hermas; and there is enough evidence in other finds to support others--such as the Apocalypse of Peter.
I am yet of the persuasion that those who attempt to argue for the exclusion of other documents being includable in our Bible of today, other than what's there in the two most common formats, have failed to overcome some very material counter points--thus not having conclusively enough proven their case.
The second century Christian living in Egypt around the year 150 or so, even, very likely had never heard of the gospel according to Mark, for example, but more obviously had used that of an possibly unknown gospel right along with some version of Matthew or Luke.
The primary reason why I like that definition I purposed, is because it will bring agreement from those scholars in the Biblical Literature areas--including both those of a more religious nature, and those who are not so.
I hope others will agree to this definition too.
I think you are also correct in your judgment about most Christians today not taking a number of texts which, as is now understood by the major players in Biblical Literature circles to be more accurate than not, were common enough among written codexes in the first century CE to be considered having been authoritative to those groups. Three good examples are, actually, the letter of Clement of Rome, Baranabas, and The Shepherd of Hermas; and there is enough evidence in other finds to support others--such as the Apocalypse of Peter.
I am yet of the persuasion that those who attempt to argue for the exclusion of other documents being includable in our Bible of today, other than what's there in the two most common formats, have failed to overcome some very material counter points--thus not having conclusively enough proven their case.
The second century Christian living in Egypt around the year 150 or so, even, very likely had never heard of the gospel according to Mark, for example, but more obviously had used that of an possibly unknown gospel right along with some version of Matthew or Luke.
The primary reason why I like that definition I purposed, is because it will bring agreement from those scholars in the Biblical Literature areas--including both those of a more religious nature, and those who are not so.
I hope others will agree to this definition too.
There are a few points that were raised:
1) The bible is a collection of books, ant not sacred.
To this I answer that for you it's not holy, ok I agree.
2) The canon of bible was determined by people, not by God.
Well, if you believe that God exists, then you should believe that He has the power to preserve his words through the prophets and other people, just as he promised. He uses anyone he wants for that.
About the gnostic gospels, they simply contradict the main message of the biblical books, and were in use later than the canonized books of the New Testament.
That would be nice to continue this coversation.. have a nice day everybody..
1) The bible is a collection of books, ant not sacred.
To this I answer that for you it's not holy, ok I agree.
2) The canon of bible was determined by people, not by God.
Well, if you believe that God exists, then you should believe that He has the power to preserve his words through the prophets and other people, just as he promised. He uses anyone he wants for that.
About the gnostic gospels, they simply contradict the main message of the biblical books, and were in use later than the canonized books of the New Testament.
That would be nice to continue this coversation.. have a nice day everybody..
- 5 Feb 2005
- 7,552
- 608
- 193
I haven't read the bible, and neither am I thinking of starting reading it in the upcoming years.
I don't have a strong opinion about it, because I don't know what to believe. I just know that I do not believe in books, or religions that tell me what I should do and shouldn't do. What's the purpose in life when you can't try what you want because a book/religion tells you too.
I also heard that the bible has been changed and things where putting in and taken out to make it look better.
As I have said before, I do not have a strong opinion and have not read it yet.
I also just want to say that you guys are allowed to discuss this topic, but please have respect to other members and their views/opinions.
I don't have a strong opinion about it, because I don't know what to believe. I just know that I do not believe in books, or religions that tell me what I should do and shouldn't do. What's the purpose in life when you can't try what you want because a book/religion tells you too.
I also heard that the bible has been changed and things where putting in and taken out to make it look better.
As I have said before, I do not have a strong opinion and have not read it yet.
I also just want to say that you guys are allowed to discuss this topic, but please have respect to other members and their views/opinions.
Last edited:
Mycernius
The Hairy Wookie
- 4 Feb 2005
- 4,511
- 198
- 84
The problem with the Gnostics and the Catholics was that the Gnostics saw the texts as allegorical, not pure fact. The Catholics, and ultimately the dominant Christian sect, saw the Bible as literal. Anything that went against the dominant sect were removed and were destroyed, hence the virtual extermination of the Gnostic sect. As for saying that the Gnostic texts contradict the books in the Bible is a bit like the kettle calling the pot black, as there are enough contradictions within authorised biblical text without the Gnostic texts.
