Holy Bible
- Thread starter P-NutLane
- Start date
DixieDestroyer
Hall of Famer
I believe the KJV & Geneva versions are the closest to the original manuscripts. As they were given the the Saints/Apostles, the Word was indeed perfect & God given. However, I take issue with some of the "johnny come lately" versions which are inaccurate at best, and totally apostate (at worst).
Fightingtowin
Guru
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 462
I feel the same way. I was shocked when I looked into the original definition of some Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic words and saw how they were completely mistranslated into English. I think sometimes they have been mistranslated out of ignorance and sometimes to fit somebody's own personal beliefs or the political climate of the time. However, I also feel that it could be the case that the Bible was not meant to be taken literally. It was considered a noble skill at the time to be able to put a real historical figure into a fictional situation and accurately represent how he or she would have acted.Thus, I believe that may be the case with the Bible, but my personal belief is that the original text was either from eye witness accounts or inspired by God.Edited by: FightingtowinDixieDestroyer said:
White Shogun
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 6,285
Fightingtowin said:
To what time period are you referring FTW? Do you have any sources where I can do some research on that subject?
Fightingtowin
Guru
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 462
I believe it was a book by John Dominic Crossan called "The Historical Jesus," where I read that. The period he was referring to was the time of Christ. He's somewhat controversial because he doesn't believe the New Testament was meant to be taken literally, but a lot of it was instead symbolic, which upsets a lot of Christians. However, he has also made a popular wave of atheist historians trying to convince the public that Jesus never existed look foolish, which Christians like. If I remember right, he believes Jesus was a real historical figure and there is, by far, enough evidence to prove that, but a lot of the New Testament was stories created by his followers, which he said was an acceptable and understood practice. However, he also thinks the actual quotes of Jesus were almost all direct quotes and at one point were all compiled together into one document. However, my memory is a little foggy, so I might be off a little.White Shogun said:
Like always, the atheists on one side and the Christians on the other seemed to be more concerned about proving their point than actual scholarship. However, he seemed pretty unbiased. However, what bothered me, is he completely dismisses the idea that Jesus could have done miracles because he said, as a historian, you can't rely on miracles to explain anything. As a Christian, I believe those miracles could have happened. I also believe that God inspired the authors to write literal stories about Jesus, however, once again as a historian, he said he can't rely on divine intervention to reach a conclusion.Edited by: Fightingtowin
ToughJ.Riggins
Hall of Famer
It's truly God's word, but certain things in it are symbolic or Parables meant as lessons.
Can someone please explain to me why there is an "Old" and "New" Testament to the Bible? What was wrong with the Old Testament. Did they just all of a sudden feel like coming up with a new version? What the heck's the difference between the two and how many people wrote each one?
Colonel_Reb
Hall of Famer
whiteCB said:
This is a joke right?
screamingeagle
Mentor
I am a Roman Catholic. How am I expected to answer this?
You would be able to take the first choice, and then add a reasoned historical explanation of why these particular writings came to be compiled into a book the totality of which came to be considered as not only true, but Inspired.screamingeagle said:
White_Savage
Mentor
Thing to remember about the Bible...it does not say what alot of people will tell you it says. For instance, that a Christian cannot be race conscious.
Average American
Mentor
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 703
Over the course of my life I've had varying feelings/esteem toward the Bible. I assume that's typical for most ppl who struggle to understand God.
I wonder how CasteFootballers feel about polytheism (?) I understand as a Christian, I'm commanded to love God (singular) with all my heart.. but does that exclude the possibility of Christians believing in (not worshipping) the existence of multiple Gods (?)
I've thought about Genesis 3:22 over the years, where God, referring to Himself (and/or others ?) in the plural, comments on the status of Adam: 'Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil...'
I guess God could be referring to the Trinity, to an audience that at the time was ignorant of a triune God.. but it seems more like a candid insight into the author's instinctive belief in polytheism.. A belief that I'm not sure has been adequately discredited. Is there an eventual Biblical refutation of polytheism. Or does the Bible generally/simply set the God of Israel apart from other deities that could potentially be worshipped..
Genesis 1:26, 'Let Us make man in our image, in our likeness..'
I wonder how CasteFootballers feel about polytheism (?) I understand as a Christian, I'm commanded to love God (singular) with all my heart.. but does that exclude the possibility of Christians believing in (not worshipping) the existence of multiple Gods (?)
I've thought about Genesis 3:22 over the years, where God, referring to Himself (and/or others ?) in the plural, comments on the status of Adam: 'Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil...'
I guess God could be referring to the Trinity, to an audience that at the time was ignorant of a triune God.. but it seems more like a candid insight into the author's instinctive belief in polytheism.. A belief that I'm not sure has been adequately discredited. Is there an eventual Biblical refutation of polytheism. Or does the Bible generally/simply set the God of Israel apart from other deities that could potentially be worshipped..
Genesis 1:26, 'Let Us make man in our image, in our likeness..'
Last edited:
Carolina Speed
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,845
Yes. How many do you want? Old Testament: The first commandment states," Thou shall not have any Gods before me."
The second commandment, "Thou shall not make unto thee any graven images....Exodus, 20:3-4
New Testament:
Jesus said, " I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except by me."
John, 14:6
Of course God was speaking about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There are many references to the Trinity throughout the Old and New Testament! Jesus said, "before Abraham was born, I am." John, 8:58.
This is the basis for Christian belief. The Jews (many) in Jesus time on earth were blind to this. They couldn't understand, they were blind.
No other God has ever done for humanity what Jesus did. I would also like to add that Christianity isn't about "Religion", religion is what "YOU", have to do, Christianity is what Jesus did for "YOU". You can believe in "Religion" or you can believe in Jesus. Most people miss that!
Last edited:
LOL Once a year at least ehh guys?
go check this out. http://reddit.com/r/whiteathletes
go check this out. http://reddit.com/r/whiteathletes
Carolina Speed
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,845
LOL Once a year at least ehh guys? What does that mean?
Charles Martel
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2007
- Messages
- 8,484
The Bible is just Hebrew mythology.
I prefer Greek, Roman, Viking, Celtic and Slavic mythology.
I prefer Greek, Roman, Viking, Celtic and Slavic mythology.
Carolina Speed
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,845
Charles Martel
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2007
- Messages
- 8,484
If The Bible gives some people comfort, I have no problem with that.
But I think we White Gentiles should come up with our own religion.