Moving this from Facebook ... Comments from ME are in RED, comments from Grandma in BLUE
I haven't had a chance to do much
research on the King James Bible like you requested, but I did recently learn
that King James I of England was openly bisexual with a strong preference for
men.
I don't know what that means for the veracity of the translations, I just found
it quite interesting since so many of the quotes against homosexuality comes
from the KJV of the Bible. More research to come, I'm very interested now!
Many of the Royals have been
very openly bisexual and various other unique choices. I've wondered about Paul
because of his attitude toward women. The man who became Paul was originally
Saul of Tarsus, and proud of it. Saul boasted that he was born a Roman citizen,
a distinction which often saved him from ill treatment. When he later broke
with Judaism, Saul went by the name of Paul, which was probably his Roman name
since birth. In any case, the Jewish name Saul was a handicap in Greek-speaking
circles because "Saulos" meant "effeminate" in Greek.
The things they don't teach you
in Sunday school! This is ALL new information to me!
They don't teach it because
they teach from their Sunday school books and pamplets; and if they get away
from the provided materials they are in danger of losing their retirement or
losing their position at the church, or both. And during the "gospel
reading" they will read a verse or two from the bible and the rest of the
hour is devoted to personal testaments. Bet you heard about that apple in the
Garden too....dare you to find "apple" in the Genesis story.
I knew the forbidden fruit
wasn't really an apple, but probably a pomegranete. Not a big deal, unless we
were told eating all apples is wrong. But after years of demonizing
homosexuality, or really sex in general, learning how much the church heroes
engaged in "unnatural" behavior casts doubts on the authority of such
declarations. (Doubts I already did away with ... Fornicate away
folks!) ...
Pretty sure I never thought I'd
write "fornicate away" to my grandmother ... Surely i should be
struck by lightning about now!!
So they ate a pomegranete? And
then they covered their private parts with fig leaves? Ch.3;v.3 -"Ye shall
not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die". When you have
research time, look up the word "touch" in the Strong's concordance.
Do use the standard King James version as the new versions have changed too
many words and their meanings. And DUCK! We're probably both drawing lightning!
And old people are not
necessarily old fuddy duddies. Sarah was old when she put her maid out to
whoredom with Abraham so he could have a child. And then Abraham put his
helpless whore out with their son and never paid a penny child support! So all
this middle east war was started for the lack of child support?!
Just so you know; my Church
(Catholic) would not let me teach Bible school. I do tend to get a little
carried away with my interpretations.
Of course you couldn't teach
Bible school, you're a woman. Jesus was very clear that women shouldn't speak
in church but hold their tounges and ask their husbands for clarification if
their weak minds were unable to grasp what was being taught
NO, that was Paul . . . again
with Paul. Jesus, if anything, was partial to women. Did he meet a man at the
well and speak to him? To whom did he appear first after the crucification? Did
he consider his Mother when he changed the water to wine (or grape juice)? He loved
Mary Magdeline and there is a writing by her; however that was not accepted by
the Church and is in the Accrophia. Maybe a lot of jealousy there, especially
from Peter. Oh, and yes, I know your comment was "tongue in
cheek".
Now forgive me if I seem
impertinent but isn't the Bible at least divinely inspired, if not divinely
written? So, according to the traditional orthodoxy if Paul wrote it, its
because the holy spirit moved in him to write it right?
If we can't trust the accuracy
of Paul why should we trust the accuracy of second and third hand stories of
Jesus recorded at the earlist 60 years after his alleged resurection?
If we can't trust the accuracy of Paul why should we trust the accuracy of
second and third hand stories of Jesus recorded at the earlist 60 years after
his alleged resurection?
§ Devinely written? Of course. But in the hands of man
for many years before the common man saw or read it.
§ Most people do not know that we only have part of the Bible.
Man's first meddleing came by deciding which books would be accepted and which
banned from the writings. You can read so much on the internet if you go to
Lost Books of the Bible.... I won't reprint it all here, but here's a
partial list of those lost or banned. So if these books didn't make the
cut, no wonder the Hindu scripture and others are not here....they would be
considered the Pagan beliefs, I believe.The Old Testament Scriptures were first
written in Hebrew and later translated into Greek, the oldest being known as
the Septuagint, or "Version of the Seventy," made at Alexandria for
the library by a company of seventy learned Jews. This was about 285 B.C.
§ The New Testament was all originally written in Greek, except
Matthew which was first written in Hebrew, and later translated into Greek.
§ Latin translations of both the Septuagint and the Greek New
Testament were made by different individuals, and the more carefully prepared
Latin Vulgate of Jerome, the Bible complete, was made A.D. 383-405.
§ Printing was yet unknown and copies of the Bible were laborious and
expensive -- written by hand. It's illuminating and saving truths were
largely hidden for centuries by the errors, superstitions, and apostasy of the
dark ages. The common people knew little of its contents.
§ The first book printed from movable type was the Bible in Latin
which came from the press of John Gutenberg, at Mentz, Germany, in 1456, a copy
of which, in 1926 was sold in New York City for $106,000, the highest price
ever paid for a single book.
§ Moses wrote in the language of the people of his time; the prophets
spoke in the tongue familiar to the men whom they addressed; and the New
Testament was written in the language then current throughout the Roman
world. All the bibles, except in England, were in an ancient tongue and
could be read only by the educated. Usually, the common man heard it read
by their Priest.
§ Then Martin Luther did not believe the living Word should be
confined to a dead language. He gave his countrymen the New Testament in
1522, and the Bible complete in 1534. This was not without opposition.
§ As Jehoiakim, king of Judah, and the princes under King Zedekiah
showed their contempt for God by burning the writings of Jeremiah, and
confining the prophet in a dungeon (Jer. 36: 20-23; 38: 1-6,) so now men sought
to stem the rising tide of reform by burning the Bible and its translators.
§ Bible burning was started in England by destroying copies of the
Antwerp edition of Tyndale's New Testament in 1527, and again in
1530. "If Luther will not retract" wrote Henry VIII of
England, "let himself and his writings be committed to the flames."
§ The Bible had taken deep root with the people by now and the
prelates and kings began to foster and supply. Henry P. Warren's Stories
from English History, pp 196, 197: "Henry, by Cromwell's advice,
ordered a translation of the Bible to be made in English, and a copy to be
placed in every church. Cromwell then appointed Cranmer and the bishops
to revise the Bible and publish it without note or comment; and in the year
1539 a copy of the English Bible was chained to the reading desk in every
parish church.
So, I believe, Samantha,
in the devine origin of the Bible. Since then, however, I believe that
man has had ample opportunity to make their "changes".
Translations can be dangerous things. Some languages have no
corresponding word in other languages; most words have more than one meaning,
and some words are just changed to our detriment.
I'm
familiar with many of the writings that didn't make the cannon. Some of them
seem like pretty logical choices to... be excluded, others not so much. Most of
my life I was taught that we simply have to believe that God guided the
canonization process, just as he guided the writings of the books of the Bible.
So back to the original question, refined further - do you think
it's possible, at least, that God also inspired the writings of other
scriptures? The Tao Te Ching is, in my humble opinion, one of the most
beautiful pieces of religious works ever created. If that wasn't divinely
inspired, why should we accept that a book full of war, celebrating the death
of children and a cosmic wager on a mans life between God and Satan, to be
divinely inspired?
And in a complete 180 -- (here comes the blasphemy ... run for your
life!!) doesn't the crucifixion and resurrection seem a little self-serving? I
mean, wouldn't YOU gladly climb onto a cross to be tortured if you knew 1)
within hours you'd be hanging out in Paradise 2) the result would be the
saving of mankind from eternal death and 3) that 3 days later you'd be
walking around alive and well again?
And to that point, why do we have crucifixes as iconography? If, for
instance, I was walking across the street arm-in-arm with a couple children and
a bus came hurdling toward me, and a stranger threw himself in front of me,
died by being hit by the bus and saved our lives, I would eternally grateful,
but I would not hang images of a bus around my house to remind me of his
sacrifice, that's always seemed macabre to me.
I am not familiar with The Tao Te Ching (never
heard of it, in fact), so I will take your word for it that it is at beautiful
piece of religious works. I know there are many more. In
fact, once during a meeting of The Northeast Georgia Writer's Club, one of our
members gave an invocation that was the most beautiful prayer I have ever
heard. I can't tell you how touched I was by this; however beautiful
though it was, I did not even begin to think it was "inspired".
As far as the other religions' holy books, let those religions rely on
them. There were many other religions and pagans during the time of
Christ, too. The Bible cautions us to be aware of other religions
and false prophets throughout. The Bible also gives us the best way
to deal with the differences in human beings:
"Judge not, that ye be not
judged." Matt. 7:1.
Satan is "The accuser of our breatheren
---which accused them before our God day and night." Rev. 12:10; and
Then when we judge, accuse, or condemn one another, we are doing the work of
Satan.
Your question - do you
think it's possible, at least, that God also inspired the writings of other
scriptures? Sure I do. There were many found with the Dead
Sea scrolls. No telling how many others are out there. But for me
to personally accept them, they would be confirmed by the known
Bible (the two witnesses rule) Example: The Quoran(sp)
justifies honor killing—a --father/brother to uphold the family's honor
can kill is wife or daughter! I just couldn't buy that.
For you to personally accept
other scriptures they would be confirmed by the known Bible - could you
elaborate on that? The known Bible, as canonized by politicians,
distributed by Monarchs ... with the finger prints of man and politics and
manipulation all over it? As we've previously discussed,
there are all kinds of problems with the Bible, beautiful and inspiring though
it may be. We have to rely on our own minds and hearts to find truth, not just
centuries of teachings and harmonizing passed on to us to people just as
fallible as ourselves.
You said "As far as
the other religions' holy books, let those religions rely on them" and
that's the heart of the problem! If it's truth we're after, not just warm
tingly feelings and fitting in with our culture, then shouldn't we consider
other religion's holy books as possibly true? We can't just dismiss them out of
hand because we're from a Christian culture!
The Q'ran justifies honor
killing and you couldn't buy that ... that's good! The Bible justified
slaughtering an entire city so the Jews could take it over as the promised
land (there were ALREADY PEOPLE LIVING THERE!) With that
example, the European conquest of America and slaughter of Native Americans was
every bit as justified as our promised land.
"The Bible cautions
us to be aware of other religions and false prophets ..." which
again brings me right back to the start -- why are we just assuming the Bible
is the true book? The Vedic scriptures (Hindu) encourage embracing everything,
that God can be found everywhere. Why shouldn't that be true? The Tao Te
Ching teaches that you can’t have something without it’s opposite. You can’t
have good without evil, you can’t have up without down, everything must be
balanced (seriously, I love this book. You should read it. Here’s a link to it, it’s
a very short book, I’ve read it at least a dozen times and learn something new
every time.)
The Old Testament teaches
that if a man rapes a woman, he should marry her! I can't buy that. In Psalms,
a book of PRAISE, not laws, one verse says "Happy is he [God]
who shall seize your children and dash them against the rock"
But wait, before you tell
me Jesus told his followers to be more kind and loving than the law of Moses as
prescribed - Jesus himself said he came not to bring peace, but a sword. And
that every one who wants to follow him must hate his family. Further, in the
parable of servants waiting for their master to return from a wedding Jesus
says when the master returns and finds his servant drunk and haven beaten the
other servants the master will "cut him to pieces" and that the
servant who knows his masters will and will and does not do it will be
"beaten with many blows." So even if he is speaking in a
parable it seems Jesus is saying that God is going to beat the living s*it out
of me for disobeying him, and then he'll kill me and annihilate my soul.
It also seems that Jesus is OK with owning slaves, as he never spoke out
against it or even encouraged slave owners to be nicer to their slaves.
So in summary, the same
reasons I rejected Islam is why I reject Christianity (and let's not forget
they are members of the same religious family) -- my deep investigation of the
Bible has led me to conclude :
1)
It’s full
of contradictions
2)
Advocates
at least as much awful as it does good
3)
Was shaped
by the desire of man rather than God
4)
Is no
better than many other world scriptures
In
fact, I think I have a much stronger reason for not being a Christian than I do
for not being a Muslim. I’ve never looked into Islam very much, I’ve just dismissed
it for being crazy. I’m sure people who were not raised in a Christian household
think that about Christianity. (Really:
if you hadn’t been raised Christian, wouldn’t it be weird to have people
telling you that this guy died, went to hell and them came back to life, and so
to honor that we eat his body and drink his blood? What the hell? Are we
Vampires?)
.
