Bible History

[Colin norris]

Jews and Muslims don't believe in Original Sin.

That's because it doesn't exist. Atheusts live and die and never attract it. Only the godbotherers want to burden th themselves with that rubbish.

 

[rupol2000]

Newton's physics was thrown into the trash 200 years ago, they managed to get it back, although it contradicts the modern generally accepted concept of short-range action.

 

[rupol2000]

Jews and Muslims don't believe in Original Sin.

This is really funny. Original sin comes from Sumeroacadian mythology, where the gods drank wine and made defective clay men because they were drunk. They did them in order not to work themselves. Some of this myth is directly reproduced in the biblical creation from soil.
But why should Arabs and Jews not believe their own writings?

 

[james bond]

No, I haven't realized I'm wrong.

If you're equating me replying to what I read you writing as me ignoring something because I admit I'm wrong, then this conversation is going to be very difficult.

I literally spoke about people in 200 BC knowing the Earth went around the Sun. It's right there in my reply to you.

Should I come up with some nonsense psychological analysis of you because you ignored that I wrote this?

No, all I'm going to say is if this conversation carries on like this, I'm out. I'm here to use my brain. I don't care whether you agree with me or not. I don't care if you believe in your religion. You've chosen to engage me in this topic, and I will talk about this topic from my perspective. But I'm not playing childish games.

It's difficult for me to move on because we're still stuck on a previous post. I am happy to carry on this conversation because of our different faiths. Differences make the world go around.

>>The church used to say that the Sun revolved around the Earth, that the Earth was the center of the universe. They persecuted people for saying otherwise.

And they KNEW they were right, just as you say you KNOW you're right.

Funny huh?<<

You're still denying it. You were wrong about the church being the source. It was Ptolemy. If you were right, then you'd be the one LYAO.

>>And they KNEW they were right, just as you say you KNOW you're right.<<

You were also wrong about this statement. If the Bible said geocentrism, then I would've said it and have been wrong. Then science would NOT have backed up the Bible and you would've been LYAO. I would have egg on my face.

The Bible doesn't say heliocentrism, either. Was it the church? Needle. Needle. I think you said you knew who came up with it. Yet, I have to assume you didn't know about Ptolemy and what the general people believed.

>>I literally spoke about people in 200 BC knowing the Earth went around the Sun. It's right there in my reply to you.<<

Second, you mentioned 200 BC. Even today, we observe the sun going around the Earth, no? Are you sure they knew as science, then? It's not a big deal, but you don't say what the majority believed. You say these people KNEW.

>>The Bible doesn't say a lot of things that people claim it does say. Interpretation is a MASSIVE part of what makes Christians.<<

Furthermore, there may be statements to interpret in the Bible, but only to the point it's from the different versions. It's a word here and a word there. It doesn't affect the translation and meaning. Why do you think the different versions are provided? Interpretations are not a MASSIVE part of what makes Christians. Thus, you were wrong in thinking the interpretations make a difference in meaning.

Honestly, I'd love to move on but you have some stereotyped thinking to get over. Do you even understand how I KNOW evolution and evolution thinking are LIES AND WRONG? We haven't even moved on to it.

 

[rupol2000]

By the way, in the book of Genesis 2 versions of the creation of man. Before creating people from the earth, God creates them in the act of creation in 7 days. This suggests that the compilers of the scripture did not even bother reading these myths, all the same, the people were illiterate and the scriptures were inaccessible.

 

[surada]

This is really funny. Original sin comes from Sumeroacadian mythology, where the gods drank wine and made defective clay men because they were drunk. They did them in order not to work themselves. Some of this myth is directly reproduced in the biblical creation from soil.
But why should Arabs and Jews not believe their own writings?

Neat myth. I wonder why they don't believe in original sin .. maybe they believe man is made perfect in God's image.

 

[surada]

By the way, in the book of Genesis 2 versions of the creation of man. Before creating people from the earth, God creates them in the act of creation in 7 days. This suggests that the compilers of the scripture did not even bother reading these myths, all the same, the people were illiterate and the scriptures were inaccessible.

That has been explained to me.. Judah and Israel had different creation stories.

 

[rupol2000]

Neat myth. I wonder why they don't believe in original sin .. maybe they believe man is made perfect in God's image.

In fact, there is nothing to believe or not to believe. This is part of the scripture, which they consider the word of God, revelation.

It all comes down to interpretations of an undefined text. Perhaps this is due to the fact that Islam was unfolding in the territory where Zoroastrianism was previously, and they absorbed more from it. In Zoroastrianism, it seems that there was no such myth.

 

[rupol2000]

Here there is a confluence of concepts. From ancient mythology follows the depravity of the creation itself, in Theodicy it is justified precisely that God created man imperfect. Modern theologians try to interpret this in a different way: as a violation of the prohibition and therefore the eternal guilt of mankind before God. This concept is even weaker, because it focuses on the malice of God himself, who hides good and evil from man.
If a person does not know good and evil, he cannot adhere to good
Consequently, the Abrahamic god did not want good, and did not want people to follow good, and moreover, prevented this.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's difficult for me to move on because we're still stuck on a previous post. I am happy to carry on this conversation because of our different faiths. Differences make the world go around.

>>The church used to say that the Sun revolved around the Earth, that the Earth was the center of the universe. They persecuted people for saying otherwise.

And they KNEW they were right, just as you say you KNOW you're right.

Funny huh?<<

You're still denying it. You were wrong about the church being the source. It was Ptolemy. If you were right, then you'd be the one LYAO.

>>And they KNEW they were right, just as you say you KNOW you're right.<<

You were also wrong about this statement. If the Bible said geocentrism, then I would've said it and have been wrong. Then science would NOT have backed up the Bible and you would've been LYAO. I would have egg on my face.

The Bible doesn't say heliocentrism, either. Was it the church? Needle. Needle. I think you said you knew who came up with it. Yet, I have to assume you didn't know about Ptolemy and what the general people believed.

>>I literally spoke about people in 200 BC knowing the Earth went around the Sun. It's right there in my reply to you.<<

Second, you mentioned 200 BC. Even today, we observe the sun going around the Earth, no? Are you sure they knew as science, then? It's not a big deal, but you don't say what the majority believed. You say these people KNEW.

>>The Bible doesn't say a lot of things that people claim it does say. Interpretation is a MASSIVE part of what makes Christians.<<

Furthermore, there may be statements to interpret in the Bible, but only to the point it's from the different versions. It's a word here and a word there. It doesn't affect the translation and meaning. Why do you think the different versions are provided? Interpretations are not a MASSIVE part of what makes Christians. Thus, you were wrong in thinking the interpretations make a difference in meaning.

Honestly, I'd love to move on but you have some stereotyped thinking to get over. Do you even understand how I KNOW evolution and evolution thinking are LIES AND WRONG? We haven't even moved on to it.

It doesn't matter who the source of geocentric-ism was. The church pounded on people who said otherwise.

He was sent to the Roman Inquisition, a Catholic Church body for trying to "reinterpret the Bible".
You say Ptolemy is important, but you haven't made you case for it.

No, the Bible doesn't say the Earth went around the Sun, nor the Sun went around the Earth. Hence why I brought up the FACT that the Bible (written, supposedly by God) only mentions stars and planets.

If the Bible says neither, I then go look at what the Bible does say.

We can go over heliocentrism and geocentrism all we like, but if I can show my point without getting stuck on this, then why not?

Do I observe the Sun going around the Earth? No.

But if we're going to go along this line, then perhaps the Sun goes around ME. It seems to rise every day where I am, and set every day where I am. So, I'll assume it's all about me, therefore, I must be GOD.

Well, if the Bible has different versions, they can't all be from God, and I've seen different versions with different meanings, take the parts supposedly about gay people. Some modern Bibles love to use words like "homosexuals".

 

[rupol2000]

As for the history of the Bible, it is rather short. After all, we are not talking about any ancient texts, with similar plots, but about canonized manuscripts. Almost all biblical myths have parallels in other religions, this does not mean that the history of the Bible originates from there. The manuscripts of the canonized Bible date back to about the 7-10th century, there is no doubt that this is due to the spread of the orthodox Christianity by the Franks in Europe, it was at the same time and the compilers of the Bible were either them or the Goths who joined them.

 

[rupol2000]

Around the same time or a little earlier, the symbol of the crucifixion appeared in Europe, but it apparently has no direct relation to orthodoxy, it was simply later incorporated. Most likely it was originally the plot of the execution of Artaxerxes Bessus, brought by the Huns from Bactria.
Early Christian icons depict the Eucharist not with a crucifix, but with a baby

 

[rupol2000]

Well, if the Bible has different versions, they can't all be from God, and I've seen different versions with different meanings, take the parts supposedly about gay people. Some modern Bibles love to use words like "homosexuals"

In fact, in the Bible, the strict prohibition on homosexuality applies only to the Levites. As for the myth of Sodom and Gommore, the point is not in sodomy, but in the fact that the angels are defiled. If they were female it wouldn't change anything.
There is also something about the condemnation of homosexuality in general, but the homophobicity of the Bible is greatly exaggerated.

 

[rupol2000]

The version of the origin of the crucifixion symbol from execution of Bess explains problem of the difference between the images of crucifixes, they are not only on the cross, but also on the pillar. Bess first hung on a pillar, and then he was crucified in the truest sense of the word. In Slavic languages, the word crucifixion means grammatically tearing the flesh and not just hanging. This is exactly what was called the execution on the cross. There was no point in making crosses just to hang on them, they slowly ripped open the flesh.
In early icon painting and sculpture there are such images

 

[rupol2000]

In Slavic, the word crucifixion is about the same as tearing, based on its grammatical form, literally "stretch to the sides", the English form is different, it simply means fixation.
And this grammatically does not contain the concept of a cross at all, the cross is only a means, the essence is not in the cross. You could just bend two trees and tie the body to them, and it is not necessary to cross them, the main thing is that it tore the flesh

 

[surada]

In fact, in the Bible, the strict prohibition on homosexuality applies only to the Levites. As for the myth of Sodom and Gommore, the point is not in sodomy, but in the fact that the angels are defiled. If they were female it wouldn't change anything.
There is also something about the condemnation of homosexuality in general, but the homophobicity of the Bible is greatly exaggerated.

Can you explain this further? "In fact, in the Bible, the strict prohibition on homosexuality applies only to the Levites."

I agree about the myth of Sodom and Gomorrah.. only I thought it was about an affluent people being inhospitable to travelers.

 

[rupol2000]

Can you explain this further? "In fact, in the Bible, the strict prohibition on homosexuality applies only to the Levites."

As far as I remember, the execution for sodomy "Yahweh" through Moses appointed in the book "Levite" This code concerned either only the Levites, or only the priestly estate, possibly also the Cohens, and not the whole people. In Talmudism, this book is called the priestly codex.

 

[surada]

As far as I remember, the execution for sodomy "Yahweh" through Moses appointed in the book "Levite" This code concerned either only the Levites, or only the priestly estate, possibly also the Cohens, and not the whole people. In Talmudism, this book is called the priestly codex.

I never heard of the priestly codex either.

 

[rupol2000]

I never heard of the priestly codex either.

something like "torat kohanim"

 

[Meriweather]

By the way, in the book of Genesis 2 versions of the creation of man. Before creating people from the earth, God creates them in the act of creation in 7 days. This suggests that the compilers of the scripture did not even bother reading these myths, all the same, the people were illiterate and the scriptures were inaccessible.

I have also read the reason for the two versions is that one focuses on creation of the spirit and one on physical creation.