My wife Rose and I were discussing her research concerning the Christian concept of marriage as between one man and one women. Most Christians try to support their opinion by citing Christ’s reference to Adam and Eve becoming “one flesh” (Matt 19:5). Recalling the high frequency of divinely sanctioned polygamy in the Old Testament, which contradicts the Christian position, Rose wondered if there were any Old Testament verses that spoke of being “one flesh” as in Genesis 3. We found none. This sparked our curiosity, so we searched for any reference to Adam and Eve. We found no reference to Eve, and only two references to Adam; one in a genealogy (1 Chronicles 1:1) and a tangential mention in Job 31:33. This seemed very strange. How could it be that the entire Old Testament was missing references to Adam and Eve and the events in the Garden? So we looked to see if there was any mention of the Tree of Knowledge. We found none. So we looked for references to the flood of Noah, and found almost nothing. Noah is mentioned in only two passages of the Old Testament outside of Genesis and they are both very late (Isaiah 54:9, Ezekiel 14:14,20). So we looked for the tower of Babel and found nothing.
The picture then came into focus. The entire Old Testament is almost entirely bereft of any reference to the ten chapters of Genesis 2-11. These are the “mythological” chapters that tell of the garden of Eden, a woman made from a rib, a talking snake, magical trees, the flood of Noah, the rainbow covenant, and the tower of Babel. Their character is very different from the rest of Genesis, including its first chapter, and almost none of the authors of the Old Testament show any awareness of that material at all.
So then we wondered why, if the mythological chapters were missing from the Old Testament, they would be so prominent in the New. So we looked at the Apocrypha, the literature written between the closing of the Old Testament and the writing of the New. And we found many references to the content of the mythological chapters. Indeed, we found a whole retelling of the missing material in 4 Esdras:
And similar material in Wisdom of Sirach:
So now the conclusion seemed obvious. The material from the mythological chapters of Genesis is missing in the Old Testament because it was not widely read, if it existed at all, at the time those books were written. It is found in abundance in the Apocrypha because it had become popular by that time. Therefore, it seems likely that the material was probably inserted into Genesis after the rest of the Old Testament had already been written and before the composition of the Apocrypha.
This is an amazing discovery. I have studied the Bible for over two decades and never noticed the missing mythological chapters of Genesis. I have no idea how I could have overlooked something so obvious. I would be very interested to know what others think about this.
Impact on the Study of the New Testament:
This impacts the study of the New Testament because unlike the Old Testament, it relies strongly on the mythological chapters of Genesis. Paul based his gospel on Christ’s rectification of Adam’s sin:
Likewise, Paul specifically spoke of Eve and the Serpent – something that is mentioned nowhere in the Old Testament other than Genesis 3:
And the Gospels record Christ speaking of the flood of Noah which is mentioned tangentially but twice in the Old Testament:
And the author of Hebrews mentions it:
And in Peter’s letters:
Peter’s reference to the “angels that sinned” brings us to yet another mystery – the source of the demonology that is taken for granted throughout the New Testament as if it were common knowledge. Jude also made reference to the obscure mythology of Genesis 6 which was understood as fallen angels having sex with women to produce “giants” –
Jude was, of course, drawing from the apocryphal book of Enoch which contains an elaborate demonological explanation of Genesis 6. Things like this have always bothered me because the Bible gives no indication where this “knowledge” came from and it is clearly drawn from extra-biblical sources. The Old Testament says almost nothing about any “Satan” and “fallen angels” but it is frequent in the New … and in the Apocrypha which is a primary source of the teachings of the New Testament.
Impact on the question of the Biblical Canon:
This then impacts the question of the canon. Protestants struggle mightily to find a foundation for their doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture alone) because the doctrine cannot be established “from the Bible alone.” It is therefore self-contradictory. The Bible does not list which books it should contain, so they must rely upon tradition rather than Scripture. They try evade this problem by asserting that the books of the Old Testament must pass certain tests. Even when I was a Christian this made little sense to me because I could see they were only making post-hoc arguments designed to imply their assumed conclusion. And besides, their “tests” could never establish the exact canon they accepted, since some books, like Esther, are not referenced in the NT at all.
My project now is to review the Apocrypha to see how strongly the NT depends upon it. I would very much appreciate any references to research already done in this area. I would be particularly interested in any research that discusses the fact that the missing references to the mythological chapters of Genesis.
God gave concessions, at times, knowing the hardness of fallen man’s heart (such as the divorce certificate) – knowing that, in the future, He would get what He wanted whenever He redeemed man: “He winked at the sins gone by”.
It wasn’t God’s will, but God in His mercy conceded to certain things while outright refusing to allow others.
Hi Daniel,
The idea that God gave “concessions” to human failings in his law is a rather popular explanation for many of its many shortcomings, but I don’t see how it applies to this article. My point in this article was that there appears to be evidence that the “mythological chapters” of Genesis 2 – 11 were added to the canon very late because they are not referenced anywhere else in the Old Testament.
As for the idea of God giving “concessions” – that’s not a very good explanation of the moral problems in the law (which I discussed in my article The Inextricable Sexism of the Bible) because the Bible quite explicitly and repeatedly states that “the law of the Lord is perfect” (Psalm 19:7) and that “the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good” (Romans 7:12). That’s why it is so odd for fundamentalists, who are trying to defend the inerrancy of the Bible, to use such an argument – it contradicts the very thing they are trying to prove!
Richard
Just want to add my two cents…
The facts found in the book of Job cannot be ignored. Never mind that the book of Enoch and several other non-cannonical Scriptures do speak of a world/flood event as well as a creation “myth” story. There are several Rabbinical sources which must be studied to understand the true meanings behind the oldest events as described in Genesis.
“The wind blows where it wills…. So is everyone who is born of the (Sophia)Spirit.” Jesus the Christ
Hey there Mystykal,
So what do you think of the fact that there is almost no mention of the mythological chapters of Genesis 2-11? Doesn’t that seem a bit odd? How is it that the entire OT never mentions Eve and the serpent which are supposed to be the explanation for all the sin in the world?
As for the book of Job – I’m hesitant to think there are any “facts” recorded in it since it seems pretty clear that it was written as a poetic dialogue reflecting on the problem of evil in light of God’s justice. The fact that James mentions the “patience of Job” does not imply the historicity of the book since I could just as well speak of the “perplexity of Hamlet” and everyone would know that I was speaking of a literary rather than a literal figure.
Great chatting,
Richard
Hi Richard,
Just spent a fascinating hour reading your bible wheel book, and then stumbled into this “where’s Adam”. A few points:
In regards to an all-male trinity: In Hebrew the word for spirit (ruach) is feminine. In Aramaic also the word is feminine. Also I think when we are made “one in the flesh” we become as a unity more like God as we learn to love and minister to each other in spite of flaws and weaknesses.
In regards to no mention of Adam/Eve elsewhere in the OT: You are making an argument from silence – it sounds suspiciously like how you accuse others of making post-hoc arguments designed to imply their assumed conclusion. It is also possible that none of the other authors felt the need to mention Adam and Eve. Certainly they would have no necessary place in books like Kings or Chronicles, and divinely inspired books of the prophets, who spoke only what God told them to speak.
In regards to Job: Job is mentioned in Ez 14:4, along with Noah, Daniel, as being righteous “even though these three me, Noah, Daniel, and Job were in its midst, by their own rightousness they could only save themselves”.
I read about your change of heart away from the faith, and I commend you for continuing dialog with believers and leaving the bible wheel work up for others to benefit from. You mention above that your next project is to study how valid books of the canon of scripture are (such as Esther). I have the sense, reading your arguments against morality as evidence of God’s existence, that you are on the hunt for reasons NOT to believe in God; because there are some uncomfortable issues either way, Richard – for example, the “male” thing, which disturbs quite a few people.
But I think we need to be careful in applying our own moral sense and judging God by it – remember, we are just specks of dust in this big universe. I wonder if you hunted as hard for evidence to believe in God if you wouldn’t find that, as much as you are hunting for and finding reasons to disbelieve in Him.
I think God maintains a balance, you can find evidence either way –
I have my own humble effort in that regard, I’d be interested to get your feedback – I am searching out evidence that is somewhat non-traditional -. link to evidence to consider.
Thanks for the bible wheel book. Would it be okay to add a screenshot to my site, explaining the wheel and linking back to the wheel book?
Hi Brad,
Thanks for the very thoughtful post. I will answer in a few hours. Right now I’m getting ready to watch the debate between William Lane Craig and philosopher Alex Rosenberg. It’s being streamed free over the internet. It starts in a few minutes. Here’s a link:
Debate
All the best,
Richard
BTW – the link you gave to your site http://www.evidencetoconsider.com doesn’t work for me.
Hey there Brad,
I just finished watching the debate. It was very interesting. You can watch it on Biola’s site.
Yes, the words for spirit are feminine gender, but that doesn’t say anything about all-male Trinity, unless you think that speaking of my spirit would imply that I have female attributes.
God is referenced exclusively as male (pronoun “he”) and a Trinity of males (the Holy Spirit is traditionally referred to as “he” in Christian theology). This reinforces the male bias of the Bible which is seen throughout.
That is not an “argument from silence.” It is an observation that has implications. The fact that the entire body of OT authors were apparently ignorant of the mythological chapters strongly suggests that they didn’t know about them.
Yes, that is one of the very rare tangential references that I noted in my article.
Your sense is inaccurate. The moral argument for God is fundamentally fallacious. I would not believe it even if I were still a Christian.
I have no need to look for reasons NOT to believe in God. It seems you forget where I am coming from. I was very happy to believe in God for over fifteen years. I was driven out of the faith by reasons that I was NOT looking for. By reasons that were true, and which no Christian can answer. And worse, the answers they make up show that they are not interested in truth but rather in defending their beliefs just like any other false religion.
I don’t need to look for more reasons not to believe. I have more than enough. I am interested in truth, which is why I present evidence supporting the Bible too.
We have nothing but “our own moral sense.” Would you tell a Muslim not to judge the Koran? Or a Mormon not to judge their book? If no one can trust their own judgment, then how could they get free from their false religions?
The link works now. I’m glad you are interested in feedback. I’m the same way. And on that note, I visited your site a few weeks ago and left a comment in that other thread where I explained your error about Psalm 118:8 being the “middle verse” of the Bible. Here’s what I wrote:
It would be great if you were inclined to review my criticism of Craig’s argument.
Yes you may use any of the graphics or other info from my site, the only stipulation being that you give a link to the page where you found it.
Great chatting!
Richard
Hi Richard,
Thanks for your comments.
That is not an “argument from silence.” It is an observation that has implications. The fact that the entire body of OT authors were apparently ignorant of the mythological chapters strongly suggests that they didn’t know about them.
The “fact” that they were apparently ignorant of the mythological chapters indicates your bias from the start, so of course it will “strongly suggest” that they didn’t know about them, because that is your presupposition. My perspective is that they had no reason to mention them if they were prophets, since prophets only wrote what God told them to write – or, in the case of the books of history, books like Kings only covered the history of their own time.
This is a little like saying, because every rule of the Torah is not listed in the New Testament, the law has passed away. It’s making gross assumptions based on silence.
I just looked at your blog and found this page that says Psalm 118:8 is the middle verse of the Bible. Unfortunately, that’s not true. It’s an internet rumor that’s been floating around for at least ten years. The Bible has 31,102 verses. There is no “middle verse” because the number is even. But there are two middle verses numbered 15551 and 15552. They are the first two verses of Psalm 103:
Thank you for pointing that out – I had not bothered to count them myself. I have removed that post from my site.
I was driven out of the faith by reasons that I was NOT looking for. By reasons that were true, and which no Christian can answer. And worse, the answers they make up show that they are not interested in truth but rather in defending their beliefs just like any other false religion.
What were your reasons, if I may ask? Can you post a link? I don’t expect to be able to convince you of anything, but I will make this point – elsewhere, you mention that you and your wife have lost your faith in God, but kept your faith in the biblewheel. But, the biblewheel itself speaks of God’s perfection; who could have planned it out in such symmetry? Only God can make the numbers and meanings of so many books tie together so well. The biblewheel can only point to God; that’s the personal evidence God has given you to get you through this time of doubt – perhaps.
Thanks for permission on the bible wheel.
Good morning Brad,
You wrote:
If you are going to assert that I am biased, you need to state what that bias is and how it caused me to come to a false conclusion. As it stands, you have not said anything that helps me see and correct my supposed error.
The explanation you give is not convincing because we are talking about the entire body of OT literature. It makes no sense to say that all those authors would ignore the most fundamental events in the mythological chapters, especially in light of the prominent role they play in the NT. If you read my article again, you will see I consistently apply the same logic. For example, I concluded that Genesis 1 was known to the other authors because it plays a prominent role in the Fourth Commandment as formulated in Exodus 20 as well as Deutero-Isaiah. Thus, I conclude that the authors did have knowledge of that chapter because they demonstrated it. As you can see, my logic is consistent. It is not biased.
It is important to note that I did not say that this proves they did not know about those chapters, only that it is a bit of a mystery and it suggests they did not know of them, or if they did, they did not think of them as Scripture.
It’s nothing like that at all. To say that the law passed away would be to make an extravagant extrapolation not implied by the facts.
Glad to be of help.
You should expect to be able to convince me of anything that is demonstrably true.
I do not have “faith” in the Bible Wheel. From the beginning, the Bible Wheel was based facts, and those facts have not changed because facts do not depend on “faith.”
I don’t know how the Bible Wheel came to be. The idea that it was designed by God has problems because it is not nearly as perfect as it could have been. But on the other hand, it does not seem that the patterns can be explained by chance or deliberate human design. So it remains a mystery. And I’m fine with that. Life is full of mysteries.
Here’s the real problem. I never could have discovered the Bible Wheel if I did not hold to my intellectual integrity. Yet the same integrity forces me to reject the utterly absurd dogma that the Bible is the “inerrant and infallible Word of God.” The sad fact is that Christianity tends to corrupt both the minds and the morals of believers by forcing them to make up excuses for the problems in the Bible. Take a look at my article The Art of Rationalization: A Case Study of Christian Apologist Rich Deem to see how his devotion to falsehood destroyed his mind.
Here are three posts that should help you understand where I am coming from and why:
Why I Quit Christianity
Why I became a Christian
2013 New Year Reflections: How Integrity led me into and drove me out of Evangelical Christianity
You are welcome. Please let me know when you post it on your site.
All the best,
Richard
Hi Richard!
Wow! I am so excited to have found your site and I am from your neck of the woods – in more ways than one. Let me say that if you ignore large amounts of ancient data whenever you choose then I agrree with your conclusions. The Dead Sea scrolls contain the entire book of Genesis as well. So that it gives us the idea that the facts as laid out in the book of beginnings is accurate in a historical sense. Furthermore, if you step away from the first chapter of Genesis and call the whole book a myth – then the 72 names for GOD and all the attributes of GOD will be ignored and the GOD model and how we understand Spirit also changes.
As to your idea that the Spirit is male in the Bible – that is only the interpretation of the translators in English and any other language other than Hebrew/Aramaic. The idea that since the modern Christian sophists got the gender question wrong for reasons of self-adulation etc. does not change the facts as laid down in the Bible of the Jews. Jesus the Christ said to the women at the well, “Salvation is of the Jews.” And the idea that Jesus was in fact IHVH is very much the issue in understanding Spiritual truth. The idea that you have a Spirit – is a fallacy imbedded in Greek mythology. The Bible verses as verses did not exist until the late 1500’s. That is a fact. I do find it interesting that Psalms 46 in the KJV is filled with accrostics which clearly the English translators placed there. (46 forward = Shake // 46 backwards = Spear) to honor his Birthday!
As to the book of Job I understand it has some difficult passages and the whole book is questionsable. But then there is the book of Jude. And the book of Enoch. And the writings in the Zohar. I think that the model as laid out in the Bible is what matters. The Bible is a book of magic… And as such should be studied to that end.
Faith is at the core of all belief. We must establish the facts based on a solid foundation. “Without faith it is impossible to please God.”
I hope we can get together in person some day.
Namaste!
Mystykal
your errors are revealed in not UNDERSTANDING the process of God’s – GRACE = provision, towards you both, His – Counciler ,being the Holy Spirit is for to reveal spiritual things to spirit.
to keep it simple , if you both are not LED by or [ tought by ] the SPIRIT, – Your minds are & WILL REMAIN vailed to the TRUTH about any & ALL THINGS to do with GOD your Maker.
Problem; = EARTHLY, SOULISH, = CARNAL MINDS. = untought !
PLEASE REFER to 2 TIM 3:16 + include the H/S He never fails…
Good morning 100fold,
Merely asserting that I do not UNDERSTAND does not help me understand or correct any of the errors you think I have. You need to specify what I wrote that was wrong, and then explain why.
You say that I need to be LED by the SPIRIT. What does that really mean? I’ve seen thousands of Christians who claim to be “led by the Spirit” but in reality they are being led by their own imagination fed by ridiculous dogmas taught by clown “apostles.” I would be a fool to follow in their footsteps. So what are you saying I should do?
You say that God’s GRACE provides – but that is not true. For example, take 1000 “spirit-filled” Christians and 1000 atheists and give them all the plague. Give the atheists antibiotics and let the Christians pray. Who will live? Who will die? Case closed.
There is a great irony here. The fundamental teaching of Christianity is that God is TRUSTWORTHY whereas the truth is that God cannot be TRUSTED to do anything at all for anyone in this life. You know this is true. Sure, you can pray and HOPE all you want, but you can’t actually TRUST that God will provide anything. This is an example of how the words Christians say don’t actually have any meaning. Why then should anyone believe them?
Good morning Mystikal,
I see no basis for your suggestion that I “ignore large amounts of ancient data whenever you choose.” I accept all evidence. If I actually ignore something, I trust you will show me what.
Case in point: It appears that your assertion that the “entire book of Genesis” was found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls is not true. According to The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English, there are many fragments of Genesis, but “they are rather fragmentary, and preserve only thirty two chapters among their crumbs.”
Furthermore, the book says that “the Bible can now be seen in its final stages of development in the latter centuries BCE and even the first century CE. By the beginning of the second century CE, various historical factors had given rise to a final text form that has been passsed down virtually unchanged to this day.” Note the implication – the Bible did not arrive at the form we know until the first century! What were its earlier forms? The fact that there are almost no references to the “mythological chapters” of Genesis 2-11 suggests that those chapters did not exist, or at least did not function as “scripture” until very late.
I see no evidence supporting your assertion that “the facts as laid out in the book of beginnings is accurate in a historical sense.” There is no historical evidence of any kind supporting the stories in Genesis as far as I know. If you have some historical evidence, please share it.
First, to call a myth a myth does not mean that it was not how ancient people communicated their vision of truth. A poem is not “true” historically, but it may contain a high vision of truth. The idea that the book must be “historical” is a modern prejudice not shared by the ancients.
Second, the 72 names come from three consecutive Exodus 14:19-21 which each contain 72 letters. It’s called the Shem Ha Mephorash. Our understanding of Genesis has nothing to do with “ignoring” that passage.
Third, what is the “God model”?
When you say that the “Christian sophists” got the gender wrong, are you saying that we should refer to the God of the Bible as “she”? If so, then you have invented your own religion.
I am confused by your statement that it “is a fallacy imbedded in Greek mythology” to believe a person has a “spirit.” How then do you understand the many passages that speak of man’s spirit? E.g. “For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?” (1 Cor 2:11)
I get the impression you are talking about the concept of the indestructible soul – that indeed was a concept imported from Greek philosophy.
It is indeed a strange coincidence that that verse in the KJV has “skake” and “spear” located in those positions. But the idea that they were deliberately put their by humans to honor Shakespeare is self-evidently false because they already existed in almost the same positions in the Geneva Bible which was published in 1560, four years before Shakespeare was born. I explain this in this post on my forum.
It is true that the Bible is the “magical textbook” of the Western esoteric tradition.
Your comment makes me think of Ecclesiastes 12:12 “Of making many books there is no end, and much study is wearisome to the flesh.”
Your comment seems self-contradictory. “Faith” in the sense used in that verse is the opposite of a “facts based on a solid foundation.”
I think that would be great!
Namaste,
Richard
Hi Richard:
Just now a thougtht came to me…
You said:
There is a great irony here. The fundamental teaching of Christianity is that God is TRUSTWORTHY whereas the truth is that God cannot be TRUSTED to do anything at all for anyone in this life. You know this is true. Sure, you can pray and HOPE all you want, but you can’t actually TRUST that God will provide anything. This is an example of how the words Christians say don’t actually have any meaning. Why then should anyone believe them?
——-=========
You lump ALL Christians together as if they all think the same. You also disregard the possibility that the Bible might have other aims than say make all the world Christian – as Christians of a certain leaning believe and teach.
So what if you experienced a ‘unexplainable event” after praying AND then doing somthing about that prayer? In other words prayers are not answered for many reasons. But answered prayers require a certain response from the person praying. It’s called “faith”. But a different type of faith than what you call faith. In other words – your inability to have the right kind of faith limits your prayers’ effect.
Just like a two part system. The results can only come when the real “faith” is “activated” through specific actions done on the part of the praying individual.
I would have to say that 99% of all the people you refer to as “Christians” are anything but!
Wolves in sheep clothing are still wolves. Do not throw out the baby with the bath water!
Namaste
Mystykal
I type the way I want, not interested in perfection.With that being said…. You asked about research, I have some info Im willing to share. I cant answer your questions but…. I can lead you in a direction or more?Google these… Apocalypse of Adam,. Book of Enoch,Infancy Gospel of Thomas( aka heresy, but Im not so sure), Epistles of Eusebius<<thats spelled wrong. …. Anyway, Enoch wrote himself. No scribe. Adam +10 generations=Noah. Enoch was Noah's great grandfather. Enoch wrote alot about Angels, .God wanted to rid the world of Nephilim( giants). demiGod (angels)+human=nephilim.. Thus Jesus, (maybe)Sansom and (definately)Abraham and Daniel were demiGods. (See Encyclopedia of Ancient Deities vol1 by Coulter and Turner @2000 for Abraham/Daniel). Sorcery and magik were prevalent before the flood. The flood was to eradicate the abomination( nephilim) . After you read Enoch, you will understand Azazel and 200 soldier Angels who are still here( after the flood) . As a matter of fact in this book "Encyclopedia of Judaica" ( @2007,2nd edition vol5) it explains the 60 demon amulet and protections from Asmodeus. Not wanting to forget the Lillith bowl buried upsidedown and never sleep in an empty home. Lil has 8 days to kill a newborn boy, 20 for the girls.( Sarah had 7 husbands killed by angels and Abram her 8th hubby)
There's too much info for me to type….
Psalm 91 is written to protect against harmful visitations( some demons/fallen ones have certain time frames they are most powerful, like noon or 6pm). Actually read the Torah. So far the KJVw/Apocrypha is closest thing to the Torah. I grab alot of books from the public library. Dont start buying books when the internet or free library is available.Careful with internet and Wikki, alot of seemingly innocent info is pointed to promote or disgrace.Facts w/o opinionated spin are more difficult to obtain.So are english translations.
look into Isaiah14:12 star of Dawn is Lucifer. Satan is someone else.Lucifer and Satan are 2 different {people}.Jerome in 4th century wrote Vulgate, this is where Satan and Lucifer were wrongly entertwined.Check into Lamentations. it describes how God will forgive house of Jacob. Isaiah 14 and Lamentations are referring to same thing. The ark, tabernacle and holy of holies, all of it( whole sanctuary) destroyed by God. << Lamentations( Torah).
God made angels, djinn and humans to have thought. ( Djinn? well, you cant omit info, keeping an open mind isnt always easy). Adam born of clay, Djinn born of smokeless fire. God wanted both to kneel before Adam. Angels did. Djinn said No, why bow to clayman? … Another thing is Satan and Michael are twins( encyclopedia of ancient deities). Isaiah 13:17 rise medes against you….. Medea was sorceress who killed her own children so she does not have interest in gold and does not spare children. in Euseubus( I still cant spell that right ) they persecuted wizards/sorcerers. Dont know how to kill a sorcerer, guess they werent successful?
Anyway, hope this helps some. Im not a scholar nor do I try to be.
I’m familiar with all that ancient mythology based on the Bible. Are you suggesting it is actually true?
It fits well with the thesis of my article. The stories of Adam, Eve, the Serpent, the Flood, and all the stuff in the mythological chapters of Genesis 2-11 are almost entirely missing from the OT but are frequently referenced in the NT and the apocrypha of both the OT and NT. This strongly suggests that it was added to the canon very late.
As for your reference to Isaiah 14 and Lucifer – I agree that’s nothing but a bad translation. There is no “fallen angel” named “Lucifer” mentioned anywhere in the authentic Bible. That’s one of the most common errors in Christendom. I explain the details here. And I agree that Lamentations makes it perfectly clear that Yahweh was responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem. He merely used the Babylonians to accomplish it.
I don’t see any reason anyone should believe that there really are demons and/or fallen angels. That’s just ancient superstition based on ignorance and fear.
Hi Richard:
“I don’t see any reason anyone should believe that there really are demons and/or fallen angels. That’s just ancient superstition based on ignorance and fear.”
=======
“The greatest trick the Devil ever played is making people think that he does not exist.”
“The Devil comesth, and finds nothing in me.” Jesus
“And a third of the seraphim fell from heaven to the earth. And the Dragon was wroth…That old serpent called Satan…” Revelations
I could go on but you get my point. My question is what do you think spirits are? What did the witch of Endor see? Are Sprirt Mediums ALL quacks? What about Haiti? Voodoo? Black Majick? Do you really think it is all just imagined?
Namaste
Mystykal
Hey there Mystykal,
One of the most obviously primitive superstitions of the Bible is that demons are responsible for illness. For example:
Matthew 4:24 Then His fame went throughout all Syria; and they brought to Him all sick people who were afflicted with various diseases and torments, and those who were demon-possessed, epileptics, and paralytics; and He healed them.
We are living in the 21st century. We “cast out demons” with pills these days. I see no reason to think demons exist or are responsible for disease.
But on the other hand, it seems possible that there are quasi-intelligent “vortices” in the mind (whether the personal mind or the Cosmic Mind) that could dominate a mind and mimic what was thought of as a “demon.” There could be a kind of feedback loop that reinforces the effect. It could be purely psychological, or perhaps such vortices have some kind of independent existence. This doesn’t seem very important since the outcome would be the same in either case. Of course, all of this is very speculative.
Things like Voodoo, Black Magick, the Secret, and other “mind power” ideas seem possible but they are not proven so I don’t have any firm conviction about them. I try to keep an open mind about such things. On the one hand, I tend towards Idealism where Mind is the foundation of Reality, while on the other hand I tend to respect the fact that most of reality is well accounted for in terms of natural science.
All the best,
Richard
Hi Richard:
Thanks for the perspective… I guess since you state that your views on the subject of demons and such are “very speculative”, I will have to let sleeping dogs lie, as they say. As someone who grew up outside of the “civilized” world, I would have to say that my personal experiences then and now have been far too real to think that real time events are mere figments of my imagination. Of course since I’ve never met you in person either – maybe you are just some computer program gone fishing! LOL
I do appreciate your perspective however, as it is always refreshing to talk to someone who thinks for themselves instead of being one of the perverbial “sheep” led astray by “every wind of doctrine.”
My thoughts and meditations are for you and your lovely wife, as I know it can get lonely at the top!
Namaste,
Mystykal
Hey there Mystykal,
I just refrain from having opinions about things I don’t really know. I can’t say anything about the experiences you had “outside the civilized world” but I do know that primitive cultures are full of superstitions that are easily shown to be such. And it evokes the question of why “demon phenomena” should restrict their activity to places where it just so happens that people are ignorant of science. It’s like all the miracles in the Bible. Is it just a coincidence that we don’t “see” them any more now that we have video cameras? I think it more likely that they never really happened, but were reported by very gullible, ignorant, and superstitious people. But again, I don’t mean to invalidate your personal experience. I just just have not seen any evidence I find convincing.
Great chatting!
Richard
PS: Thanks for your warm thoughts and meditations.
Hi Richard:
So your comments bring up an interesting question for me. That is; Do you think that the supernatural acts attributed to Jesus are ALL fake? What about Peter walking on the Lake? What about the multiplying of the loaves and fishes? What about raising Lazarus from the DEAD after three days? I understand those stories have hidden numerological significance as well. However, if all the stories are fake is Jesus fake as well? Do you think that Jesus really lived on earth? Or do you think that someone made him up and styled him after some cult figure of the day?
Always nice to hear from you, my friend!
Namaste,
Mystykal
Hi, Richard. The “tests” against apocrypha have always seemed logical to me.
1. The Christians rejected the same items as intertestamental apocrypha as the Jews already had.
2. The apocrypha have statements like, “This is the wisdom of my grandfather,” and the Bible says thousands of times “The word of God/the Lord,” – to my knowledge not one apocryphal document bears this same stamp anywhere.
3. The apocrypha clearly contradict scripture.
4. The apocrypha are more brutal and graphic in their descriptions of rape and abuse and etc. than the scriptures, which often use euphemisms like “know the concubine”.
Thanks!
Hi Matt,
Let’s double check those tests.
1) Who are these “Christians” you are talking about? Have you never heard of the Catholic Church? That was pretty much the only church until the split with the Greeks in the 11th century. And after the split, the mainstream body of Christians both east and west include the apocrypha in their Bibles. This didn’t change until the Protestant Reformation, and even then the 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha. It wasn’t removed until the year 1826 IIRC.
2) The book of Esther never mentions God. The Song of Solomon is erotic literature. You are special pleading. That’s a fallacy.
3) Scripture clearly contradicts Scripture. Again, special pleading.
4) Again, special pleading. There’s plenty of horror in the canonical books. Read Numbers 31 where everyone was brutally slaughtered (men, women, little babies) except 32,000 virgins who were distributed between the people and the soldiers that killed every person they ever loved.
I have studied this subject for years, and have never seen any evidence, other than the Bible Wheel, that should convince a rational skeptic one way or the other about the content of the canon.
But thanks for your comments! I hope the conversation continues.
Richard
Hey there Mystykal,
I just noticed I never answered these questions of yours.
I wouldn’t say that the supernatural acts are “fake” so much as “mythological.” Folks who write religious literature have been known to exaggerate things slightly.
But what do I really think? I think that they are probably mostly, if not all, mythology. But I’m open to the idea that Jesus could have been some sort of “magic man” who could do amazing things. I just have no reason to believe the books that his followers wrote many decades after his death (if he even existed).
Peter walking on the lake? I do not believe that happened. The idea of “walking on water” doesnt’ even make any sense if taken literally. Could you imagine walking on a surface that is constantly shifting like water waves? Impossible.
Multiplying the loaves, Lazarus? Probably mythology. Of course, being mythological doesn’t mean they are meaningless! Quite the opposite. That’s how the Bible communicates meaning! Through myth – Joseph Campbell style.
Sorry for being so late on answering this one. I really enjoy talking with you.
Shine on!
Richard
Hi, Richard.
There were godly men of letters who communicated nearly the entire NT before the close of the second century, right? There were select instances of apocryphal quotes that abutted that… we can reconstruct the canonical NT from their letters alone. And some other godly men met soon after Constantine’s abominations began to affirm canon.
The book of Esther doesn’t contain encoded acrostics and other evidences of God’s handiwork? Really? I’m sure you have five posts of this at your old site.
It is special pleading if the scripture contains contradictions. My premise is different. No contradictions in context, historical and original language. Also, I’m thinking of graphic details shared, where as the scriptures are sparing on the gory details whether it be Christ being slaughtered or the horrors of war.
The final appeal I’d make for the apocrypha deserving their name–a name given by those churches that include them that means “false writings” (!) is they lack all the wonderful codes you researched for many years.
Thanks!
Hey there Matt,
I appreciate your comments. I’ve long heard that most of the NT could be reconstructed from the writings of the early fathers. I’ve never seen any proof of that but it doesn’t sound unreasonable. But they also quoted from apocryphal books so that could not be used to establish the canon. That’s why the debate has never been settled after many centuries. Catholics and Protestants will each form arguments for their respective canons and nothing will changed their minds because their choices are not based on evidence but rather on dogma they have been taught.
What do you mean when you say it would be “special pleading if the Scripture contains contradictions”?
I do not see how the “codes” in Esther could be used to prove anything because such things could be found in any book. There is no objective test for such “codes.” You say they are not found in the apocrypha. How do you know that? Have you looked?
I think the Bible Wheel is the only code-like structure that would give suffient objective evidence in support of the Protestant canon to convince a rational skeptic. But maybe that’s because I discovered it and no one has ever been able to refute it. It still stands as far as I can tell. The Isaiah-Bible Correlation is another possibility, though I’m not sure that it would be sufficiently objective because it depends upon judging how well the themes of the books cohere with the corresponding chapters, and I’ve seen folks adamantly insist that Isaiah actually proves an alternate order of the books.
These questions still interest me, but I’ve never found anyone who would go the distance to test their validity. Bummer. It’s been nearly two decades.
Great chatting,
Richard
I meant, “It is special pleading on my part only IF the scripture contains contradictions.” I can’t specially plead for something that is inerrant and perfect. It’s the other side that is in error.
**There is no objective test for such “codes.” You say they are not found in the apocrypha. How do you know that? Have you looked?**
Of course. There are extraordinary codes in the 66 not in the apocrypha, besides the lovely wheel you built/rediscovered:
http://www.palmoni.net/gematria.htm
http://www.differentspirit.org/evidence/numerics.php
This is why Panin sent 40,000 pages of notes to the UN claiming the Bible was the Word of God, right?
Hey three Matt,
As explained in my previous post, the idea that the Bible is “inerrant and perfect” means that God intended it to look like it has many irreconcilable contradictions (since that is how it looks). But why would God design his book with so many contradictions (whether apparent or real matters not) if he wanted us to believe that it was “inerrant and perfect”? Is it not much more likely that he designed it that way to PREVENT any rational believer from falsely asserting that it was “inerrant and perfect”? This would enable him to reveal his word without forcing people to believe (by cloaking it under the appearance of error). That way believers would have everything they needed to believe, and unbelievers would have everything needed to “unblelieve.” This also was the position of Blaise Pascal who said “In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadow for those who don’t.”
Personally, I think the doctrine of “inerrancy” is made up by simple-minded believers who impose their tiny human perspective of “perfection” upon the Bible. They appear to be afraid of ambiguity and so look for security in simplistic (and grossly erroneous) “certainty.”
You missed the point. If there is no objective test, how could I look? First you need to define the objective test for the patterns you say exist only in the canonical texts and then I can go look to see if they are also found in the apocrypha.
I’ve never been much impressed by Panin. He didn’t seemed more of a collector of facts than a principled mathematical thinker. But I’ll check out the sites you linked.
Great chatting!
Richard
**As explained in my previous post, the idea that the Bible is “inerrant and perfect” means that God intended it to look like it has many irreconcilable contradictions (since that is how it looks).**
That is both circular in argumentation and a straw man, Richard. I read it smoothly and perfectly and when I see what appears to be a contradiction I slow down, and look at context or the original language. Problem solved.
The terms for objectively reviewing other books’ codes against the Bible are this: Every verse of the Bible has remarkable encodings, especially of prime numbers within, as referenced in part by the sites I sent you. Thanks!
Hey there Matt,
You wrote:
I see nothing “circular” in my argument that the highest view of Scripture is that it is as God intended. You need to explain precisely what is supposedly “circular” about it.
You assertion that you can resolve all the contradictions and errors in the Bible is so absurd as to sound delusional. I’ve been studying the Bible and apologetics for over two decades. I know what can and cannot be done, and that’s something that most certainly cannot be done. Just look at the utter absurdity spewed out by the leading Christian apologists. If they had real answers, why do they publish such rubbish?
It also is absurd to assert that “every verse of the Bible has remarkable encodings.” That simply is not true of anything like “every verse.” There are thousands of verses where we are not even sure what exact words or spellings belong because of textual variations. It doesn’t help when you overstate your case.
*I see nothing “circular” in my argument that the highest view of Scripture is that it is as God intended. You need to explain precisely what is supposedly “circular” about it.*
I agree with your first sentence in the scripture’s original languages. I also have cited where the Bible states that unstable minds find more problems in the Bible than solutions. We both know the main point of Babel is God’s dividing and conquering! How much more careful do we need to be when reading the Bible in English. There are 200 “good” versions of the English Bible, but to say all 200 are as God intended when we include errors of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and so forth strains credulity to me. (Just my opinion.)
*You assertion that you can resolve all the contradictions and errors in the Bible is so absurd as to sound delusional. I’ve been studying the Bible and apologetics for over two decades. I know what can and cannot be done, and that’s something that most certainly cannot be done. Just look at the utter absurdity spewed out by the leading Christian apologists. If they had real answers, why do they publish such rubbish?*
That’s my point. I usually don’t look at what leading apologists have done. Once I learned 1) one is supposed to be a “good workman” and study for one’s self 2) study historical context and culture to resolve some issues 3) most issues are verses pulled or strained from context — I was able to resolve the vast majority of issues on my own.
*It also is absurd to assert that “every verse of the Bible has remarkable encodings.” That simply is not true of anything like “every verse.” There are thousands of verses where we are not even sure what exact words or spellings belong because of textual variations. It doesn’t help when you overstate your case.*
Remarkably, the Bible codes exist, even where I believe we have copyist insertions or errors. Amazing! Have you heard, for example, of the larger characters written in the Esther verse about hanging Haman’s 10 sons, that total to 1946–1946 CE being when ten Nazis were hung at Nuremburg for crimes against the Jews… there are enough such examples to take note of… however, I want to remind us both that apologetics are not Bible codes but looking at scriptures carefully in context (mostly), remind you that is, until I ask how the Bible wheel works so well when men moved the canon order about from its chronological order–surely that is a good sign of men and God working in concert?! 🙂
Maybe you can glean some understanding from Chuck Missler.
Hey there Matt,
I’m sorry for the long delay since your last post. Karen’s recent comment brought this thread back to my attention. You wrote:
I don’t read the Bible only in “plain English”. I can read the Greek and Hebrew.
It seems absurd to me to suggest that the facts I have exposed in my article are “not really there” but rather are the product of my supposedly “disturbed” mind. That’s a ridiculous and insulting response to what I wrote.
I didn’t say you should follow the leading apologists. I mentioned them in response to your false assertion that there were easy answers to the problems we are discussing. You gave a very glib (and false) answer when you said “when I see what appears to be a contradiction I slow down, and look at context or the original language. Problem solved.” That’s an absurdity of the first order. If it were that simple, you could write a book and become the most famous Christian apologist ever to live. You claim that you were able to “able to resolve the vast majority of issues” on your own. If that’s what you think, I doubt that your solutions would stand up under any serious scrutiny.
You seem to be mixing up “Bible Codes” (i.e. Equidistant Letter Sequences) with gematria (calculations based on the numerical values of the letters). And you are wrong about those letters – they were not written larger. They were written smaller. And there is no consistent textual witness to how they were written. Three different textual traditions all contradict each other. Ephraim Rubin debunked those claims in a post here:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Purim.cfm
Your assertion that they work “even where I believe we have copyist insertions or errors” makes no sense at all. If a single letter is missing it will disrupt the entire matrix.
Now to your question of most interest to me personally – yes, when I was a believer I felt that the Bible Wheel was very much “a good sign of men and God working in concert”. But that explanation no longer works for me. As far as I know, the evidence for some sort of “design” in the Bible Wheel remains as valid as ever, but my former conclusion cannot stand because it would imply that the God described in the Bible is real, and find that to he an impossibility. When a syllogism leads to a false conclusion, we know that one of premises is wrong. So there must be some other explanation for the origin of the patterns.
All the best,
Richard
Hi there Richard! Very interesting site. Now i have reading for quite awhile :).
I am nowhere as studied as you are. But what i´ve heard for one is that Gensisi alone is written by several different authors, that is seen in how the writing is changed (style) which makes me think of that it is impossible to make everything to fall into the exact same context. There has to be some variations in the text.
One other thing that i didn´t see here while i read this thread is the fact that if God infact created man in his image. Adam and Eve. Adam beeing the masculine and Eve representing the more feminine part of God. Then God is nor man or woman but spirit. He put more of the masculine features in the man and tipped the scale giving more of the feminine into Eve, but they are both equally a perfect representation of God. That´s how i see it. I really don´t care what hostory says or i trust in what my heart says about that matter cause it is inevitable that a book that old must have some touch of man. Given by God sure but written by humans.
But one more quite funny thing regarding the issue wether Jesus infact did what he did and so forth. Needless for me to tell you how many studuies been done on the gospels since you probably know the far better than i do. But what i feel totally ridicilous is that it is way easier for people to belive in Alexander the great and his escapades although the first stories were written about 400 years after his time while the gospels were written around 50-70 years after Jesus died. Some of them written by firsthand witness. While other greek and roman litterature confirms that there in fact was this man in judea or whatever. So his reputation spread.
The church represents a bunch of hypocrites and mostly a dead religion full of laws and without the law and mercy that jesus represents. So can´t really call me a christina in that sense since i can´t stand united with the image of the church as it was or as it is today. The church has very little love to offer to the world. Don´t belive that this is the way jesus meant when he spoke about the church.
One thing that comes to mind of mr Richard Dawkins and his atheism. If you imagine a normal paper and i draw a tiny dot on that paper, that dot represents his knowledge. The paper represents all the knowledge there is in the whole universe. Kind of ignorant of anyone to claim that i know something for a fact while my knowledge is quite limited if you think of the image i just pictured.
That´s just it i don´t think that faith or God can be proven how hard any man investigates and studies facts. The salvation fo the cross is lunacy to the world and it will always be like that.
God or no God Adam or Eve. I try to live my life according to the way Jesus tells me. And i dare to say that if every single person on this planet would live their lives out of love. Treat onanother with love and respect then there would be no problems. Since true love does no harm to his neighbor. If i were to think of you best interest in stead of my own. Imagine me going to work so that you could have food on your table. Kinda craxy right but that is taking everything into extremes. But instead of thinking that i have to have this and this as long as i´m ok nothing else matters. That is exactly what darwinism is built on and Dawkins idea of the world order. But if were less selfish and looked that you could have everything you need and you did that for me this world would be a better place and the key to all that is what jesus spoke about LOVE. Period.
So biblical studies hback and forth doesn´t really matter to me since i´d much rather have love as a puropse in life than a self centerd self occupied life where everything gets destroyed.
Sorry for this incohesive post don´t know if anything made sense 🙂
But very interesting topics here.
Take care
greetings from Finland 🙂
sorry for the miss-spelling here and there 🙁
Sorry have to add one more thing 🙂
One more thing that i think a great part of the whole christianity struggles with not to mention the whole world is the God of the OT vs NT. Is it the same God?How can it be and so forth. YES it is very much so. But the thing the majority fail to see is the act of love behind the whole book. The whole bible if you were to sum it up in one sentence. Is a about a father who lost his kids and he wants them back. They lived in perfect relationship as father and son in the Eden. That unity was broken because of the fall. Now the first question is why did he drive them out of Eden? That was infact the first act of love. He sent them out in order for them to be able to return back into that flawless relationship. If he wouldn´t have sent them away they would´ve stayed in that state forever, the mankind would´ve stayed in that fallen state forever with no chance of true relationship again.
Now we could start an whole different debate on why the fall took place at all and so on. But the act goes on in Sodom and with Noa. God tries to save them repeatedly, please change your lives but they didn´t. So what we understand from it was that mankind had yet again turned so bad that it had to stop, he gave them every chance to turn. and the story goes on.
What people always sees is that God as you self stated He is not trustworthy. How can a God do such horrible things and still call Him self Love? But they were infact an act of Love to protect the human race from going all bad. I know this doesen´t satisfy your reasoning cause what i see or i believe to hear in your writing is that you base everything on reason and not on faith or the supernatural at all, but yet the bible states quite clearly that this is something that will never be reached by the clever minds. By debating or studying you will find very little. Knowledge will only take you so far.Knowledge will only blow up heads.But knowledge can never ravel down from you head into your heart. It is the other way around. This is why it is so easy for some to loose their faith since it hasn´t rooted in their heart, they are not rooted in a living relationship with Father God. It is easy to change our minds but what is in our heart is what makes us US. Not the knowledge in our head but my heart determines who i am, my heart is ME. But a man that knows the bible inwards and out like you do, that does not mean that you know God. A man that prays on his knees days and night does not automatically mean that he is in a living relationship with God. One having high demands on God fulfilling your wish. Please God give me this job, give me this. As if he were a slotmachine, and then God forbid if things goes any other way than you wanted then it is all His fault. True???
But where is the real Key? The key is in having a real relationship with our Father God. That is what he wanted from the very start. “I thought you would call me Father” A true relationship means that you live with Him everyday as if he were your earthly Father. You don´t come with a wish list everyday but you hang with Him. Instead of thinking all the time what he could do for you, what if i thought what could i do for Him and that is something totally different than our so called Religion. Which to me is nothing more than pure death with no real freedom or life in it at all.
You have some topics here which amuses me quite a bit. What on earth have the innocent babies done wrong does God hate them etc…no but shit happens, life happens. How come we as humans assume that we have the right to blame God for the mistakes and messups we our selves caused?
Did he bring the hunger, people beeing left out, poor, sick? Why should He be responsible to fix the mistakes we have done automatically. Well since he is Love that´s why. Ok sounds fair??? Quite odd to me. So we carry no responsibilty whatsoever for our actions and he should come and rescue everytime some idiot does ill to someoone else? But life doesen´t work like that. That is where the free will takes in. We all have a choice, it is plain and simply our own fault why the world looks like it does today. If you have kids are you going to watch over him everyday of the rest of his life in order to prevent him from making any bad choices or so that he doesen´t fall and hurt his knee. Of course not. You as a parent will let him make his own choices wether they are bad or not, thats how life works. so why should it work any differently with God and us humans? We make bad things and he just cleans up everything? Sounds right 🙂
And unfortunately innocent people suffer, that is messed up i know. But maybe your idea is that well God brought us here so it´s His mess to solve as well then. Yet again i disagree but that´s another discussion.
And wether Eve is mentioned or not several times doesn´t really mean anything nor does it need to have any deeper meaning if the book of Esther doesen´t mention God. Why would that make it less reliable or whatever you were suggesting? Or if the books are written or placed in wrong order chronically. As i said before it is proven that the book of Genesis is written by several authors over a quite long period of time. Many of them if i´m not mistaken didn´t live at the same time. Some parts were left in the middle of everything and someone else carried on from that passage. Quite clear that lets say if two indivduals got the exact same prophesy and they got a task to write it all down, i think they would differ since we all filter everything we see and hear through our own perceptions, we all watch through different lenses. That is why the gospels have slight minor deviations in details but close enough to make them reliable. People see and percieve things differently but the main context matched enough to make them reliable. That is what infact makes them reliable that they carrey some differences instead of them beeing completely similar which would´ve given a sense of that it was a setled story.
With all the knowledge there is in this universe i could almost say for a fact that it will be impossible for one to tell wether there´s a God or not by scentific measures or reason. That´s just the way it is.
And imagine this. God has a great sense of humor. Many scientist who has the most high levels on IQ have stated that the bible is one tough book to understand, that there´s just so much that is just to much to grasp. Goes beyond their understanding. Yet it is a book written by simple farmers, fisherman, tax collectors and so forth, not the highest elite of the elite. This amuses me alot. How come that a book that is written by such simpleminded people is the most studied book through out the history, THE book that causes the biggest debates? Must be the biggest scam of all times? Clever people those fisherman´s 🙂
While i think that study and reason is good to have but i believe that if you´re controlled by only reason and logic thinking that it will only make you question everything even more. TO doubt is good as thomas the doubter. But if your belief is only based on knowledge, logic and reason and without a true realtionship with your Father then what you have is actually nothing.
One thing that also has blown my mind and which has made me even more clear on the fact that God is nor a He or a she but spirit is how David describes a very gentle and feminine side of God. As a nurturing mother who breastfeeds his baby who comforts him like a mother.
Somewhere on this thread there was guy which mentioned the wonders Jesus did and asked wether you think those were real or not. And you said something like you doubt it but you can´t really tell if it´s possible that magic exists or not. Loosely paraphrased. And you state that you´re not an atheist. And i think that my picture of the dot on the paper easily states that you´re not and neither is Dawkins. Cause as i said. If that dot represents your knowledge in this universe and the paper is all the knowledge there is then it is practically impossible to claim as an fact that there is no supernatural. I would much rather call Dawkins agnostic maybe?
But all in all. I think it´s sad when people makes no hesitation in blaming God for the problems of this world and makes very poor asumptions about God in fact beeing LOVE when they don´t understand the bible as for what it is. It is not a book that can be read word for word as a novel but a book that is read with eyes of your spirit. It is not your mind that needs to understand the text but your sould. That is why it is called food for your soul not to feed your intelect.
I walked with the same idea as many of you that i just couldn´t put my head around it why God allowed all those things in the OT until i got to really know Him truly enter into his lap and let Him speak His truth into my heart. How he´s not the sadist who like to play with us and kill us every now and then and then love us when it suits Him. But that he is infact like the Father in the prodical son story. He carries no list of our sins he didn¨t tell him that oh son you did so bad you have to repent and do this and this and this before i can take you back into my home. NO he runs towards Him with open arms and kisses Him and welcomes Him. The church is like the older brother who was full of judgement and jealousy towards the little brother. “here i have worked and slaved for you and this son of yours comes back and you throw him a party” But he begs him to come back in and says i never meant you to work as a slave but instead what is mine has always been yours.
But the problem is that the world and even the church sees God as this angry judge, angry old grumpy with tantrums who every now and then just looses it. We have acted like slaves but instead he meant us to be as Kings with full acces to what is His. Sons can enter before the throne but the slaves stays outside. And most of the christians acts like the slaves. and the world sees Him as the tyrant. So wrong. The wrold has been completely blind to what the solemn purpose of jesus´s mission was,and it was to point the way home to the Father.
But i do get where you come from. Nothing of this makes sense it does not fit into my head, scientifically it is not possible or so we think. But my heart tells me something completly different.
as i spoke about how we see things through our own experiences in life and determine out of that perspective how we see on things in life. Well that applies on how we look upon the stories in the bible as well. We have nothing real to compare it against since it all happend so long ago compared to this era of time and how we have experienced the world. So what is needed is a greater understanding on how things worked back then. For ex. when God tells Abraham to sacrifice Isak. Totally crazy thing to us. But what one must know is that Abraham was not a Christian in in the same way as we think of it. He wasn´t even jewish. He came from a different group of people with a completely differnt religion or whatever. So the human sacrifices was something very common and was actually nothing crazy to Abraham but instead was something that people did in order to worship their God which was not Jahwe. He didn´t want Abraham to do this, but the history behind this shows that it wasn´t all totally crazy. No quite the contrary out of his perspective but to us it shows a heartless God. How could he even put Him through with this. But he spoke to people through ways and terms which they could relate to.
hope i didn´t bore you to death.
Take care
Hey there TIL,
Sorry for the slow response. My day job has been keeping me very busy. Good thing I love it! I’m a software engineer, which means I get paid to solve puzzles.
Yes, there is good evidence that Genesis is an amalgamation of different traditions. This is most obvious when you break down the Flood story according to which divine name (Yahweh or Elohim) is used. I laid out the evidence in this post on my forum.
The idea that Adam and Eve represent the masculine and feminine aspects of God is a lovely idea, but it doesn’t fit with the Bible at all because the Bible displays the full patriarchal bias against women, as explained in my article The Inextricable Sexism of the Bible.
I have no idea what you could mean when you say that the Bible was “Given by God but written by men.” Which parts were “given by God”? The parts you like? I don’t see any objectively valid way to distinguish between the divine and the human in the Bible.
There is a massive amount of independent CORROBORATING EVIDENCE for Alexander the Great, whereas there is none that is not suspect relating to Christ. Remember, Christ was the central figure of a religious cult, and religious cults can never be trusted to report truth about themselves or their leaders. The Mormons provide an excellent example of how cult leaders can make up total bullshit and get followers even in an age of photographs and newspapers. How much easier would it have been back in the first century?
Well if there is no valid representation of the “true” form of Christianity anywhere on the planet, I trust you will understand why I don’t follow any of them. The question now is this: why do you follow the book they produced as if it contained religious truth?
Obviously, you have never watched Dawkins. He has NEVER claimed to “know for a fact” that there is no god. He is very humble about that question. He just says he knows of know good reason to believe there is a god and the probability that there is is very low.
It’s not just “lunacy to the world.” It is lunacy plain and simple. The fact that Paul recognized this doesn’t mean his defense that the lunacy was “God’s wisdom” is true. Of course, I believed that when I was a Christian, but not any more. I now see it as true lunacy in the sense that the words are literally meaningless. The Bible directly contradicts itself on the meaning of “righteousness”. Paul says that righteousness is by faith, and not derived from what you do, whereas John flatly states the true definition of righteousness as “he who does righteousness is righteous.” Christianity is fundamentally confused on many points. That’s why Christians can not agree, and even declare other equally sincere Christians to be of the “antichrist” because they interpret the Bible differently.
You are describing humanism, not religion. The imaginary Gods of the various religions add nothing to the equation.
It appears you have been drinking the corrupt waters of creationists who deceive by deliberately misrepresenting Dawkins and Darwin.
What does God or religion have to do with Love? In my experience, dogmatic religions like Christianity tend to corrupt the minds and morals of believers. They lie to defend the “truth” of their dogmas. Nothing could be more ironic … or pathetic.
Yes, it was a bit of a ramble, but I enjoyed answering it and think I understood what you were trying to say (you can correct me if I’m wrong, of course!). 🙂
Great chatting,
Richard
it amazes me how people with no Hebrew heritage make comments on something they know absolutely nothing about I am Catholic and also half Jewish you absolutely know nothing of the Torah and also of Talmudic tradition mother is Catholic father is Jewish by religion I am Catholic
Your “amazement” apparently derives from your ignorance. Knowledge of Torah does not depend upon having a Hebrew heritage. There are Jews who are utterly ignorant of Torah and there are Gentiles with vast knowledge of Torah.
Likewise, your assertion that I “know absolutely nothing” about the Torah is based on complete ignorance. You do not know me or the extent of my knowledge. It seems your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance.
Furthermore, your assertions are empty and meaningless. You have not shown any error in anything I have written. If you want to challenge my “knowledge of Torah” then you need to show where I erred. You have done nothing like that.