Bible...real, or just misinterpreted?

[ScottSadistic]

ok, so my views on the bible...

- it said that that adam and eve were made there. well, i actually think that adam and eve were two ppl much more intelligent then other humans around there time. they found the garden, and settled there.

-it said that 4 rivers met at the garden of eden. two such rivers exist in Mesopotamia...the Tigris and Euphrates River. There are remains of 2 more rivers. Mesopotamia is known for its rich vegetation. Mesopotamia was the first place known with human existance. So...I think The Garden of Eden was actually present day Mesopotamia.

-two of Adam and eve's children, Cane and Able, both male, went off to marry. Marry who? his brothers and sisters(idk their names) were married already. Were they homosexuals? I dont think so...adam and eve asked them to go off to reproduce. two men cannot make a child. so this adds to the theory above...they just married less intelligent ppl.

-It said Moses parted the Red Sea. Well, there is actually a sand bar known to appear once every few years in the red sea. Now which sounds better...a trail of sand appeared before you...or A speaker of god made the Red Sea split in 2 so ppl could cross. Either they lied OR maybe it was just misinterpreted through time. No way of knowing.

-Jesus may have actually been a medicine man.HE made a blind man see...medicine. HE came back from the cross. well, he may have just feigned death, and when he got into that cave, he may have just wrapped his hands and feet in clothes. Mary was the one who found him. Maybe she went to get ppl to help move the rock blocking the cave. I will say this though.


these are just my views.
i would like to hear more opinions

 

[Crimson King]

You are aware that Romans were as meticulous as Nazis when it came to execution? They also drove a spear into his ribcage to finish him off after being nailed to a cross for 6 hours. Also, the bible makes very clear that he suffered then died.

Of course, I believe none of it happened anyway.

 

[ComradeSAL]

Your interpretations are interesting Scott, but there is no need for them. If you are a Christian, then you can:

A. Take the Bible as a collection of allegorical stories that help strengthen your faith.
B. Take the Bible as literal truth. (not recommended)
C. Do something in between.

However, if you're not a Christian, there is no need to attempt to rationalize statements from what is clearly a collection of unreliable testimony and hearsay.

 

[Surri-Sama]

ok, so my views on the bible...

- it said that that adam and eve were made there. well, i actually think that adam and eve were two ppl much more intelligent then other humans around there time. they found the garden, and settled there.

these are just my views.
i would like to hear more opinions

This is one of the things I see most when it comes to religion.

"How could mankind have become so populated, if only two people where created?"

The way I look at this is, Adam and Eve where the FIRST people to be created, the bible never said they where the ONLY ones created. I think the Bible highlights these two because of two obvious reasons:

1) They where the first people created.
2) They where the first people to disobey gods will.

Adam and Eve's children left them to search for others, in hopes of reproducing, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Caturdayz]

This is one of the things I see most when it comes to religion.

"How could mankind have become so populated, if only two people where created?"

The way I look at this is, Adam and Eve where the FIRST people to be created, the bible never said they where the ONLY ones created. I think the Bible highlights these two because of two obvious reasons:

1) They where the first people created.
2) They where the first people to disobey gods will.

Adam and Eve's children left them to search for others, in hopes of reproducing, nothing more, nothing less.

Even if this were the truth, the bible says "God" purged everyone on the planet. Save Noah and his immediate family. So really the world was populated and then RE-populated.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

-two of Adam and eve's children, Cane and Able, both male, went off to marry. Marry who? his brothers and sisters(idk their names) were married already. Were they homosexuals? I dont think so...adam and eve asked them to go off to reproduce. two men cannot make a child. so this adds to the theory above...they just married less intelligent ppl.

Cain killed Abel. Abel didn't reproduce with anyone. Cain "went into the land of Nod and knew his wife." Adam and Eve later on had another son called Seth. Not to mention that homosexuals can't reproduce.

-It said Moses parted the Red Sea. Well, there is actually a sand bar known to appear once every few years in the red sea. Now which sounds better...a trail of sand appeared before you...or A speaker of god made the Red Sea split in 2 so ppl could cross. Either they lied OR maybe it was just misinterpreted through time. No way of knowing.

The Red Sea parting actually never happened even in the Bible. The Red Sea was a mistranslation of the "reed sea" or "sea of reeds," which probably means they crossed some marshy area that had dried up; not very remarkable.

-Jesus may have actually been a medicine man.HE made a blind man see...medicine. HE came back from the cross. well, he may have just feigned death, and when he got into that cave, he may have just wrapped his hands and feet in clothes. Mary was the one who found him. Maybe she went to get ppl to help move the rock blocking the cave. I will say this though.


these are just my views.
i would like to hear more opinions

If you subject the Bible, especially the New Testament, to the same scrutiny that you would subject any other historical document (why should the Bible get a break?), you'll find that a great majority of the things in the Bible lack any corroborating evidence. There's no evidence that anyone named Moses existed, outside of the Bible. There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus that we know of, since the earliest known Gospel is dated at the earliest at about 20 years after Jesus' supposed death. Josephus is the earliest non-Christian source about 40 years after that.

 

[Surri-Sama]

Even if this were the truth, the bible says "God" purged everyone on the planet. Save Noah and his immediate family. So really the world was populated and then RE-populated.

Yes, your right, but I dont see how that has anything to do with what I, or the Topic starter said :\

 

[ScottSadistic]

Cain killed Abel. Abel didn't reproduce with anyone. Cain "went into the land of Nod and knew his wife." Adam and Eve later on had another son called Seth. Not to mention that homosexuals can't reproduce.

ok, my bad. im not a huge christian or anything, but i do know the basics. sry i didnt know this. so abel is gone. and i did state that homosexuals cant reproduce.

The Red Sea parting actually never happened even in the Bible. The Red Sea was a mistranslation of the "reed sea" or "sea of reeds," which probably means they crossed some marshy area that had dried up; not very remarkable.

how do you know this?

If you subject the Bible, especially the New Testament, to the same scrutiny that you would subject any other historical document (why should the Bible get a break?), you'll find that a great majority of the things in the Bible lack any corroborating evidence. There's no evidence that anyone named Moses existed, outside of the Bible. There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus that we know of, since the earliest known Gospel is dated at the earliest at about 20 years after Jesus' supposed death. Josephus is the earliest non-Christian source about 40 years after that.

well, records werent kept too well back then, if at all. so of course there wouldnt be any proof of someone living that long ago.


although, u do provide some very interesting points to look at

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Well I don't know it was a mistranslation for absolute fact, sorry for characterizing it that way; there is still controversy over what is meant. Though actually absolutely no evidence has ever been found of that whole episode of Exodus (Moses, enslavement, etc) ANYWHERE but the Bible.

As for historical records, just because something happened a long time ago doesn't mean we can just "give it some slack" and be less critical in examining the facts. To put it in perspective, consider Socrates, who never wrote anything himself (like Jesus). All known accounts of Socrates are limited to the writings of Plato and Xenophon (like Jesus with the Gospels, though the earliest one we know of was still 20 years after his death), except for Aristophanes' "The Clouds." Yet there is still far from universal scholarly agreement about how much (if any!) of Plato's writings are factual accounts as opposed to using a character called Socrates as a literary device. There is less evidence for the existence of Jesus than Socrates.

 

[snex]

hyuga, it doesnt make sense to say the hebrews just crossed a marsh... the story clearly says that the sea crashed down on the egyptians as they followed. that would simply not make sense if the correct translation was that of a marsh.

 

[Caturdayz]

Yes, your right, but I dont see how that has anything to do with what I, or the Topic starter said :\

Well I don't really think its that hard to follow...

Even if he created more than Adam and Eve he purged them all save Noah and his immediate family. Thus even if his attempt at rationalization was indeed true we would have still come from a very small group of people.

 

[Taymond]

hyuga, it doesnt make sense to say the hebrews just crossed a marsh... the story clearly says that the sea crashed down on the egyptians as they followed. that would simply not make sense if the correct translation was that of a marsh.

Well I don't study too much scripture, but it seems to me that simply saying that one religious text claims the sea crashed down on the pursuing egyptians doesn't necessarily make it what early texts claimed. It's just as possible that that portion of the story was figuratively dramatized at some point during time. The earliest documents may've only mentioned a problem as simple as the chariot's inability to pass through the marsh.

You can't take any one text as the ultimate, original, "correct" interpretations of those stories.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

hyuga, it doesnt make sense to say the hebrews just crossed a marsh... the story clearly says that the sea crashed down on the egyptians as they followed. that would simply not make sense if the correct translation was that of a marsh.

That is true. I was confusing a realistic scenario that could have inspired the story with the ambiguity of where it was actually supposed to have been crossed.

 

[Wobbles]

I think another important area to tackle when talking about biblical interpretation comes from a lot of the early Hebrew "laws."

My guess is that many of the laws arose from survival needs, and were codified as religious law to help keep people safe.

For instance, the whole idea of eating kosher probably came about because pigs--and other non-kosher foods--have quite a lot of bacteria in their bodies harmful to humans. Nowadays, we can develop anti-biotics, and we know how to prepare dangerous foods in a way that neutralizes their harmful characteristics.

But you know, I'm not exactly a biblical scholar; it just makes sense to me to think of it like this. When a parent is trying to teach his/her kid how to behave, or tries to explain something complicated to the child, they often use "because I said so" or "it's magic" or similar arguments. Later the kid learns there is a reason for all of it, but they probably couldn't have understood it at the time.

I sort of see the Old Testament God as a parent and human civilization as--scientifically and technologically speaking--children. Complicated explanations wouldn't have done any good, so using commonly accepted notions like demons and uncleanliness might have been the best way to keep people healthy.

That's assuming that you believe in all of it, but want a rational explanation for stuff.

I'm not entirely sure where many of the anti-homosexual stuff came from. It might have arisen from a need to populate, and discouraging homosexual activity might have helped ensure that they participate in heterosexual activity instead. /hypothesizing

I think that clinging to them now is kind of useless, given that we have more than enough people and a decent enough medical basis to fend for ourselves.

 

[WuTangDude]

You are aware that Romans were as meticulous as Nazis when it came to execution? They also drove a spear into his ribcage to finish him off after being nailed to a cross for 6 hours. Also, the bible makes very clear that he suffered then died.

Of course, I believe none of it happened anyway.

Out of curiosity, why do you believe none of it happened? I thought the existence of Jesus Christ and his excecution are confirmed to have not been made up? (The actual debate being wether his miracles amd claims of being messiah were real or not)

 

[Miharu]

Out of curiosity, why do you believe none of it happened? I thought the existence of Jesus Christ and his excecution are confirmed to have not been made up? (The actual debate being wether his miracles amd claims of being messiah were real or not)

There's no external evidence that proves the Bible's factuality.

 

[Crimson King]

Out of curiosity, why do you believe none of it happened? I thought the existence of Jesus Christ and his excecution are confirmed to have not been made up? (The actual debate being wether his miracles amd claims of being messiah were real or not)

The name "Jesus" or "Yashua" was quite common in the area. To say, a man named Jesus came from Nazareth and died by crucifixion over there is like saying a man named John died by the electric chair in Texas. It's a general thing. That being said, there is documentation that says a "Jesus" was crucified, but nothing more to substantiate the claim that he was the messiah, that the files weren't doctored, or that it was the same guy.

 

[lordzedd]

It's not really the same because Nazareth was a very small town.. a village even, and there is no extra-biblical mention of it until 200 ad. its generally accepted that there are clear historical records of a Jesus who performed either "miracles" or "sorcery", some kinda of out of the ordinary deeds, but there is disagreement over whether peoples claims of seeing Jesus after his crucifixion were credible and authentic. the romans definitely killed a Jesus from Nazareth who was a jewish teacher and socio-economic radical...

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

It's not really the same because Nazareth was a very small town.. a village even, and there is no extra-biblical mention of it until 200 ad. its generally accepted that there are clear historical records of a Jesus who performed either "miracles" or "sorcery", some kinda of out of the ordinary deeds, but there is disagreement over whether peoples claims of seeing Jesus after his crucifixion were credible and authentic. the romans definitely killed a Jesus from Nazareth who was a jewish teacher and socio-economic radical...

It depends on what you want to call a "clear historical record." We don't have anything that was written during Jesus' supposed lifetime, so it's a bit of a stretch. If we only talk about external (i.e. non-Christian) sources then it's an even bigger stretch, since all of those (that we know of) aren't records of Jesus but records of people talking about Jesus.

You would do well to consider this post:
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=1069505&postcount=57