My Third Question to Christians: Is Our Bible Corrupted?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-03-2012, 02:05 PM
RE: My Third Question to Christians: Is Our Bible Corrupted?
KC you're a Christian who's questioning the very source of wisdom. What matter a few verses? As long as they've got the BIBLE? Those verses are all very obscure anyway.

I think you've started down the rocky road to Dublin mate. Well at least there's booze and hot chicks like K37713 at the end of it Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
15-03-2012, 02:13 PM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2012 02:15 PM by kingschosen.)
RE: My Third Question to Christians: Is Our Bible Corrupted?
(15-03-2012 01:59 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  most of the stories weren't christian to begin with. Many of them came from judaism, and other religions around sumeria. Also when the council of Nicea created the first canon there were many stories that they decided which version would be best. There's not much saying what things are the originals as it's too old to really determine which version was the original. You should accept that if the canon is acceptable to you then any translations are fine. Christianity has always had a large variety of stories. You're just bickering over which ways to interpret the ones that have lasted the longest. I wouldn't suggest that all the stories not in the canon are completely ungodly if god had anything to do with it.

Christians accept that the canon is inspired and the way God wanted the Bible to be arranged.

There are several books that were considered scripture before canonization (Enoch, Assumption of Moses); however, they were left out because of obvious corruption.

Since canonization, we have empirical evidence of corruption, and this is what I'm bringing to light. I'm encouraging others to become more learned on their holy book.

Quote:You're dealing with semantics to the same degree that the seperationists do. I'd say you're definitely asking for division no matter your personal purpose.

Semantics don't change the overall meaning of something. This isn't semantics. I've pointed out how some verse's meanings' can be interpreted completely differently.
(15-03-2012 02:05 PM)morondog Wrote:  KC you're a Christian who's questioning the very source of wisdom. What matter a few verses? As long as they've got the BIBLE? Those verses are all very obscure anyway.

Well... I'm not questioning the source of wisdom per se, but I'm questioning if our source of wisdom has been changed through the advent of translations.

And Isaiah 45:7 is very important... this verse is either evidence that God created evil or He didn't.

Quote:I think you've started down the rocky road to Dublin mate. Well at least there's booze and hot chicks like K37713 at the end of it Wink

Haha, nah. Besides, I've got my own hottie.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2012, 03:10 PM
RE: My Third Question to Christians: Is Our Bible Corrupted?
either way he created everything so obviously the answer is yes. Which way it's admitted does not change the fact. Just think about the being in question and you have the answer anyway.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2012, 05:54 PM
RE: My Third Question to Christians: Is Our Bible Corrupted?
Of course the bible has been corrupted!

What is more, it was always corrupt!

The authors of the Bible had a similar agenda to people who currently work in advertising agencies, and their writings share many of the features of a typical modern advertising campaign. The Bible was written to profit certain groups; it contained little of true value, and its authors tried to appeal to the emotions and superstitions of the masses. They knew their market at the time was credulous and superstitious, easily impressed by mythical stories and frightened by threats.

The Christian Bible was not written by God, nor by genuine historians, nor by people discussing the truth, or by people who genuinely cared about their readers. It was written by spin-doctors trying to sell their claim to authority. It aimed to facilitate control of the populace, and it was very good at doing that, which is why it has survived the passage of time. It is a product of the petty, miserable politics of power-hungry people.

Scripture is, in fact, either the bleating voice of the politically weak who aspire to become more powerful, or else the propaganda used by leaders to control the feeble. The common denominator is the timid masses, the gullible crowd, the naive little people who get taken advantage of. Scripture is documented evidence of the art of crowd control through literature.

Scripture’s power lies in the fact that it requires very few resources to achieve its aims. Its use of gods, miracles, prophets and threats of hell requires nothing more than a very active imagination to produce.

Anyone who agrees with me should have a very satisfying, powerful realization. The very heart of Christianity, the Bible, has no legitimate authority.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Mark Fulton's post
15-03-2012, 06:00 PM
RE: My Third Question to Christians: Is Our Bible Corrupted?
Good point Mark. I never really realized the full extent until I started to research gods or god men that pre-date it by many years. Whether egyptian, hindu or whatever. It does seem like whilst fabricating the book they took large chunks of it from older beliefs that had been, or still were popular.

"Belief means not wanting to know what is true"
Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Eternal's post
15-03-2012, 06:13 PM
RE: My Third Question to Christians: Is Our Bible Corrupted?
(15-03-2012 02:13 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Christians accept that the canon is inspired and the way God wanted the Bible to be arranged.

There is what I see as a huge problem with this statement. I'm willing to go out on a limb and claim (without scientific evidence) that the vast majority of Christians, probably going on 80-90% do not understand how and when and by whom the Bible was written, and then how it was canonized. Christians have been TOLD the canon is inspired. Christians have been TOLD it's the way God "wanted the Bible to be arranged." This is a far cry from really knowing how much of the Bible is plagiarized, written as polemic against political enemies, written as justification for genocide, written as mythology to give Canaanites a new name: Israel. And all this is centuries before the fights of the Church Councils, starting over THREE HUNDRED years C.E. We like to think these were nice church business meetings run by Robert's Rules of Orders, but they were not. Church leaders were forced by political leaders to meet until they reached consensus. Not much Holy Spirit action going on there. Disagreement on inclusion or exclusion was often met with death.

Yes, Christians accept canonization.
The Catholic church used to accept the sun revolves around the earth.
Church leaders are too afraid to have their flocks know how their book REALLY got here.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Erxomai's post
15-03-2012, 07:14 PM
RE: My Third Question to Christians: Is Our Bible Corrupted?
As far as "canon" goes, the word wasn't even used in the early church. "New Testament," "Four-Gospel-Book," and "Old Testament" were being used by the mid-first century. Lists of "inspired" books containing the four gospel book plus Acts and the Pauline Epistles plus Revelation date from the second century, but it wasn't described as a "canon." Nobody had the power to say, "These are the books to read AND ONLY THESE BOOKS! OR ELSE!" -- and even when the books were supposedly the same, there were often wide variances in the texts. The Eastern Acts is 20% longer than our more familiar Western one. The Eastern church only reluctantly accepted Revelation, and never read from it in church.

The shocking truth is that there never was a totally agreed-upon canon within Christendom. The Western Church used one set of texts, the Eastern another, the Abyssinian another (preserving 1 Enoch as scriptural), etc. Even the Roman Catholics didn't bother to make their selection of books "official" until the crisis of the Reformation threatened in the 1500s.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Blood's post
15-03-2012, 09:38 PM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2012 09:48 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: My Third Question to Christians: Is Our Bible Corrupted?
(15-03-2012 06:00 PM)Eternal Wrote:  Good point Mark. I never really realized the full extent until I started to research gods or god men that pre-date it by many years. Whether egyptian, hindu or whatever. It does seem like whilst fabricating the book they took large chunks of it from older beliefs that had been, or still were popular.

Absolutely! My 2c woth about this....

In the first four centuries CE, there was a huge trade network from Europe all the way to China. Goods were not the only commodity traded; philosophies, traditions and manuscripts were shared amongst the world’s people. Rome absorbed the gods of the provinces it conquered. By the end of the first century, there were so many foreign gods, that almost every day of the year celebrated some divinity. Roman citizens were encouraged to give offerings to these gods to maintain the “Pax Deorum.” The cults vied with each other for supremacy, and borrowed ideas from each other. The Christian myth was no different. Gods who became men, sons of gods, births to virgin mothers on or near the 25th of December, baptism, miracles, healings, deaths due to hanging on trees or crucifixion, risings from the dead, and belief being the basis for salvation, were all traditional themes. Here are some examples.

Krishna, the central character of an Indian myth dating back to 1400 BCE, was born on the 25th December, and his birth was signaled by a star in the East and attended by angels and shepherds. His father was a carpenter. A tyrant slaughtered thousands of innocent infants to get the baby. Krishna raised the dead and healed lepers, the deaf and the blind. He was killed around age 30 and the sun darkened after his death. He rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, and became the second person of a trinity. Christianity has repeatedly failed to make any headway in India, as the people recognize it as an imitation of their own traditions.

Buddhist monks travelled to Egypt, Greece and Asia Minor four centuries before Christ. Buddha, traditionally said to have lived c 600 BCE, was born on December 25th to the virgin Maya. A king threatened the baby’s life. He was baptized in water, taught in a temple at age 12, healed the sick, fed 500 men from a small basket, walked on water and taught the parable of the prodigal son. His followers were obliged to take vows of poverty and to renounce the world, sex and family.
Attis of Phrygia, popular in Galatia and Rome, was a crucified and resurrected son of god. He was born on the 25th of December to the virgin Nana. He was slain for the salvation of mankind on “black Friday,” was resurrected after 3 days and his body became bread eaten by his worshippers.

Dionysis of Greece was born in a manger of a virgin on 25th December, performed miracles, turned water into wine, was eaten in a Eucharistic ritual, and rose from the dead on march 25th.

Stories about Osiris of Egypt predate Christ by thousands of years. His birth was announced by 3 wise men. He was called the resurrection and the Life and the Good Shepherd. He suffered, died and rose again. His flesh was eaten as wheat cakes. He had a son called Horus, whose birth was announced by a star in the east and attended by 3 wise men. He was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on the 25th December in a cave. At age 12 he was a teacher in a temple, then disappeared for 18 years, returned into circulation and was baptized at age 30. He had 12 disciples, performed miracles, exorcised demons, raised men from the dead, walked on water, delivered a sermon on the mount, was crucified between two thieves, and was buried for 3 days before he was resurrected from the dead.

There were many others, including Adduk and Marduk of Assyria, Adonis, Aesclepius, Apollo, Hercules and Zeus of Greece, Alcides of Thebes, Hermes of Greece/Egypt, Issa of Arabia, Jupiter of Rome and Serapis of Egypt who had striking similarities to the Christian mythology.

It is darned obvious that what became the Christian faith was a heady, plagiarized mix of Judaic, Mithraic, and other pagan myths. The existence of all these characters, so near identical in their exploits, constitutes an ancient universal mythos that has been hidden from and not acknowledged by Christians.



(15-03-2012 06:13 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(15-03-2012 02:13 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Christians accept that the canon is inspired and the way God wanted the Bible to be arranged.

There is what I see as a huge problem with this statement. I'm willing to go out on a limb and claim (without scientific evidence) that the vast majority of Christians, probably going on 80-90% do not understand how and when and by whom the Bible was written, and then how it was canonized. Christians have been TOLD the canon is inspired. Christians have been TOLD it's the way God "wanted the Bible to be arranged." This is a far cry from really knowing how much of the Bible is plagiarized, written as polemic against political enemies, written as justification for genocide, written as mythology to give Canaanites a new name: Israel. And all this is centuries before the fights of the Church Councils, starting over THREE HUNDRED years C.E. We like to think these were nice church business meetings run by Robert's Rules of Orders, but they were not. Church leaders were forced by political leaders to meet until they reached consensus. Not much Holy Spirit action going on there. Disagreement on inclusion or exclusion was often met with death.

Yes, Christians accept canonization.
The Catholic church used to accept the sun revolves around the earth.
Church leaders are too afraid to have their flocks know how their book REALLY got here.

Totally agreed....yet I would guess the figure is closer to 98-99%.


(15-03-2012 06:13 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(15-03-2012 02:13 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Christians accept that the canon is inspired and the way God wanted the Bible to be arranged.

There is what I see as a huge problem with this statement. I'm willing to go out on a limb and claim (without scientific evidence) that the vast majority of Christians, probably going on 80-90% do not understand how and when and by whom the Bible was written, and then how it was canonized. Christians have been TOLD the canon is inspired. Christians have been TOLD it's the way God "wanted the Bible to be arranged." This is a far cry from really knowing how much of the Bible is plagiarized, written as polemic against political enemies, written as justification for genocide, written as mythology to give Canaanites a new name: Israel. And all this is centuries before the fights of the Church Councils, starting over THREE HUNDRED years C.E. We like to think these were nice church business meetings run by Robert's Rules of Orders, but they were not. Church leaders were forced by political leaders to meet until they reached consensus. Not much Holy Spirit action going on there. Disagreement on inclusion or exclusion was often met with death.

Yes, Christians accept canonization.
The Catholic church used to accept the sun revolves around the earth.
Church leaders are too afraid to have their flocks know how their book REALLY got here.

ps....this is what I have to say about it....

Some Conclusions about the Compilation of the New Testament...

The men who compiled the New Testament wrote volumes attacking their opposition and arguing with their critics, so they would have documented solid facts to bolster the credibility of their own holy books if they had them. There are no such facts in the New Testament or in their own writings.

They could not decide among themselves whether Jesus was a god, a spirit or a mere human. The criteria used for determining the New Testament were poorly defined, unscholarly, and inconsistent. There was much argument and confusion about what was and wasn’t the word of God, and it took 350 years after Jesus’ death for the definitive canon to be decided upon.

Nowhere in the New Testament is there a legitimate reason, backed up by facts, as to why any of the writings were included or excluded. Outside the Bible, certain church fathers, bishops, and academics pass commentary that has survived, yet that commentary is very piecemeal and raises more questions than it answers. None of it provides any convincing evidence of a genuine connection between the Gospels and Yeshua. All these early writers seemed to presume such a connection, but were unable to prove it.

The primary reason used to select the writings in the canon was that they were already popular in some churches. This standard is obviously flawed: firstly, popularity has little to do with historical truth. Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are popular books, but no one thinks they are truthful accounts of history just because they are popular. Secondly, it ignored the opinions of any Christians who weren’t members of conformist churches. The Gnostics and numerous other Christian groups had no less legitimate beliefs, yet most of their writings were labeled as heretical.

We find falsely signed works throughout the Bible; nowhere else in the writings of antiquity are the true identities of authors so hidden from the reader. Some of Paul’s writings are the only works in the New Testament for which we can be reasonably sure we know the real identity of the author, and even then his writings have been interfered with. I suspect the church fathers sometimes didn’t record authors’ real identities because that would have exposed the writings’ lack of creditability. The presence of anonymous authors meant answers didn’t have to be given to questions that would have been difficult to answer. Churches preferred to keep the people ignorant by insisting they had faith, not facts.

The early church was punctilious about removing any competition to their authority. Many works were excluded for political reasons, not because they were any less truthful. Catholic Christians took what they thought was useful from the Gnostics and Marcionites and then destroyed nearly all their writings. To destroy literature one doesn’t approve of isn’t the conduct of people interested in the truth and genuine history, but the behavior of narrow-minded fanatics.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
15-03-2012, 10:00 PM
Wait, wait, ....
Quote:Is Our Bible Corrupted?

What do you mean 'our' Bible? Not my Bible, buddy.

P.S. It's always been corrupt.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
16-03-2012, 12:32 PM
RE: My Third Question to Christians: Is Our Bible Corrupted?
Actually it's plainly obvious that Matthew, Luke and John were building off the work that Mark penned when writing their gospels. Each interpretation is just a little more epic then the former.

What should really raise a huge red flag for biblical corruption however should be how very close Mark copies the Odyssey in his telling of the story of Jesus. Seriously I'm not the first to make this point. Go look it up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Godless's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: