The official "Things That Aren't in the Bible" thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-12-2011, 01:48 PM
RE: The official "Things That Aren't in the Bible" thread
@BC, sounds good to me!

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
13-12-2011, 03:03 PM
RE: The official "Things That Aren't in the Bible" thread
(12-12-2011 08:07 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  PPS...Job is reportedly the first book in the Bible to be written...

I'm pretty sure all of the books of the bible are listed chronologically. This idea that Job is the oldest has simply been passed on so many times that people take it as a truism, and if you Google it you'll find that no one cites an expert source for this idea (they simply quote is as fact, like your average truism). There's no good reason to believe that it is really is the oldest.

Quote:The Trinity - god is one yet also 3 distinct persons: Father, Son, Holy Spirit... not in the bible.

I remember learning about this in Sunday School, and we went over how there were clearly 3 separate entities at the time of Jesus' baptism, all showing up at the same scene at the same time. And then to cite that they were all one person, the teacher said "and the bible calls them all by the same name of God, so they're all one."

Even as a Christian, I knew this was stupid. I said "The players of the Miami Heat are all separate people that fall under one singular-sounding name. That doesn't make them all the same person." He said "if they were all called Miami Heat individually it would," but I knew even that didn't make sense (a better example may have been the police). Nor did he even attempt to show us 3 places in the bible where those 3 entities are each called God, and I'm pretty sure the Holy Spirit never was (and perhaps not even Jesus).

It would seem that polytheism used to be "in", and then monotheism was the fad, which meant reconciling how the "poly" could be interpreted as "mono". It was done rather clumsily.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2011, 10:17 PM (This post was last modified: 13-12-2011 10:31 PM by Buddy Christ.)
RE: The official "Things That Aren't in the Bible" thread
(13-12-2011 03:03 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  I'm pretty sure all of the books of the bible are listed chronologically.


I agree that it's hard to accurately date each book using only writing style and references. Especially when the majority of the stories and wars and cities are fabricated events. But this is the first I've ever heard the suggestion that the books are in chronological order. It just seems silly to think that the uneducated people at the Council of Nicaea knew which of the books that were written supposedly a thousand years before went in which order.

There is argument and debate between the dates, but there is usually a rough consensus about a general timeline.

http://www.mediahistory.umn.edu/archive/...Dates.html

All the "sources" that try to list anything majorly different is usually from such "reputable" sites as answersingenesis or blahblah[insert generic church name]blahanswers.

It makes sense. First came the story of Job about gods testing their disciples with superpowers. Then once that caught on, they had to come up with a creation story and the evolution to present day. After that came books like Psalms, Solomon, and Proverbs; songs and praises about this god. Then stories like Samson and David and Goliath; over the top Hollywood stories that branch out due to boredom and a need to add excitement to the religion. And the New Testament stories are self-explanatory... someone needed to come along and fulfill all the prophecies that were still unfulfilled.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2011, 11:21 PM
RE: The official "Things That Aren't in the Bible" thread
When I say that the books are in chronological order, I don't mean they were necessarily written in that order... I just mean that it's how they figured out what order to put them in when making a bound edition under the heading of "the bible". It's pretty easy to tell what order they come in, because most books introduce exactly where they fall in the timeline right in the first few verses of the first chapter. The one not-surprising exception is Job, which merely mentions the setting geographically and nothing else.

I'm surprised that the scholars in your citation placed all those books at such different times of writing. In a Nova special called "The Bible's Buried Secrets", the show's writers make a compelling case for the old testament being written (and re-written) at 3 different times by groups of scribes. Most of the dating was done with language, which changes pretty drastically over even a short amount of time. Think about what English was like a few hundred years ago - and then picture how much more it would've changed if there was little literacy and less of our language was committed to paper.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2011, 11:26 PM
RE: The official "Things That Aren't in the Bible" thread
(13-12-2011 03:03 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(12-12-2011 08:07 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  PPS...Job is reportedly the first book in the Bible to be written...

I'm pretty sure all of the books of the bible are listed chronologically. This idea that Job is the oldest has simply been passed on so many times that people take it as a truism, and if you Google it you'll find that no one cites an expert source for this idea (they simply quote is as fact, like your average truism). There's no good reason to believe that it is really is the oldest.

You're right. I shouldn't have trusted my undergrad and master's classes in Biblical studies. I should have gone straight to Wikipedia. Smile

{In the long run we here all agree it's bunk (KC, excluded) and in the end, I don't really care which view is right, but I wasn't speaking out of my ass. There's plenty of evidence to convince the folks that make this their living, found in place names, specific vocabulary and theology that place this as probalby older than any other OT book. Just because a story is in chronological order, doesn't mean it was written in that order. I point you to Asimov's 14+ books in the Foundation Universe. 20,000ish years of Galactic History, not written in chronological order, but the story is chronological once all of the books were done. Both works are fiction. One describing the beginning of Humanity. The other describing where we might end up. Smile}

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
14-12-2011, 12:27 AM
RE: The official "Things That Aren't in the Bible" thread
(13-12-2011 11:26 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  right. I shouldn't have trusted my undergrad and master's classes in Biblical studies. I should have gone straight to Wikipedia. Smile

That's cute, a condescending jab at Wikipedia.

Whenever I try to quote anything as fact, I always look it up (usually by Googling the question). This one found many, many sites that claimed Job was the first book, and not one of them linked it to a credible source. Many of them even stated things like "it's widely believed that..."

I don't quote-mine. I have nothing riding on whether Job was the first book or not, and if I found that it was true then I wouldn't have bothered speaking on the subject at all. But of course the Wikipedia entry is cited, in fact with textbooks that may be identical or similar to what you learned from.

You may be right and the Wikipedia entry may be way off. But don't just assert it. Cite it with something credible, like Buddy Christ did above.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2011, 01:14 AM
RE: The official "Things That Aren't in the Bible" thread
(14-12-2011 12:27 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(13-12-2011 11:26 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  right. I shouldn't have trusted my undergrad and master's classes in Biblical studies. I should have gone straight to Wikipedia. Smile

That's cute, a condescending jab at Wikipedia.

Whenever I try to quote anything as fact, I always look it up (usually by Googling the question). This one found many, many sites that claimed Job was the first book, and not one of them linked it to a credible source. Many of them even stated things like "it's widely believed that..."

I don't quote-mine. I have nothing riding on whether Job was the first book or not, and if I found that it was true then I wouldn't have bothered speaking on the subject at all. But of course the Wikipedia entry is cited, in fact with textbooks that may be identical or similar to what you learned from.

You may be right and the Wikipedia entry may be way off. But don't just assert it. Cite it with something credible, like Buddy Christ did above.

Bro, like I said...I don't care enough about it.
Ok, I lied. Maybe I do this much...Wikipedia said "Most scholars" believe it was written later. Fine. Some scholars don't. I happen to be an amateur scholar (since I no longer get paid for it Smile. I apologize that all my direct source material and textbooks are collecting dust in a storage unit in Southern California because I don't care to have such obscenity in my apartment. Big Grin And since I have shot my wad on this topic, I don't care to go googling for more info on something that doesn't mean a rats ass to any of us here. Wink

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
22-12-2011, 10:13 AM
RE: The official "Things That Aren't in the Bible" thread
My wife recently reminded me of something else that I never found when I read the bible: Purgatory & Limbo. (Although I think the catholic church just recently admitted that limbo wasn't real.)

I recently overheard part of my wife's side of a phone conversation she had with one of her work friends:

"I'm Catholic & my kids are catholic but my husband has no religion..."

"no...we did get married in a catholic church..."

"the priest allowed it because he was never baptized..."

"I know...no matter how good he is, he has no hope of even getting into purgatory without being at least baptized..."

The only place I've ever read about purgatory is when I read the first 2 books of Dante's "Divine comedy". I never could finish the last book, it just got too symbolic and hard the follow.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2011, 12:36 PM
RE: The official "Things That Aren't in the Bible" thread
(22-12-2011 10:13 AM)unsapien Wrote:  My wife recently reminded me of something else that I never found when I read the bible: Purgatory & Limbo. (Although I think the catholic church just recently admitted that limbo wasn't real.)

I recently overheard part of my wife's side of a phone conversation she had with one of her work friends:

"I'm Catholic & my kids are catholic but my husband has no religion..."

"no...we did get married in a catholic church..."

"the priest allowed it because he was never baptized..."

"I know...no matter how good he is, he has no hope of even getting into purgatory without being at least baptized..."

The only place I've ever read about purgatory is when I read the first 2 books of Dante's "Divine comedy". I never could finish the last book, it just got too symbolic and hard the follow.

That's a great point. Most of what Catholics believe in (ritually) is not in the bible in any form. Limbo and purgatory are great examples. The idea of popes or any other church rank is not mentioned, and you won't find mention of a world center for religion (such as Vatican City). The confession booth is a scriptural fabrication, as is the "immaculate conception" of Mary.

Yeah, those Catholics tend to make shit up.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2011, 02:50 PM
RE: The official "Things That Aren't in the Bible" thread
How about this one - a physical description of Jesus?

I love it - supposedly the single greatest being who ever lived - the one person/god/zombie that is central to life on Earth, and our eternal souls, and well, everything ever in the history of forever, and no one even mentions what he looked like.

Eh, he was probably fairly typical European. Right?

And another thing that's not in the Bible that's always fun to point out - anything that anyone even considers to be written by Jesus. Shit man, god himself comes down from heaven to tell us all what's what (maybe even stop some motherfuckin' bullets) and he can't even jot down a note? I got to hear it second hand (and third hand, and fourth hand, and fifth hand, ad infinitum) from everyone else? Solid plan there Jesus. Rock solid.

However, I do realize that these things I've pointed out are not necessarily in the same category as the other things you all have discussed, but these have always been interesting to me.

Our brains deceive us on a regular basis, so we have to find ways to fight back.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: