The Bible, Man's book or God's Word?

Originally posted by John Matrix

Just about anyone can assert just about anything, but this does not constitute proof of the claim.

My point's exactly.

The Bible makes all sorts of entirely unsubstantiated claims about the history of humanity, from Genesis, to the enslavement of the Hebrews in Egypt (many historians question whether the Hebrews were really enslaved in Egypt), etc etc etc. The book ASSERTS that it is the word of God and offers nothing in the way of proof, therefore it is up to the careful eye and the reason of the mind to determine the truthfulness of the claim. I have shown with logic that the Bible contradicts itself in too many ways to be the perfect "Word of God" assuming that God is All-Powerful and loves human beings.

Offer me proof of your assertion that the Bible is true or that it is the Word of God, use logic.

reply to post by John Matrix


you know where it says it. the teaching of women being quiet in the "church." i am the church. my body is the temple of god, not a building. the shekinah no longer resides in a building but in the individual believer. when we get together, we share our experiences on this matter. but we don't HAVE to get together to share our experiences on this matter, since your faith can sustain you. it helps though to have others to talk to (it's human psychology). so why would it be necessary for a woman to be quiet? that's like saying the shekinah in you is allowed to speak because you have a certain chromosomal structure but the shekinah in your wife, shall remain silent because eve screwed up 4000 years prior. is the text saying adam is forgiven but eve is not? yep, that's what it means in the wash. let's look at the times he was living in:

the ancient greeks killed their female children because they were not of value, compared to the male child. the entire society grew up around the beauty of the human male. they were mostly pederastic . their wives were an after thought and were not invited to social functions.

the ancient romans inherited this tradition although they encouraged that female children not be killed because the family unit keeps the nation strong (they figured that out, thank the maker! because had the greeks not killed off all their females, they'd still be in power)

the jewish sects of jesus time, were hostile to females, in every conceivable way and paul was a former big wig of one of the biggest. he brought to the table, his life experiences and translated the teachings of christ, threw that filter. he was a man, afterall. it's either that or someone tampered with the text





[edit on 15-1-2009 by undo]

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by John Matrix

 

this is not exactly correct, from my perspective.
as i mentioned before, if the early christians needed a book to be christians, they sure didn't know it. the book has been tinkered with an awful lot. it wouldn't surprise me if passages were added by the rcc, simply because some of the concepts are so completely opposite of each other, it's as if some parts were edited in. jesus didn't tell us that we should look forward to the book coming to comfort us. he said the holy spirit would do that. the book is useful and informative, of that there is no doubt, but to cast it in the light of infallible, is dangerously close to the problems jesus encountered with people worshipping mosaic law rather than Creator of moses. he even warns them that moses was making stuff in some of the laws, because he knew how hard it would be for people to follow some of the concepts -- such as avoiding divorce or even the thought of sex with someone other than your spouse. it wasn't that sex was bad, it was the idea that focus on flesh is focus off the spirit. i think the book is the same way. focus too much on the book, and you've just removed your eyes from the holy spirit and put the worship on the book

Hi Undo ...
I wanted to say something about the RCC ....and the bible ...
I have known many many Catholics ...and not one of them actually read the bible ..in fact they have been told by the Clergy that they could not even understand it on their own which is why they are supposed to allow the Pope and Clergy to tell them what it says ...which they dont read as much of the bible to them as they read their own stuff to them ....the bible does not get used much at all in the religion of the Catholics ..
I went to a few sermons with a few of my friends and I hardly heard anything out of the bible in the sermons ...and I was the only one who came in with my bible in hand and it was a huge Church ...I found it very odd ...

Another thing ..dont they have a bible that differs from ours ?
And of course they have added some of the Lost Books into it ..(Dont you wonder why that it is if they are truly inspired books? I dont think they would ..they do not want their people inspired to read anything that may turn them away from the Pope and cause them to turn to Jesus Christ instead ..I mean he thinks he is in place of Christ ...so he would not want any competition from anyone ..especially Jesus ) ..........


At this site they actually say to get a literal translated one like the NIV .
www.catholic.com...
They do not suggest the KJV ....And they also have one that is widely used everywhere but the US and it is called the New Jerusalem Bible ...
www.catholic.org...


They would prefer you read the Cathechism books where they give you their own version of the scriptures ..

Alot like what alot of Protestant Churchs do now ..with so many books and study guides etc ....

It is pretty clear that most organized religions today do not want anyone reading anything and finding out anything by themselves in the bible ..
It is so much easier to make sheeple if the sheeple dont know the word enough to see where they ERROR ............


[edit on 15-1-2009 by Simplynoone]

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by John Matrix

 

well it could be an issue for some, which the thread was discussing. there's more than one way to make an idol of it. to state it is the sum total of all things christian is obviously wrong but we see that all the time and how convenient that it also happens to be seemingly contradictory and occassionally mistranslated? that's part of the problem. emphasis where emphasis due, ya know.

I never said it was the sum total of all things Christian. I don't think anyone said that on this thread.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by John Matrix

 

you know where it says it. the teaching of women being quiet in the "church." i am the church. my body is the temple of god, not a building.
[edit on 15-1-2009 by undo]

Ok, thanks...I'll be back.

reply to post by badmedia


Understood. I appreciate that you're contributing to this thread, as your opinions deviate from the norm on all sides. It's refreshing to hear a different, more thoughtful perspective.

Just don't fault me too much for not being on the path to enlightenment .

reply to post by John Matrix


im referring to people who argue that it's faulty and the sum total of all things christian and therefore, christianity is faulty. they have their own way of idolizing it. they make it into jesus and then say SEE, IT'S MESSED UP RIGHT HERE IT SAYS GOD DID THIS OR THAT AND SO ON. the same argument's are presented on the subject of the history of catholicism. cause some pope did this or that thing, all christianity and christians in general, are bad. or because some super fundie protestants burnt presumed witches at the stake or whatever other blunders people make in the course of their lives, this proves jesus is no good or christianity is bad. ya know the spiel.

reply to post by Simplynoone


i tend to agree with you on this matter as i have often thought the chances of the rcc making it up from scratch are about as unlikely as they come considering they don't teach from it that often to begin with. but if they were the ones that compiled it, there's a chance some changes were made by them or paul was just being a man of his time - which is perfectly understandable. where the problem arises is treating it as if it were gospel if it's just a man's opinion, like moses' laws regarding divorce

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Simplynoone

 

i tend to agree with you on this matter as i have often thought the chances of the rcc making it up from scratch are about as unlikely as they come considering they don't teach from it that often to begin with. but if they were the ones that compiled it, there's a chance some changes were made by them or paul was just being a man of his time - which is perfectly understandable. where the problem arises is treating it as if it were gospel if it's just a man's opinion, like moses' laws regarding divorce

Wasnt there other bibles around before the Catholics got ahold of it ?
It seems to me that I read somewhere that they also burned books and bibles during the crusades ..

And look at this
Early Modern English Bible translations are those translations of the Bible which were made between about 1500 and 1800, the period of Early Modern English. This was the first major period of Bible translation into the English language including the landmark King James Version and Douai Bibles. The Reformation and Counter-Reformation led to the need for Bibles in the vernacular with competing groups each producing their own versions.

Although Wyclif's Bible had preceded the Protestant Reformation, England was actually one of the last countries in Europe to have a printed vernacular Bible. There were several reasons for this. One was that Henry VIII wanted to avoid the propagation of heresies—a concern subsequently justified by the marginal notes printed in Tyndale's New Testament and the Geneva Bible, for example. Another was the Roman Catholic doctrine of Magisterium which describes the Church as the final authority in the interpretation of the Scriptures; in the volatile years of the Reformation, it was not felt that encouraging private Scriptural interpretation, and thereby possible heresy, would be helpful.

Several of the early printed English Bibles were suppressed, at least temporarily. Henry VIII complained about Tyndale's "pestilent glosses", and only tolerated the Coverdale and Matthew Bibles because the publishers carefully omitted any mention of Tyndale's involvement in them. Later, the "authorized" Great Bible of 1539 was suppressed under Mary I because of her Roman Catholic beliefs.
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by paperplanes
Understood. I appreciate that you're contributing to this thread, as your opinions deviate from the norm on all sides. It's refreshing to hear a different, more thoughtful perspective.

Just don't fault me too much for not being on the path to enlightenment

.

No problem. There will come a time when certain things will start to peak your interest. A few years ago I had no interest in it either.

The best advice I can give in the meantime, is that you will need to seek the truth, it is never going to be handed or feed to you. Don't settle for any wooden nickles. And on a religious type note, don't let what people do in the name of Jesus define what Jesus is for you.

Good luck.

reply to post by undo


With regard to 1 Tomothy 2:12

It is important to note that Women were uneducated and Oppressed before the establishment of the church. Paul's instruction for women to learn was something new to the culture of that time. The women were uneducated at that time, and they had a habit of raising a ruckus in the church. Paul had obviously heard about this problem taking place in the Church and he wanted the women to be quiet, Learn and become teachers of the younger women and children(Titus 2:3,4).

Educated Women are obviously as capable as men for positions of teaching. But at that time they were only just beginning to be educated.
It appears the preference is that Women don't have authority to teach men in the Churches, However, when there are no men to lead, then women lead. There are a few accounts of women taking up positions of authority in the NT and the OT.

Paul's position is somewhat sweetened by his instruction for Husbands to Love their wives in the same manner as Jesus who laid down his life for those who follow him. How many women would argue with that instruction?
When everyone is in subjection to God, peace and harmony results.

I'm hoping simplynoon has some insight to add.

I found this online Commentary. There are others. I suggest finding a few more contemporary Commentaries. Here is the link:

www.stilltruth.com...

reply to post by Simplynoone

You are absolutely correct!! I am afraid that a lot of "western" styled christians have taken to that very habit of looking at the bible it'self as the perfect infallable system and have fairly well forgotten about the real God that is behind the inspiration of the bible.
Sincerely worship and seek to follow God, and you may soon understand the bible better.
Inspired by God through the Holy Spirit, interpreted and printed by man. That's the bible. No dragon carved a stone and no boogie man came along with a feather pen and printed the bible. And besides, other than Jesus, all the prophets and writers were sinners.

reply to post by John Matrix


that would be sufficient description were it not for the fact he further explains the reason as "because of Eve." that has nothing to do with the times they were living in. it was a commentary on eve's sin in the garden. adam apparently knew better but did it anyway. eve supposedly was tricked. adam who knew better but did it anyway, was allowed to speak in church but eve, who was tricked, was not. i failed to see the significance of the reason and thought it was really contradictory in the light of the rest of the data. such as who were the first to profess the risen savior? that's the gospel message. it was women.

but this bit of strangely placed commentary, caused women to be excluded from letting their light shine before other people. it's the same holy spirit ya know? i scratch my head.

if women were prophesying in the church in other places, such as in acts, why would a few letters later, paul say, keep women quiet? it doesn't say in acts that the women who were prophesying were incorrect or disruptive.

anyway, too many contradictions. it wasn't about book knowledge anyway, but the ability spread the gospel, the good news of jesus. suddenly it was about book knowledge.

i mean, after i carefully studied all of that, i began to feel very discouraged as a christian. here was deborah, the leader and prophet of Israel, who was a woman of God. yet 2000 years later, even 4000 years later, there are people who still believe the holy spirit is only allowed to speak from the lips of a man ..even after all that jesus demonstrated and said about women.

John I once did some deep digging online about that and what I came to the conclusion of is the same as this man did ..


Myth #1: Only prostitutes went about with their heads uncovered and Paul did not want the Christian women associated with prostitutes.

This myth has been passed along because of a lack of good scholarly historical research. Ancient Greece and the time of Corinth under the Roman Empire have been lumped together. It would be similar to someone a thousand years from now saying what America was like in 2000 AD by studying life in colonial America.

The ancient city of Corinth with its temple prostitute system was destroyed in 146 BC. Julius Caesar restored Corinth a hundred years later. By the time 1 Corinthians was written, 200 years after the temple prostitute system was destroyed, Corinth was a thoroughly Roman city. Life in the Roman Empire during this time in the first century AD, was in many ways more like society today than any other time in history. Women had a lot of "freedoms" that they did not have before. They were allowed to educate themselves, speak in public, and initiate a divorce. Women used contraceptives, practiced abortion, and exercised "sexual freedom." (Pandora's Daughters: The Role and Status of Women in Greek and Roman Antiquity, by Eva Cantarella, John Hopkins University Press, 1987, p.140,141, 148)

The book of Acts mentions "chief" women in several of the cities, and women at Paul's speech on Mars Hill. Many non-Christian women during this time did not cover their heads with a veil, although there were some who wore a veil or other head covering. Elaborate hair styles also became popular during this time.

Myth #8: Submission makes a woman inferior to men

God addresses this myth in verses 11 & 12. "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God." God tells us that both men and women are necessary and of equal importance. Husbands are not to operate independently from their wives and vice versa. Each has their God-given role that is of equal importance. Men cannot exist without women - they are born from a woman. Women cannot exist without men - they are conceived by a man. As Christians, God wants us to view both male and female as equally important, not inferior and superior.

www.biblicalresearchreports.com...


I did some indepth study once and found out that the women were kind of rude and would ask loudly what was said in the sermons to their husbands during the sermons because they could not hear since they sat way up in the balconies ..they were loud enough to disrupt the services ..Which was why Paul told them to ask their hubby at home instead of disrupting the services.
I will see if I can find it again ...it took forever to find it ..maybe I can again ..


After being involved a few times with a few Pentecostal Churchs in our times even I can see another reason why Paul would tell them to be quiet .
They speak in tongues (which sounded more like strange demonic voices instead of the gentle calm Holy Spirit that I know) loudly and fall all over the floor ,dancing and pratting about .....etc ...they are some of the worst disrupters there were in those kinds or churchs ..the men did not act that way at all ..
I can see why Paul said keep everything orderly ..or something to that affect.There is not much order at all in some of the real extreme Pentecostal Churchs...(which was why I had to leave ) .......




[edit on 15-1-2009 by Simplynoone]

simply,

i read the same thing about being noisy but that's not the context of paul's reasoning. he says clearly BECAUSE OF EVE. this means, he's saying women are still subject to the sins of the garden. when i debated this with another gentleman he said, well you still have pain in childbirth doncha? he was convinced that although we are forgiven those sins, we still live with the consequences including the idea that women should be quiet in church because they are more gullible than men .. .afterall, eve was tricked. had the women who proclaimed the risen jesus decided not to say anything because they were women, those guys woulda been clueless for quite awhile.

i think this will all get ironed out in the hereafter. it just seems a shame to have to endure this moratorium on women speaking in the congregation

Originally posted by undo
simply,

i read the same thing about being noisy but that's not the context of paul's reasoning. he says clearly BECAUSE OF EVE. this means, he's saying women are still subject to the sins of the garden. when i debated this with another gentleman he said, well you still have pain in childbirth doncha? he was convinced that although we are forgiven those sins, we still live with the consequences including the idea that women should be quiet in church because they are more gullible than men .. .afterall, eve was tricked. had the women who proclaimed the risen jesus decided not to say anything because they were women, those guys woulda been clueless for quite awhile.

i think this will all get ironed out in the hereafter. it just seems a shame to have to endure this moratorium on women speaking in the congregation

Well Eve was the first to fall into temptation (doesnt it make you wonder why the serpent went to Eve first?) ....not only that she was able to heavily influence the man to eat too ....(wish I knew how to influence my man better lol) ...
Maybe she is worse than man when it comes to believing deceptions because she *(women) are ..well women ...which some of us can be pretty gullible ..more so than men are ..(I AM NOT SPEAKING FOR ALL WOMEN HERE so dont get mad ) >..I said SOME ...

I dont know ..

I just went and checked what your friend was talking about ...and he is mixing up some verses from other sections and taking it out of context to go with the subject ...
Here is the only scripture that says something about Eve and he is just using the fact that she was decieved to show it as an example for them to not be decieved about anything like Eve had been (just using her as an example)

2Cr 11:1 Would to God ye could bear with me a little in [my] folly: and indeed bear with me.

2Cr 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present [you as] a chaste virgin to Christ.

2Cr 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.



I really do not think that women were not supposed to teach etc ...Until someone misinterpreted those scriptures and made it that way later .
Because many women were called in the NT as desciples (cant spell that).
And sent to preach and teach like the men were ...there are many women mentioned throughout the NT as teachers ...so I dont believe it was ever that way until later on as I said when the Church higharchy decided not to allow it ...from misinterpreting the scriptures ..(Or possibly for other reasons ) ...........


[edit on 15-1-2009 by Simplynoone]

reply to post by Simplynoone


you feel silly even saying it, doncha?

check this:

He also went out of His way to heal a woman on the Sabbath (a definite no-no), right in front of the leader of the synagogue! He was willing to risk the difficulties it brought for Him because He cared so much for the poor woman who had been bent over double for 18 years. This account is found in Luke 13:10-17. Several things are significant about this passage. First, He called to the woman, inviting her to come to Him. Men did not speak to women publically, even their own wives.[7] Secondly, He risked a stir by healing her on the Sabbath. Thirdly, He called her a "Daughter of Abraham." This was an unusual expression. Men were called "Sons of Abraham" to show they were part of God's chosen people, but women were considered to have no part in the inheritance or covenant blessings of Abraham.

with that kind of attitude, what woman would want to be a woman?

reply to post by undo




Now the Jews had a different lifestyle from the Romans and different beliefs ..See my links above .
The Roman women were modern like we are so it may not have been the same with them as with Jewish women ..(The Corinthian Church was Christian and had many romans in it ) ............according to that link ..
The Jews may have treated their women differently ..I dont know much about them ...but I plan on checking on it now ...

reply to post by Simplynoone


1 Tim. 2:12-15

"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet,

13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve."

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by undo]