Mine's Howard Goodall's the Vicar of Dibley 
What is your favourite version of Psalm 23 (The Lord is my shepherd)
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Psalm_23
Any reason for this thread other than to get your post-count up?
I've never read the bible. I couldn't get through all the begattin' at the start of the first testament. It was quite racy stuff I suppose, for a bible, but it went on for too long.
Fortunately I did get to see the reduced shakespeare company perform an abridged version.
Fortunately I did get to see the reduced shakespeare company perform an abridged version.
#4
- hrtburnout
Indoctrination...
The Lord is my shephard. If you want one, buy your own.
(He is good cook with water and fish too, but his jokes are so out of this world...)
(He is good cook with water and fish too, but his jokes are so out of this world...)
I prefer the actual version 
Imho, it's a story that got very out of hand.... Like Pokemon...
I prefer the one that says 'I don't believe in this stuff.'
And I just thinks of "Psalm 69" the best industrial metal album ever made, the title song is quite awsome too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRNrFCXHD0k even if Jesus Built my Hotrod, N.W.O and Just one fix are better songs.
Ministry just rocks.
....oh sorry its the subforum that is off topic not the posts in the threads...
Ministry just rocks.
....oh sorry its the subforum that is off topic not the posts in the threads...
To be fair there are some nice stories in the bible, as long as you don't read them cover to cover. Of course, you have to remember they are merely stories, with a lot of made up nonsense in them too, added over the years.
I see the bible as an out of hand stories bundle by the brothers Grimm.
Most who read the bible doesn't understand what's it about, most should actually leave it alone, especially the obsolete testament. The revised second edition (2.0 for you nerds) is so much more relevant.
Love, Peace and Understanding - Jesus Was a Hippie
Love, Peace and Understanding - Jesus Was a Hippie
We now find the medicinal side of marijuana, jesus already made the dissabled stand up with it.
Jeebers may have been a hippie, but he sure wasn't a meek & mild one. After all, it was his book - the much-lauded 2.0 - that introduced humanity to the glorious, loving concept of Hell and its everlasting torments. Dig that flower power jive 
Psalm 23 was one of the first thing i learnt at Sunday School (i was made to go for a few months as a kid)
Even at 6 years old i realised something was very wrong with the load of old pony they were teaching us.
If a 6 year old doesn't believe that guff, i still cant understand how any sane adult can
Why isn't the Bible found in the Fiction section of library's and bookshops?
Even at 6 years old i realised something was very wrong with the load of old pony they were teaching us.
If a 6 year old doesn't believe that guff, i still cant understand how any sane adult can
Why isn't the Bible found in the Fiction section of library's and bookshops?
Way to slap every single Jew on the planet, in the face.
Lewis Black says it best. Watch the first couple minutes of the video. (May be some profanity, beware)
Fixed.
Laying aside the fact that the individual books' manuscripts themselves, can be dated as well as any other ancient manuscripts (thereby refuting the theory that they've been incrementally added to over the years), how many of you have actually taken the time to read (entirely) this book you all claim to know enough about to dismiss completely? After all, isn't 99% of history simply stories passed down through generations (sometimes written down)?
It would be like my girlfriend saying "Live for Speed isn't at all realistic", when she's never even tried it - or only seen the damage model.
It would be like my girlfriend saying "Live for Speed isn't at all realistic", when she's never even tried it - or only seen the damage model.
I prefer the LOLCaz version, takes about 20x longer to read than any other version.
A historical event is something that can be verified by looking at multiple sources. The Bible doesn't qualify. Its original manuscripts may be dated accurately of course, but noone's denying the existence of the Bible or debating its exact age (it was written at least a generation after Jesus' execution, by most estimates), just its accuracy as a historical document.
The problem is this: the Bible is the only source for the events it describes and those events aren't mentioned in any other sources from the era (for example, you'd think a local despot having every first-born child executed would have rated a mention from a Roman historian. It doesn't). Going back to an Old Testament example, you'd think the escape of millions of Hebrew slaves from the clutches of the evil Pharaoh would have been worth a mention on a papyrus somewhere too. You'd think news of that magnitude would spread like wildfire to neighbouring nations and kingdoms and be recorded there too. Again, it didn't.
The other problem (for me anyway) is the circular logic that says "the Bible is true and I know this because the Bible itself is true, and you have to trust the Bible because it's the true word of God." I'm afraid that isn't very convincing.
FTR I have read the Bible many times, as I was raised Christian. Not by my parents though - my primary school & high school had religious instruction classes, I went to Sunday School until I was about 6 (my mother removed my brothers and I in objection to us being taught spook stories about Satan & Hell) and I had sort of religious awakening at 14 (which lasted about a year iirc). I'm not coming at Christianity from some uneducated, prejudiced point of view. "Know thine enemy", as some wise man once said I'm aware of the beautiful prose in the Bible and the admirable moral sentiments expressed; I'm equally aware of the brutality, the contradictions between different books and even within some books, the outdated social practices and I could go on. I'm also aware of many, many people who say "you don't take it all literally, some it is just an illustration, a parable". So who decides what you take literally and what you take as a fable? There's no instruction manual - it seems to be entirely up to the individual which parts of the Bible to obey and which to discard as outdated desert custom or non-literal story-telling. Most Christians I know (apart from the fundamentalists) take the moral lessons of peace & tolerance & forgiveness & charity (which you can find in any religious or secular philosophy anyway) and leave behind almost everything else. Hell, they're barely even Christian if you look at the percentage of Bible rules they stick to
The problem is this: the Bible is the only source for the events it describes and those events aren't mentioned in any other sources from the era (for example, you'd think a local despot having every first-born child executed would have rated a mention from a Roman historian. It doesn't). Going back to an Old Testament example, you'd think the escape of millions of Hebrew slaves from the clutches of the evil Pharaoh would have been worth a mention on a papyrus somewhere too. You'd think news of that magnitude would spread like wildfire to neighbouring nations and kingdoms and be recorded there too. Again, it didn't.
The other problem (for me anyway) is the circular logic that says "the Bible is true and I know this because the Bible itself is true, and you have to trust the Bible because it's the true word of God." I'm afraid that isn't very convincing.
FTR I have read the Bible many times, as I was raised Christian. Not by my parents though - my primary school & high school had religious instruction classes, I went to Sunday School until I was about 6 (my mother removed my brothers and I in objection to us being taught spook stories about Satan & Hell) and I had sort of religious awakening at 14 (which lasted about a year iirc). I'm not coming at Christianity from some uneducated, prejudiced point of view. "Know thine enemy", as some wise man once said
I'm aware of the beautiful prose in the Bible and the admirable moral sentiments expressed; I'm equally aware of the brutality, the contradictions between different books and even within some books, the outdated social practices and I could go on. I'm also aware of many, many people who say "you don't take it all literally, some it is just an illustration, a parable". So who decides what you take literally and what you take as a fable? There's no instruction manual - it seems to be entirely up to the individual which parts of the Bible to obey and which to discard as outdated desert custom or non-literal story-telling. Most Christians I know (apart from the fundamentalists) take the moral lessons of peace & tolerance & forgiveness & charity (which you can find in any religious or secular philosophy anyway) and leave behind almost everything else. Hell, they're barely even Christian if you look at the percentage of Bible rules they stick to oh noes
Never fear Jeff, I swear that's my last essay on this topic (in this thread)
I don't have any hard evidence on me, but I will attempt to find some that I had to hand last time I had this debate with someone.
If you read correctly, the entirety of the Egyptian army drowned in the Red Sea. There wasn't anyone left to report anything other than the Israelites who survived. As for the record of their 'escape', Pharaoh let the Israelites go, before deciding to pursue them several days later - this wouldn't have been recorded by anyone (except the Israelites) as a 'successful escape'. And, as is well known, history is most often told by the winner.
Of course it's not - but I wasn't saying that.
The 'contradictions' come from a misunderstanding of context - and I have yet to find a seeming contradiction that wasn't perfectly justified by contextual understanding.
Once again, context and understanding of the texts in their original language. As you may or may not know, Hebrew and Aramaic are far more expressive and descriptive languages than English - and translators often have had to best approximate some areas, to convey the overall feel of the passage.
To people reading these texts in the original language, the definition of a 'story' would be as clear as starting an English book "Once upon a time..." - because they understood the structure and style, which in translation to English (and other languages) is lost. The problem comes from a failure to re-identify these areas by examining the original texts.
Additionally, the books were written with different purposes in mind. These are most readily identified by the styles of writing displayed in the original texts. For example, Moses' books are historical/factual accounts, whilst Paul's letters are informal, and personal. The latter of these is likely to contain examples, metaphors, even 'in-jokes' - whilst the former is an attempt at an accurate, linear, documentation of past events.
That is a very sad truth for Christianity in the Western world - unfortunately for you, I don't hold to that ideal, and would be what you call a 'fundamentalist'.
how so? assuming that the bible is a true account of how the rules it contains came into this world afaik theres only 10 which came directly from the only one whos oppinion actually matters and another triple one from his son which is essentially those previous 10 condensed into one
correct me if im wrong since you obviously know the content better than me but id say the book makes quite clear which bits are just stories and which bits are direct orders from god
quoted for truth
The word of God has been in heaven forever. The KJV has always been there. The so called Hebrew words like Alleluia are English words. The English did not borrow them from the Hebrew but rather the Hebrew borrowed them from the English. If the KJV has always been there and is the original word of God then there is no other conclusion. The same can be said for any so called Greek words that were borrowed from the Greek or transliterated. It is a matter of what bias you approach this particular subject.
That's where the whole thing fell apart for me I'm afraid.
It's like saying "direct orders from Father Christmas" or "direct orders from the tooth fairy"
Still, i respect any religious persons right to believe in what i consider no more probable than fairy tales, i just will never understand how someone that has the power of rational thought can believe in such(as i see it) nonsense.
What is your favourite version of Psalm 23 (The Lord is my shepherd)
(74 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG