Jump to content

Bible On The History Channel.


walnutcowboy
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

A well written interesting article. Loved the quote about Richard Dawkin, I've always known he wasn't paying attention.

 

This part of the article is refreshing....

 

Science itself emphatically does not disprove religion; the notion that they're in conflict belongs to professors in the humanities who passed only a minimum science requirement decades ago.  Among physicists, some would say that that science and religion don't overlap at all, but many others find a pathway of compatibility between the two. 

 

If anything disproves religion, it is religion itself. The article should have said, "science itself emphtically does not disprove God".

 

Religion is a collection of illogical belief systems. Religion is the creation of man, not God.

 

God says, "Do this". Man does the opposite and calls it religion.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best way to know Bible is to read it.

 

And I mean really read it from cover to cover, not just leaf through it.

 

I've read Bible through very carefully twice, and I can tell there are a lot of eye openers there, and stuff you would not believe. And some very weird stuff as well, such as the proper way to clean oneself after masturbation.

 

And of course, once you have read the Bible, you cannot be mislead by preachers that misquote bible on purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing that Jesus was a Jew, born in the Middle East, he was probably not white with blue eyes. That said, one could argue that since he had no Earthly Father, there is no Earthly lineage except those traits that belonged to Mary. Seeing as the Bible basically says that lineage is traced through the Father, Jesus could have looked any way God seen fit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing that Jesus was a Jew, born in the Middle East, he was probably not white with blue eyes. That said, one could argue that since he had no Earthly Father, there is no Earthly lineage except those traits that belonged to Mary. Seeing as the Bible basically says that lineage is traced through the Father, Jesus could have looked any way God seen fit.

The handsome effeminate Jesus, with long flowing hair and big sad eyes, which is portrayed by the world is totally false.

 

Jesus did not have long hair.... Paul tells us.... 

 

1 Corinthians 11:4 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him.

 

Jesus was not handsome.....

 

Isaiah 53: (NKJV)

 

For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant,

And as a root out of dry ground.

He has no form or comeliness;

And when we see Him,

There is no beauty that we should desire Him.

 

The popular images of Jesus are not only false, they defy the second commandment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The handsome effeminate Jesus, with long flowing hair and big sad eyes, which is portrayed by the world is totally false.

 

Jesus did not have long hair.... Paul tells us.... 

 

1 Corinthians 11:4 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him.

 

Jesus was not handsome.....

 

Isaiah 53: (NKJV)

 

For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant,

And as a root out of dry ground.

He has no form or comeliness;

And when we see Him,

There is no beauty that we should desire Him.

 

The popular images of Jesus are not only false, they defy the second commandment.

 

Just playing Devil's advocate... I know the traditional Christian image of Jesus, with the flowing hair is completely false. Personally, I don't think we should even concern ourselves with what Christ looked like... 2 Corinthians 5:7: We walk by faith, not by sight. Besides, creating things like pictures or statues is forbidden... Exodus 20:4: You shall not make yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything in Heaven or on Earth. There really is no need to know what Jesus looked like as a man. Even if we did know, we couldn't (shouldn't) reproduce the image anyway.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing that Jesus was a Jew, born in the Middle East, he was probably not white with blue eyes. That said, one could argue that since he had no Earthly Father, there is no Earthly lineage except those traits that belonged to Mary. Seeing as the Bible basically says that lineage is traced through the Father, Jesus could have looked any way God seen fit.

 

Well, the Bible may say lineage is traced through the father but biology says you get your traits from both father and mother. As Mary was a Jew, he presumably looked like an (apparently ordinary) Jew.  I also kind of doubt he'd have gathered many Jewish followers as a "savior of the people" if he looked like some outsider from another race.  

 

I've seen depictions of Jesus as white, black, and middle-eastern.  It's interesting how cultures tend to fashion their gods to look like themselves, isn't it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the Bible may say lineage is traced through the father but biology says you get your traits from both father and mother. As Mary was a Jew, he presumably looked like an (apparently ordinary) Jew.  I also kind of doubt he'd have gathered many Jewish followers as a "savior of the people" if he looked like some outsider from another race.  

 

I've seen depictions of Jesus as white, black, and middle-eastern.  It's interesting how cultures tend to fashion their gods to look like themselves, isn't it?

 

@Europa

 

Very good observation!

Cultures tend to fashion their gods to look like themselves, IMO because unable to see what is beyond the condition of being mortal human beings. The desire for gods to be like them. To be part of their culture and daily life.

For istance IMO I find  the scriptures too authoritative and off putting, because plenty of orders to be followed and paraboles that do not reflect the current affairs that are taking place in our construct of organized society.  I suspect that at the heart of our industrial society there is a need  to create non-authoritarian and non-dogmatic models. Perhaps a new spiritual pathway of thoughts?  Indeed we have entered this new millenium with several crisis on the way. One of this is a crisis of the Judeo-Christian hegemony. For these reasons there is a general desire of wanting to look back again into pre-Christian cultures, I think.

Edited by wannamaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 THIS is so NOT why I started this thread

BUT

Why can't it be that Noah's sons and there wives couldn't be from different backgrounds, which would explain the different kinds/colors of their children and THEIR children all the way down to us?. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything is possible with God..

 

 

I really liked this miniseries for the most part.  There were a couple of things that I felt did not hold true to what I interpret the Bible to be.  But I really did enjoy that they did not just stop at the Ascension of Christ but showed the Disciples afterwards and Stephen and Paul (although I thought I heard they called him Paul throughout instead of Saul prior to his conversion). 

 

In the final analysis IMHO if it gets people interested in either reading the Bible, learning the stories and moving closer to God, I find that comforting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you know that there are more than hundred Gospels in existence?

 

And only four are on the Bible.

 

The rest are sealed in the Vatican vaults, where nobody can see them.

 

And they include the Gospel of Mary, Jesuses mother.

 

It is very evil act from the church not to let us see those gospels and learn more about Jesus from them.

 

But what more can you expect from the catholic church eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God’s stamp of approval

 

One of the most fascinating proofs that the Bible is the inspired word of God is found in how God inspired His servants to number and order the books of Scripture.

 

 The common "Protestant" ordering of the Old Testament canon includes 39 books, containing the same content that the Jewish ordering grouped into 22 differently-arranged books.  For example, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings were combined into one book.   When Ezra and Nehemiah finished the final canonization of the Old Testament, there were only 22 books.   Writing around 100ad, Josephus states: “We have not a countless number of books, discordant and arrayed against each other; but only 22 books, containing the history of every age, which are justly accredited as divine.”  From 170ad on, dozens of additional Christian scholars affirm the 22 books of the Old Testament. 

 

So, what is the significance of the number 22?  In Psalm 119, notice that before verse number one there is a symbol with the name Aleph by it.  Then before v. 9 there is another symbol with the name Beth.  Every 8th verse in Psalm 119 begins this way.  The names next to the symbols are letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and in the Hebrew language each verse within that grouping of eight verses begins with that Hebrew letter.  This style of poetic writing is called an acrostic, and Psalm 119 is a perfect, complete acrostic praising God’s perfect law, because every letter of the Hebrew alphabet was used; all 22 of them.    

 The Old Testament Holy Scriptures, as the Jews preserved them, were considered a perfect acrostic.  Twenty-two books of Scripture – 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet.  There was nothing else that could be added to the Old Testament.  All the letters were used up.

Peter was responsible for the first canonization of the New Testament, and John was responsible for the second canonization before his death in the late 90s ad.  The numbering of the 27 New Testament books is not disputed, but the ordering is. 

 

Peter and John placed the general epistles, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, 3 John directly after the four gospels and the book of Acts.  However, in the 400s, Jerome moved Paul’s letters forward to be directly after the four gospels and the book of Acts.  Writing for Roman leaders, it is believed that Jerome wanted to give Paul’s writings prominence over the general, supposedly “more Jewish in tone” epistles.

Here are some amazing numerical facts based on the original inspired grouping and ordering of the Bible: 

  1. The Old Testament contains seven (God’s number of completion) parts:  the Law, the Former Prophets, the Major Prophets, the Minor Prophets, the Poetic books, the Megillot, and the Latter Restoration books.
  2. The four Gospels (which tell the story of Jesus’ life) and Acts (which continues the story of what Jesus did through the Church) is the center of Scripture.  There are 22 books that come before and 22 that come after, making Christ the center of the Bible and the chief cornerstone.
  3. Peter, the apostle to the Jews, canonized 22 books, which is exactly the number of books that existed in the Old Testament.
  4. Together, the 22 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament equal 49, or 7 x 7, God’s number of completion squared. 

The Bible was written over a period of 1,500 years in many different locations by more than 40 authors.  Yet, through His consistent use of a complex pattern of numbers and order, God places His divine stamp of approval upon it.

Edited by Catweazle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God’s stamp of approval

 

One of the most fascinating proofs that the Bible is the inspired word of God is found in how God inspired His servants to number and order the books of Scripture.

 

 The common "Protestant" ordering of the Old Testament canon includes 39 books, containing the same content that the Jewish ordering grouped into 22 differently-arranged books.  For example, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings were combined into one book.   When Ezra and Nehemiah finished the final canonization of the Old Testament, there were only 22 books.   Writing around 100ad, Josephus states: “We have not a countless number of books, discordant and arrayed against each other; but only 22 books, containing the history of every age, which are justly accredited as divine.”  From 170ad on, dozens of additional Christian scholars affirm the 22 books of the Old Testament. 

 

So, what is the significance of the number 22?  In Psalm 119, notice that before verse number one there is a symbol with the name Aleph by it.  Then before v. 9 there is another symbol with the name Beth.  Every 8th verse in Psalm 119 begins this way.  The names next to the symbols are letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and in the Hebrew language each verse within that grouping of eight verses begins with that Hebrew letter.  This style of poetic writing is called an acrostic, and Psalm 119 is a perfect, complete acrostic praising God’s perfect law, because every letter of the Hebrew alphabet was used; all 22 of them.    

 The Old Testament Holy Scriptures, as the Jews preserved them, were considered a perfect acrostic.  Twenty-two books of Scripture – 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet.  There was nothing else that could be added to the Old Testament.  All the letters were used up.

Peter was responsible for the first canonization of the New Testament, and John was responsible for the second canonization before his death in the late 90s ad.  The numbering of the 27 New Testament books is not disputed, but the ordering is. 

 

Peter and John placed the general epistles, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, 3 John directly after the four gospels and the book of Acts.  However, in the 400s, Jerome moved Paul’s letters forward to be directly after the four gospels and the book of Acts.  Writing for Roman leaders, it is believed that Jerome wanted to give Paul’s writings prominence over the general, supposedly “more Jewish in tone” epistles.

Here are some amazing numerical facts based on the original inspired grouping and ordering of the Bible: 

  1. The Old Testament contains seven (God’s number of completion) parts:  the Law, the Former Prophets, the Major Prophets, the Minor Prophets, the Poetic books, the Megillot, and the Latter Restoration books.
  2. The four Gospels (which tell the story of Jesus’ life) and Acts (which continues the story of what Jesus did through the Church) is the center of Scripture.  There are 22 books that come before and 22 that come after, making Christ the center of the Bible and the chief cornerstone.
  3. Peter, the apostle to the Jews, canonized 22 books, which is exactly the number of books that existed in the Old Testament.
  4. Together, the 22 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament equal 49, or 7 x 7, God’s number of completion squared. 

The Bible was written over a period of 1,500 years in many different locations by more than 40 authors.  Yet, through His consistent use of a complex pattern of numbers and order, God places His divine stamp of approval upon it.

 

LOL

 

Keep 'em coming weazleman. This stuff is comedy gold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My husband and I recorded the series, I haven't seen the final one yet.  I will though.  My husband said "well, we know how it ends"-- *rolls eyes*  lol

 

He read ahead then huh?  :icon_razz:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL

 

Keep 'em coming weazleman. This stuff is comedy gold.

 

I think it's a reasonable assumption to say that you are probably displaying a trait know as "automatic rejection". This happens when a person firsts hears something they have never heard before, when the subject matter does not conform to their preconceived ideas, or long held beliefs.

 

Rather than call it comedy, maybe you could actually provide something constructive. Perhaps you could give your reasons why you disagree with my post. I'm assuming you have knowledge on the orgin on the books of the Bible.

 

On another note, my usename is Catweazle. Calling me weazleman comes across as discourteous.

Edited by Catweazle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a reasonable assumption to say that you are probably displaying a trait know as "automatic rejection". This happens when a person firsts hears something they have never heard before, when the subject matter does not conform to their preconceived ideas, or long held beliefs.

 

Rather than call it comedy, maybe you could actually provide something constructive. Perhaps you could give your reasons why you disagree with my post. I'm assuming you have knowledge on the orgin on the books of the Bible.

 

On another note, my usename is Catweazle. Calling me weazleman comes across as discourteous.

 

Well, let's see...

 

You come to a forum about a show that has at it's core a scientific premise and start dissing science and even disputing common scientific vocabulary (From The Scientists Thread: "Yes, you are correct. I am using the word “theory” in the non-scientific sense. The scientific sense is nonsense").

 

Then you present something that you refer to as a "proof", when in fact it is just a collection of numerical coincidences. There is nothing in your post that comes close to being a proof of anything.

 

Keep in mind that the bible was written by humans and has been edited and revised almost continuously since the individual books were written. Also, only a sub-set of the relavent documents available at the time were included in the bible and that different religious traditions include different sets of those books. As you note, your "proof" refers only to "The common "Protestant" ordering of the Old Testament". What about the others? Are they invalid? Are they not also "divinely inspired"?

 

And as for your suggestion that a set of numeric coincidences is some kind of proof, I suggest that this is, instead, purely confirmation bias.

Edited by 4ofN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And furthermore, the bible was written by humans (divinely inspired or not) who have an interest in the end reader accepting the contents so it seems to me that they would write it in a way that would lead to people reading it.

 

Writing and editing a book in a way that seems appealing or is easy to follow makes sense if you want people to read it (for instance you mention that "Every 8th verse in Psalm 119 begins this way" - what a great way to help a preacher keep track of their location in the text while reading it out to a congregation).

 

To give a trivial example of this, if I were to create a list of names I might sort them so that they are in alphabetic order. This would make them neat and tidy. But imagine that someone found that list and exclaimed "Here is a list of random names BUT IT IS IN ALPHABETIC ORDER!!!!!. My god, it must have been divinely inspired to have such order and coherence."

 

This is why I reject your "proof". Not because of "automatic rejection" but because it doesn't meet the requirements of proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Can anyone tell me why you all are ARGUING here when there is a perfectly good thread just for ARGUING called ARGUE ??

This thread SHOULD be talking about a TV show.

 

So, I'm confused. Isn't it appropriate to discuss the bible in a thread called the "bible on the history channel"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, let's see...

 

You come to a forum about a show that has at it's core a scientific premise and start dissing science and even disputing common scientific vocabulary (From The Scientists Thread: "Yes, you are correct. I am using the word “theory” in the non-scientific sense. The scientific sense is nonsense").

 

Then you present something that you refer to as a "proof", when in fact it is just a collection of numerical coincidences. There is nothing in your post that comes close to being a proof of anything.

 

Keep in mind that the bible was written by humans and has been edited and revised almost continuously since the individual books were written. Also, only a sub-set of the relavent documents available at the time were included in the bible and that different religious traditions include different sets of those books. As you note, your "proof" refers only to "The common "Protestant" ordering of the Old Testament". What about the others? Are they invalid? Are they not also "divinely inspired"?

 

And as for your suggestion that a set of numeric coincidences is some kind of proof, I suggest that this is, instead, purely confirmation bias.

Truly you need to think about your comments; you are making claims that you will be unable to backup.

I enjoy science and a review of my posts will reveal that. The only science I “diss” is the theory of evolution, the one field which I do not subscribe to.

 

Please show me where I claim to provide proof in my post on the books of the Bible. You should know that post is a cut and paste article, an article that I find interesting.

 

The Bible itself claims that the humans who wrote the Bible did so by the inspiration of God. That is something I strongly believe. You are an atheist therefore you cannot believe it. You have an absence of belief in God therefore your mindset will prevent you from real biblical understanding. Your understanding is limited to physical science only. And without the ability to accept the non-physical you are limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Can anyone tell me why you all are ARGUING here when there is a perfectly good thread just for ARGUING called ARGUE ??

This thread SHOULD be talking about a TV show.

 

Walnutcowboy, from my part I'm not arguing. Just exchanging views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I reject your "proof". Not because of "automatic rejection" but because it doesn't meet the requirements of proof.

 

Again, you make the mistake of saying I have claiimed proof when I have not.

 

Please read carefully before you post, that way you will avoid error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.