Hi Gang

I'm going to peek my head in and hopefully not have it chopped off before I can get it back out the door.

I just happened upon one of the threads in this section and starting reading something that I think I might be able to add 2 cents to.

It might be possible that some of the discussions about older pieces of writing can be done on a better more level playing field. What I'm talking about is Etymology. English is infamous for it's winding road through the ages. I guess if you were looking at it with a fine tooth comb you would have to say that it was not even completely modern till the 16th century, and that's just talking about our 26 letters and not the changes of truly going from old to new English.

I'm not an Etymologist but I do enjoy how words have gotten from the old to the new. I can tell without diving very far into some of these discussions that devisions are made clearly on judgments of words that have been printed one way with a broad stroke. Unfortunately this is the language we have learned and speak. English is subject to cultural changes as any language is but extra liberties have been taken over the years that can make things a little on the confusing side.

read this

"Thou whoreson mandrake, thou art fitter to be worn in my cap than to wait at my heels. I was never manned with an agate till now: but I will inset you neither in gold nor silver, but in vile apparel, and
send you back again to your master, for a jewel,the juvenal, the prince your master, whose chin is not yet fledged."

Do you know this scripture? Well I hope not cause it's not scripture. It is common writing being done around the same time the King James was being done. Would we write this today, and more importantly would it look like this? Not if we wanted to understand the meaning.

Here's another take on what you guys talk about. Word translation or meaning of a particular piece of scripture.

Do you know that from 1550 to 1611 the bible was translated 3 times?Well I'm not sure when Henry VIII did it but then it was done in 1558 or 59 as the Bishops bible and then 1611 the puritans got their hands on it.

The reason why I bring this up is because you can't really point at any old piece of writing and say here's what it means 100% unless you go back to a more original form of it to help it fit and make sense.

So I see two problems that you guys have to over come when talking to each other about the bible.

1) how did it get from the original to English
2) how did it get from an older English to a newer one culturally

good luck with this and try not to kill each other

lol

I eventually would like to take a course for my own education on some of the older more original writings and how they translate in context of the new versions

its cool to learn about word history and , everyone knows by now, I am a BIG fan of vocabulary in general and the complexities of the english language,,,

thanx for the post,,,

Well your certainly better at English than I am and your using some good study material too. I guess where I am confused is that it seems some people instead of letting you have a biblical discussion with others feel it is their place to be disruptive. I would think that they would just leave it well enough alone. It's not hurting them if other believers want to get together and learn or even people who are not sure and just want to check it out.

I say your posting is interesting and thought provoking. Even if I didn't believe it would still be so to me from a learning of points of view.

thank you

(but I doubt IM any better at english than you are,, in fact, you are much smoother with your explanations and opinions)

I've had the same questions. How can anyone trust a translation of a translation of a translation? I was told that the original King James version is the closest for english readers. Still, perusingeth those versions has thy tiny brain gropingeth for more truthethnesseth.
I doubt that everyone spoke with lisps at that time.
Still, I knew a VERY intelligent preacher that read from a King James for his messages, was a study of old hebrew and offered some alternative translations for those that might be following along from more modern bibles during his Sunday messages. I do find it a failure that God couldn't update His message but, then again, it is our earth to make of it what we will and maybe He doesn't see enough of of a discrepancy to offer an update.
Maybe it's still just good enough that one trusts our God enough to read those antiquated words in a book and practice those basic messages of love and respect.

Yep, I think that the tradition side of the modern church (meaning from 1600 till now) got totally in the way of progression. You hear people talk about the 3 main bibles back in the days between Henry VIII and King James but to be more precise there were quite a few guys doing translations from 1400 up to the time of The King James. The church before the personal bible was being taught by usually one leader and had the one bible of the group. So because The King James version was really the first excepted personal bible people were content to be loyal instead of the continuing of better and more up to date translations as time went on. So back then you basically had 3 big factors, printing, translation and the personal bible.

As the times changed we started using words differently changing there meaning as cultures changed but we never updated the bible along with these cultural changes and that's a big part to why we have so many people fighting about meaning.

Today though more people are looking into the original wording way before King James and it is giving a much better picture of what the bible is about.

It's only going to get better.

I don't see that being a problem at all.

The overall story simply isn't going to change via tweaking the interpretations of individual verses of these ancient stories.

There are bottom lines that will always be consistent in this story no matter how much you tweak the verses.

1. This God is associated with a need for blood sacrifices to forgive sins.
2. This God supposedly sacrifices his only begotten son to pay for the sins of mankind.

I don't care how many verses you tweak or try to reinterpret, unless you can't change the bulk of the storyline tweaking verses is just a distraction tactic to try to distract people from the seeing bigger picture.

I personally don't believe in rumors of gods like Zeus or Yahweh who are appeased by blood sacrifices.

All the verse-tweaking in the world can't change the crux of the storyline.

The religion is simple not salvageable. Moreover, there truly isn't any good reason why anyone should want to salvage it.

~~~~~

May I ask you a question?

Why is it so important to you to believe in a God who is associated with blood sacrifices?

Why is it so important to you that the biblical story be "true"?

What if it isn't true?

What would that mean to you?

What would be the alternatives for you if the Biblical picture of God is nothing more than false fables?

What would that mean for you?

Would you then be faced with having to accept atheism?

Would you turn to some other religious creation stories in the hope of finding a picture of "God" that you can believe in?

Do you have the ability to simply believe in spirituality without the need to have an rumors or stories to 'back-it-up'?

The very idea of a "God" who requires that people worship a specific religion seems anti-divine in the first place, IMHO.

Surely the creator of all mankind would not have focused in on one male-chauvinistic society to be the spokes-culture for his wants, needs, and desires with respect to mankind.

That alone should bring this single cultural religion into serious doubt and questioning.

Just look at what these arrogant religions cause today. We even have the Abrahamic religions renouncing each others views. We even have the Christian sects renouncing each others views.

They end up being SEGREGATING religions that just cause people to point fingers at each other claiming that they have the correct "interpretations" whilst everyone else has it all WRONG.

What good does that do for humanity as a whole?

It's just religion used to support religious bigotry is all.

risking that my answers arent really wanted, I will take a stab...


Why is it so important to you to believe in a God who is associated with blood sacrifices?

1.Why is it so important to you that the biblical story be "true"?

I cant say its important or not important for it to be true, anymore than its important to me that it be true we gained independence from Britain,,,but being what I was taught, it is not important for me to DISPROVE it and I believe the authenticity and reliability of the account.


2. What if it isn't true?

If it isnt true, I have lost nothing, except possibly the hope for eternal life(if that is also not true).

3. What would that mean to you?

See answer above.

4. What would be the alternatives for you if the Biblical picture of God is nothing more than false fables?

There is no alternative. The lessons are already inside of me. I would continue to live them.

5. What would that mean for you?

See answer above.

6. Would you then be faced with having to accept atheism?

Well, IF the bible wasnt true, I would still be able to choose to believe in God. Unless GOD was also a 'fable' (with certainty). In which case, the choice of believing in God is removed and all thats left is believing in NO GOD,, or atheism.

7. Would you turn to some other religious creation stories in the hope of finding a picture of "God" that you can believe in?

No.

8. Do you have the ability to simply believe in spirituality without the need to have an rumors or stories to 'back-it-up'?

Again , with the need. This is kind of like asking 'when did you stop beating your wife?' The question pre supposes an assumption that just isnt true. I am glad to know the background of the things I believe. I dont view it as a need, but an extra benefit/resource/privilege.

Thoroughly checked this info out before sharing

here.... to make sure it lines up with God's Word.

.....................................................................


Question: "Why did the sacrificial system require a blood sacrifice?"



Answer: The whole of the Old Testament, every book, points toward

the Great Sacrifice that was to come—that of Jesus’ sacrificial

giving of His own life on our behalf. Leviticus 17:11 is the Old

Testament’s central statement about the SIGNIFICANCE of blood in

the sacrificial system. God, speaking to Moses, declares: “For the

LIFE of a creature is in the BLOOD, and I have given it to you to

make ATONEMENT for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that

makes ATONEMENT for one’s LIFE.”



A “sacrifice” is defined as the offering up of something precious

for a cause or a reason. Making atonement is satisfying someone or

something for an offense committed. The Leviticus verse can be read

more clearly now: God said “I have given it to you (the creature’s

life, which is in its blood) to make atonement for yourselves

(covering the offense you have committed against Me).” In other

words, those who are covered by the blood sacrifice are set free

from the consequences of sin.


Of course the Israelites did not know of Jesus per se, or how

would die on their behalf and then rise again, but they did believe

God would be sending them a Savior. All of the many, many blood

sacrifices seen throughout the Old Testament were foreshadows of the

true, once-for-all-time sacrifice to come so that the Israelites

would never forget that without the blood, there is no sacrifice.


This shedding of blood is a substitutionary act. Therefore the last

clause of Leviticus 17:11 could be read either “the blood ‘makes

atonement’ at the cost of the life” (i.e. the animal’s life)

or “makes atonement in the place of the life,” i.e. the sinner’s

life, with Jesus Christ being the One giving life through His shed

blood.



Hebrews 9: 11-18 confirms in the New Testament the symbolism of

blood as life and applies Leviticus 17:11 to the sacrifice of the

Lord Jesus Christ. Verse 12 states clearly that the Old Testament

blood sacrifices were temporary and only atoned for sin partially

and for a short time, hence the need to repeat the sacrifices

yearly. But when Christ entered the holy place, He did so to offer

His own blood once for all time, making future sacrifices

unnecessary. This is what Jesus meant by His dying words on the

cross: “It is finished” (John 19:30). NEVER AGAIN would the blood

of bulls and goats cleanse men from their sin. ONLY by accepting

Jesus’ blood, shed on the cross for the REMISSION OF SINS , can we

STAND BEFORE GOD IN THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST (2

Corinthians 5:21).



gotquestions.org

Question: "What is the meaning of the blood of Christ?"


Answer: The phrase “blood of Christ” is used several times in the

New Testament and is the expression of the sacrificial death and

full atoning work of Jesus on our behalf. References to the Savior’s

blood include the reality that He literally bled on the cross, but

more significantly that He bled and died for sinners. The blood of

Christ has the power to atone for an infinite number of sins

committed by an infinite number of people throughout the ages, and

all whose faith rests in that blood will be saved.



The reality of the blood of Christ as the means of atonement for sin

has its origin in the Mosaic Law. Once a year, the priest was to

make an offering of the blood of animals on the altar of the temple

for the sins of the people. “In fact, the law requires that nearly

everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood

there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22). But this was a blood

offering that was limited in its effectiveness, which is why it had

to be offered again and again. This was a foreshadowing of

the “once for all” sacrifice which Jesus offered on the cross

(Hebrews 7:27). Once that sacrifice was made, there was no longer a

need for the blood of bulls and goats.


The blood of Christ is the basis of the New Covenant. On the night

before He went to the cross, Jesus offered the cup of wine to His

disciples and said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood,

which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20). The pouring of the wine

in the cup symbolized the blood of Christ which would be poured out

for all who would ever believe in Him. When He shed His blood on

the cross, He did away with the Old Covenant requirement for the

continual sacrifices of animals. Their blood was not sufficient to

cover the sins of the people, except on a temporary basis, because

sin against a holy and infinite God requires a holy and infinite

sacrifice. “But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins,

because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take

away sins” (Hebrews 10:3). While the blood of bulls and goats were

a “reminder” of sin, “the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without

blemish or defect” (1 Peter 1:19) paid in full the debt of sin we

owe to God, and we need no further sacrifices for sin. Jesus

said, “It is finished” as He was dying, and He meant just that—the

entire work of redemption was completed forever, “having obtained

eternal redemption” for us (Hebrews 9:12).


Not only does the blood of Christ redeem believers from sin and

eternal punishment, but “His blood will make our consciences pure

from useless acts so we may serve the living God” (Hebrews 9:14

NCV). This means that not only are we now free from having to offer

sacrifices which are “useless” to obtain salvation, but we are free

from having to rely on worthless and unproductive works of the

flesh to please God. BECAUSE the blood of Christ has REDEEMED us, we

are now NEW CREATIONS IN CHRIST (2 Corinthians 5:17), and by His

blood we are FREED from sin to serve the living God, to glorify Him,

and to enjoy Him forever.


gotquestions.org

BECAUSE



BELIEVERS ARE NOW


NEW CREATIONS IN CHRIST

IS

WHY


TRUE BELIEVERS


CAN


NEVER


NEVER


NEVER


NEVER


NEVER


NEVER


NEVER


DENY CHRIST.


IMPOSSIBLE.......


IT WOULD BE LIKE TRYING TO BECOME UNBORN.

Question: "If God hates human sacrifice, how could Jesus’

sacrifice be the payment for our sins?"




Answer: The Bible makes it quite clear that God hates human

sacrifice. The pagan nations that surrounded the Israelites

practiced human sacrifice as part of the worship of false gods. God

declared that such “worship” was detestable to Him and that He hates

it (Deuteronomy 12:31, 18:10). Furthermore, human sacrifice is

associated in the Old Testament with evil practices such as sorcery

and divination, which are also detestable to God (2 Kings 21:6). So,

if God hates human sacrifice, why did He sacrifice Christ on the

cross and how could that sacrifice be the payment for our sins?



There is no doubt that a sacrifice for sin was necessary if people

are to have any hope of eternal life. God established the necessity

of the shedding of blood to cover sin (Hebrews 9:22). In fact, God

Himself performed the very first animal sacrifice to cover,

temporarily, the sin of Adam and Eve. After He pronounced curses

upon them, He killed an animal, shedding its blood, and made from it

a covering for Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:21), thereby instituting the

principle of animal sacrifice for sin. When He gave the Law to

Moses, there were extensive instructions on how, when, and under

what circumstances animal sacrifices were to be offered to Him. This

was to continue until Christ came to offer the ultimate perfect

sacrifice which made animal sacrifice no longer necessary. “But

those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is

impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins”

(Hebrews 10:3-4).



There are several reasons why the sacrifice of Christ on the cross

does not violate the prohibition against human sacrifice. First,

Jesus wasn’t merely human. If He were, then His sacrifice would

have also been a temporary one because one human life couldn’t

possibly cover the sins of the multitudes who ever existed. Neither

could one finite human life atone for sin against an infinite God.

The only viable sacrifice must be an infinite one, which means only

God Himself could atone for the sins of mankind. Only God Himself,

an infinite Being, could pay the penalty owed to Himself. This is

why God had to become a Man and dwell among men (John 1:14). No

other sacrifice would suffice.



Second, God didn’t sacrifice Jesus. Rather, Jesus, as God incarnate,

sacrificed Himself. No one forced Him. He laid down His life

willingly, as He made clear speaking about His life: “No one takes

it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to

lay it down and authority to take it up again” (John 10:18). God

the Son sacrificed Himself to God the Father and thereby fulfilled

all the requirements of the Law. Unlike the temporary sacrifices,

Jesus’ once-for-all-time sacrifice was followed by His

resurrection. He laid down His life and took it up again, thereby

providing ETERNAL LIFE FOR ALL WHO WOULD BELIEVE IN HIM and

ACCEPT His sacrifice for their sins. He did this out of Love for

the Father and for all those the Father has given Him (John 6:37-

40).


gotquestions.org

Question: "Why is Christianity such a bloody religion?"



Answer: To understand why Christianity is a “bloody religion,” we

must go back to God’s declarations regarding blood in the Old

Testament: “the LIFE of the flesh is in the BLOOD (Leviticus 17:11,

14). Here God tells us that life and blood are essentially ONE AND

THE SAME. The blood carries life-sustaining nutrients to all parts

of the body. It represents the ESSENCE of life. In contrast, the

SHEDDING OF BLOOD represents the SHEDDING OF LIFE , i.e. DEATH.



Blood is also used in the Bible to represent spiritual life. When

Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden by disobeying God and

eating fruit of the forbidden tree, they experienced spiritual

death immediately, and physical death years later. God’s

warning, “You shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and

evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die”

(Genesis 2:17) was fulfilled. Their blood—their lives—were now

tainted by sin. In His gracious plan, however, God provided a “way

out” of their dilemma by declaring that sacrifices of blood, first

the blood of animals and finally the blood of the Lamb of God

(Jesus Christ), would be sufficient to cover the sin of fallen

mankind and restore us to spiritual life. He instituted the

sacrificial system, beginning with the animals He himself killed to

provide the first garments, thereby “covering” the sin of Adam and

Eve (Genesis 3:21). All the Old Testament sacrifices which followed

from then on were temporary ones, needing to be repeated over and

over. These continual sacrifices were a foreshadowing of the one

true and final sacrifice, Christ, whose blood shed on the cross

would pay the penalty of sin forever. His death made any further

bloodshed unnecessary (Hebrews 10:1-10).



As far as Christianity being a bloody religion, it is. But it is

uniquely a bloody religion. Contrary to bloodless religions, it

takes sin seriously, indicating that GOD TAKES SIN SERIOUSLY and

gives a death penalty for it. Sin is not a small matter. It is the

simple sin of pride that turned Lucifer into a demon. It was the

simple sin of jealousy that caused Cain to slay Abel, etc. And in

Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit, they believed the deceiver

over a good and loving God, choosing to rebel against His love and

denying the goodness of His character. Christianity is a bloody

religion because it views sin as a holy God views it—seriously.



Also, because God is just, sin requires a penalty. God cannot merely

forgive in mercy until the demands of justice have been met. Thus

the need for a sacrifice before forgiveness is possible. The

shedding of the blood of animals, as Hebrews points out, could

only "cover" sin for a time (Hebrews 10:4) until the intended and

sufficient sacrifice was made in Christ's atoning death. Thus,

Christianity is different from other bloody religions in that it

alone provides a sufficient sacrifice to take care of the sin

problem.


Last, although Christianity presents a bloody sacrifice in these

regards, it is the only religion that is BLOODLESS IN THE END. The

opposite of death is life. In Jesus' DEATH, He brought LIFE as is

shown in so many verses. And in TRUSTING Christ and His atoning

sacrifice for one's sins, one is SAVED from death and has passed

into LIFE (John 5:24; 1 John 3:14). In Him is LIFE. All other paths

lead to death (Acts 4:16; John 14:6).

gotquestions.org

Question: "Why did Jesus have to die?"



Answer: When we ask a question such as this, we must be careful that

we are not calling God into question. To wonder why God couldn’t

find “another way” to do something is to imply that the way He has

chosen is not the best course of action and that some other method

would be better. Usually what we perceive as a “better” method is

one that seems right to us. Before we can come to grips with

anything God does, we have to first acknowledge that His ways are

not our ways, His thoughts are not our thoughts—they are higher

than ours (Isaiah 55:8). In addition, Deuteronomy 32:4 reminds us

that “He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are

just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.”

Therefore, the plan of salvation He has designed is perfect, just,

and upright, and no one could have come up with anything better.




The Scripture says, “For I delivered to you as of first importance

what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance

with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the

third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3-

4). Evidence affirms that the sinless Jesus bled and died on a

cross. Most importantly, the Bible explains why Jesus’ death and

resurrection provide the only entrance to heaven.


The punishment for sin is death.


God created earth and man perfect. But when Adam and Eve disobeyed

God’s commands, He had to punish them. A judge who pardons law-

breakers isn’t a righteous judge. Likewise, overlooking sin would

make the holy God unjust. Death is God’s just consequence for

sin. “For the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Even good works

cannot make up for wrongs against the holy God. Compared to His

goodness, “All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags” (Isaiah

64:6b). Ever since Adam’s sin, every human has been guilty of

disobeying God’s righteous laws. “For all have sinned and fall short

of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Sin is not just big things like

murder or blasphemy, but also includes love of money, hatred of

enemies, and deceit of tongue and pride. Because of sin, everyone

has deserved death – eternal separation from God in hell.


The promise required an innocent death.


Although God banished Adam and Eve from the garden, He didn’t leave

them without hope of heaven. He promised He would send a sinless

Sacrifice to take the punishment they deserved (Genesis 3:15). Until

then, men would sacrifice innocent lambs, showing their repentance

from sin and faith in the future Sacrifice from God who would bear

their penalty. God reaffirmed His promise of the Sacrifice with men

such as Abraham and Moses. Herein lies the beauty of God’s perfect

plan: God Himself provided the only sacrifice (Jesus) who could

atone for the sins of His people. God’s perfect Son fulfilled God’s

perfect requirement of God’s perfect law. It is perfectly brilliant

in its simplicity. “God made Him (Christ), who knew no sin, to be

sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2

Corinthians 5:21).



The prophets foretold Jesus’ death.



From Adam to Jesus, God sent prophets to mankind, warning them of

sin’s punishment and foretelling the coming Messiah. One prophet,

Isaiah, described Him:

“Who has believed what they heard from us? And to whom has the arm

of the LORD been revealed? For he grew up before him like a young

plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty

that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire

him. He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and

acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he

was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our

griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken,

smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our

transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the

chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are

healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one

to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us

all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his

mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep

that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. By

oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his

generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of

the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? And they

made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death,

although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his

mouth. Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him

to grief; when his soul makes an offering for sin, he shall see his

offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall

prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and

be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,

make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their

iniquities. Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and

he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out

his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he

bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors”

(Isaiah 53:1-12). He likened the coming Sacrifice to a lamb,

slaughtered for the sins of others.



Hundreds of years later, Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled in the

perfect Lord Jesus, born of the virgin Mary. When the prophet John

the Baptist saw Him, he cried, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes

away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). Crowds thronged Him for

healing and teaching, but the religious leaders scorned Him. Mobs

cried out, “Crucify Him!” Soldiers beat, mocked, and crucified Him.

As Isaiah foretold, Jesus was crucified in between two criminals

but was buried in a rich man’s tomb. But He didn’t remain in the

grave. Because God accepted His Lamb’s sacrifice, He fulfilled

another prophecy by raising Jesus from the dead (Psalm 16:10; Isaiah

26:19).



Why did Jesus have to die?

Remember, the HOLY GOD CANNOT LET SIN GO UNPUNISHED. To bear our own

sins would be to suffer God’s judgment in the flames of hell. Praise

God, He kept His PROMISE to send and sacrifice the perfect Lamb to

bear the sins of those who trust in Him. Jesus had to die because He

is the ONLY ONE who can pay the penalty for our sins.

gotquestions.org

Thank you for your questions, I'll do my best. lets start with the sacrifice one as 1) OK.

1) It's not important to me. What God chooses to do and why is up to God.

2) I have found that the Bible among other writings to give a good picture to the shaping of our existence and the reasons for our lives.

3) I study history. And in the process of these studies I have found that this book and the God of this book to be far more than words. I've never had a personal relationship with anything or any one like I have had with the God of the bible. Even before I became a student I developed a relationship with this same God. This God not only has the word but also has a spirit evidently. If it isn't true, that was one heck of a magic trick.

4) It would mean that I had one wild wonderful ride that taught me more about love than I would have ever dreamed possible.

5) I can't speak for others but there's just not enough to support that view for me historically or personally. I'm not offended by it, it's just on the shallow side. But that's my view.

6) Honestly I didn't really turn to this one. It's like God found me and not the other way around. The emotion of God taking out the bad and putting in the good is something that you never forget or even quite understand. For me at least. It's truly a conversion that takes place.

7) Spirituality is a cool thing. I know tons of people who are spiritual in nature and don't tie it to anything or one. It doesn't bug me, but at the same time it's hard to be unfaithful to the truth of my own experiences. I would be lying if I said the fruit of the spirit was false cause I have experienced the effects first hand. That's just a simple example of all the truths that I have found that shape and contain my life.

8) I have found the God head to make more sense. not only historically but personally. And I personally do not see the worship of God to be full of religiosity. I see people full of religiosity.

9) Absolutely. Here's one of those areas that I talked about when I was suggesting to look closer at the original. I don't see God being a pig in any way in writings that are close to the original. Much of the Piggishness came into play when the translates were controlled by kings with huge egos.

10) Again absolutely. If you study the kings that were doing these translations you can see how they painted a picture just by tweaking that was not there to begin with. I do most of my studies as close to the source as I can and have had church people actually get on me for this, but I just blow it off and enjoy others writings and other study guides that get you past all of that stuff that went on in the 15th and 16th centuries.

11) Yep, it's sad how people get all tangled up in themselves, especially when there is a clearer read available. I think this is improving though from the study side of things.

12) I know LOL, like a bunch of kids fighting instead of sharing love like they should be.

13) I personally feel that this is just a part of history and anyone who wishes to study can find the deeper meaning to what is there. I have friends who look past all this stuff and others who play the blame game but as for me there's so much there that I can't get enough. Love the good stuff, but I'm that way looking at anything. And I must say that I wasn't always like that. Life has changed dramatically for me as my studies in God and the bible increase.

14) I'm not much into bigotry of any kind, and religious bigotry is for the birds.

Thanks for the questions and the way you took the time to lay them out.

michael

Don't worry I will not try to convert you!

"It's only going to get better" for whom? In what way? I was reading a lengthy article and the following quote was used in order to highlight how difficult it can be to "know one's self well". But I like the quote and I think it highlights how difficult it is to change beliefs.

"The Truth Shop" by Anthonly de Mello


Understanding a language is not enough to understand the meaning behind the words. There is history, politics, and culture, involved and not just with a single translation but through every manifestation.

I look at the daunting task that anyone would undertake in order to get the the truth and I think - Why?

The vast and great majority of all humanity has been uneducated, even today. Reading in mass is fairley recent in human history and still, the vast majority of the worlds population could not read the bible and make sense of it.

Is that the kind of tool worthy of a god?

OR PERHAPS - it was meant to be so difficult because it was never meant to be the proof to substantiate anyone's faith.

Either way, why would anyone expend such great effort and so many precious resouces, including time, on such a quest. Certainly no single person is correct and perhaps no one is.

If the urge to know the truth is such a driving force, what does that say of faith? And if one accepts beliefs on faith alone, then there is only one for whom the beliefs have meaning, and one who is bound by those beliefs.

Well I guess that scratches you off of Christian Daily news doesn't it? LOL

Convert me from what? And to what?

Based on what you'd stated above, you and I may actually be far more in agreement already. Far more than you might think.

First off, here you are basically renouncing the King James Version of the Bible concerning the details of what it has to say:



Well, this may come as a huge surprise to you, but I too can potentially make a case for abstract spirituality based on many different various "original scriptures".

I personally wouldn't even bother to confine myself to only the writings associated with the ancient Hebrews. Much of the content of those stories was more than likely contributed from many different cultures and actually referred to many different views of what "god" might be like. In fact, much of it probably had it's origins in what we call the "Greek Mythologies".

So if you dismiss the "King James Version" of the Bible as being a pompous egotistical version of the underlying spiritual ideals, then you're actually in agreement with me.

Also, once you've come that far, it shouldn't really take much more to recognize that most likely the vast majority of outrageous claims made in the King James Version of the Bible are most likely egotistical exaggerations and a pompous desire to use the religion to gain political control over the masses.

So it sounds to me like you don't have much left to "convert" me to.

I can twist the original vague stories into far better things myself. In fact I do precisely that. As far as I can see the Old Testament could not have been anything more (or less) than another other religious folklore from any other culture. I can find truths and absurdities in all of them equally well. None of them trump any of the others in any clear decisive fashion. In fact most of them contain many of the very same ideals, parables and moral values.

There is absolutely nothing in the scriptures that have been associated with the Bible that haven't already been covered in one form or another in just about every other spiritual philosophy and belief system in the world. And you'd be really hard-pressed to come up with a specific example to the contrary.

In fact, as I see it, men like Siddhartha Gautama, Lao Tzu, Confucius, and many others who lived and died centuries before Jesus was said to have lived. They taught the same basic moral and spiritual philosophies. So Jesus had nothing new to add.

Moreover, the teachings of Jesus are so closely in line with the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism that as far as I'm concerned it makes far more sense to believe that this was the message he was attempting to teach.

The message of Jesus was clearly NOT the message taught by the Torah. That's should be blatantly obvious to anyone.

Jesus renounced the stoning of sinners to death. The Torah taught people to do this.

Jesus renounced the seeking of revenge and instead taught forgiveness and to turn the other cheek. The Torah taught an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, which teaches people to seek revenge.

Jesus renounced the judging of other people. Yet, the Torah clearly had people judging others to be "sinners" otherwise how could they have made the decision to stone sinners to death? The Torah also taught people to kill heathens, and not to suffer a witch to live. Again, judgments would need to be made in order to carry out those God-given directives.

I personally don't see where the story of Jesus is ever remotely compatible with the stories contained within the Torah or Old Testament.

So for me it makes far more sense that Jesus was attempting to teach the wisdom of the mystics and Buddhism.

When Jesus was accused of blaspheme for claiming to be the "son of God". How did he respond? Well according to these scriptures he responded by pointing out that all are children of God. He points to the scriptures of the culture itself (i.e. the Torah), and shows them where their very own scriptures state, "Ye are gods".

That's a pantheistic view. Far more in line with Buddhism and Eastern Mysticism than giving support to the Torah. He was simply using a line from the Torah to support his view that we are all gods.

In fact, that was his DEFENSE when he was being accused of blaspheme by claiming to be a son of God. So therefore he was clearly attempting to state that we are ALL sons and daughters of God, and that he was not special in that regard.

Jesus also stated that what we do to our brothers we do to him. Why? Well because Jesus recognized the wholeness of the Eastern Mystical view. Only from a pantheistic view does this even make any sense. If Jesus was some sort of "special separate entity" who was somehow different from everyone else, then it wouldn't make any sense for him to say that what we do to our brothers we do to him.

So this is even more confirmation that Jesus was supporting the pantheistic view, IMHO.

I have no doubt that Jesus was a spiritually enlightened man, not unlike many who came before him. But he most certainly didn't teach anything "New". On the contrary, the things that Jesus taught had been around for centuries long before had ever even been born.

In fact, as far as I can see, that's pretty much proof positive that Jesus could not have been the unique special incarnation of God who was sent to bring a "New Covenant" because that would imply that men like Siddhartha Gautama, Lao Tzu, Confucius and others already had a better idea BEFORE the biblical God finally got around to CHANGING HIS MIND of how things should be run.

It would almost be like God would have heard the thoughts of Siddhartha Gautama, Lao Tzu, Confucius and said to himself, "Hey they have better ideas than me, maybe I should implement their views via a "New Covenant" with the Hebrews.

~~~~~~

I have no problem with spiritual beliefs. I personally have very strong intuitive spiritual feelings myself. I've always considered myself to be a spiritual person closely connected with the spiritual essence of my underlying being.

However, from my point of view, to support modern day "Christianity" which is indeed based on the piggish ideals of the King James Version of the Bible (as you put it), does not fit into my ideals of what spirituality should be.

As far as I'm concerned, if you renounce the King James Version of the Bible as containing many errors and concepts introduced by mere mortal men who have an egotistical agenda, then you're already supporting my views as well.

~~~~~~~

On a personal level, you and I seem to disagree on deeper spiritual levels, which is fine with me. I don't need for you to agree with my spiritual views, nor do I have a desire to agree with yours.

However, to support "Christianity" in general when you clearly have problems with the most popular doctrine associate with that religion seems to be confusing at best, or blatantly misleading at worse.

Why not just confess that you do not support "mainstream" Christianity and most of the conclusions and ideals that are taught and propagated by that organized religion?

~~~~~~

We actually hear this a lot:

"Yes Jesus was God, but not in the way that most Christians think".

Well, gee whiz, I can say that too.

After all, if Jesus says that we are all Gods, and I believe in the fundamental ideas of Eastern Mysticism, then I do believe that Jesus was an incarnation of god, just as we are all incarnations of god. Just like Jesus said, and pointed out that was also supported in the Old Testament as well.

I'll go along with that. Jesus was no different from Siddhartha Gautama, Lao Tzu, Confucius and countless others. Even modern day people who may be among us today like possibly the Dalai Lama and who knows who else?

There's no need to make Jesus into something special. Jesus himself did not even imply that this was the case.

Redy.....The basic fundamental truths of the bible

are simple enough ,to where even a child can understand.


But it is AFTER a person is born again, that the Word(Bible)

becomes the

believers daily bread....and this is where the DEEPER study

of the Word comes in.

Not before.


But Until then, the bible does provide enough understanding ,in

order that one may get to the point of believing and

receiving Jesus by Faith( the whole central theme of the

bible is

JESUS... Who is the WAY back home to the

Father) .


Afterwards...after believing and receiving the truth of God's

word, is where one now begins to study the word in depth now, in

order to gain deeper

knowledge and understanding of God and His Word..as one of grows

in the faith.



Studying the bible BEFORE one is born again , LEADS TO

FAITH ...which leads to opening the spiritual eyes of that person.



Studying the bible AFTER one is born again, provides

Nourishment thru the continual dining on the

DAILY SPIRITUAL FOOD provided .....which is the Word.

LOL, your funny!