Occasionally I get a little tired with the way both the christians and atheists here treat or rather mistreat the poor old bloody bible. SOoo I figured it was about time for another jackketch 'bible 101'

Lets get some stuff straight before we start.

I'm not trying to write a work of scholarship.

You want indepth discussions of Late Chaldean Eschatology -and its influence on the price of Pumpernickel bread in Silesia in the C15' then you can stop reading now.

If I wanted to write a phd, i'd go back to Canterbury.

Neither am I wanting to push any doctrinal line. I save no souls.

Nor will I drown you in excruciating complete quotes and sources à la Digi. (if you want sources its all out there in the amazing magical Kingdom Of Google).

I do ask however:

If you're christian then please try forgetting everything you have ever been taught while reading this. Yes i know from personal experience how difficult that is, but please...

If you're a bible sceptic then please try forgetting everything christians (who in general should not be allowed anywhere near the damn book) have ever told you the bible says.

I thought we'd tackle a really controversial bit, the 'Annunciation'...or rather that bit in LUKE chapter 1, when a nice jewish girl gets pwned by God.

I'm using the ASV bible , simply because i'd rather chew my own leg off than use the NIV (yes people, it IS that bad a translation!)

Remember please, this post is all about treating the bible for what is, namely a collection of historical documents translated into modern language. We are going to try and understand what the author was trying to say, to understand it as he meant it.

All you need to ride this train is some common sense, an IQ that allows you to wank and turn the pages of the mag at the same time and, if you feel the need ,the power of Google.

26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

28 And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee.

29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this might be.

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God.

31 And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34 And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.


Right,

Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth .

Lets forget the calendar bit (it is infact important and the 6 months bit is there for a reason but life is too short).

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

take any mental image like this you may have and put it in the round filing cabinet marked 'TRASH' (http://tinyurl.com/yugnjj).

NO supernatural here.

The bible itself tells us that Gabriel was a 'man' or 'like unto a man' ( Daniel ch 8 v15 and ch 9 v 20).

All the word 'angel' means is a man sent with a message from god. ( although it may also have meant an elder of the some jewish sect or such).

No one is quite sure where Nazareth was or if that was the correct spelling or if it was a totally different town in the original. The only thing , most scholars agree on, is that it sure isn't the Nazareth we know today.


to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary

Great scholarly and not so scholarly reams have been written on the subject of Mary's virginity. The long and short of it is the word back then simply meant 'maid' , ie said something about her marital state and not the state of her hymen. Society then as now liked to believe that the two went hand in hand *cough* *snigger* *cough*. Also it is worth considering that the whole virginity thing may very well be later attempt by christians to doctor the story so it seemed to fit with OT prophecy. Something they did all too often. The really really important part is the fact that Joseph was of royal blood.

But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this might be.

So why was Mary so 'troubled'? We now know it wasn't because some winged Über Aryan was floating 4 foot off the ground in front of her. LOSE THOSE IMAGES, people! Whoever Gabriel was, he spoke to her in the name of god and not only that, he told her that god wanted her for a sunbeam or whatever. Some stranger with wild eyes, 'on a mission from god' turns up on your doorstep and says 'god wants you to do something' then you'd probably be 'greatly troubled' too? Lets not read more into this than is on the page, yeah?

And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

uhm just how young was Mary??! Did angel of the Lord need to do a quick 'birds and bees' bit? Scholars tend to think she was about 13.But that may just be some wishful thinking. You'll notethat every bible pic ever portrays her not only as a member of the Master Race but also well above the age of consent. DITCH THOSE MENTAL IMAGES , people please. They are the biggest handicap to doing the account justice.

He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

This is the important part of the whole thing. Not whether or not Mary been shagging Joseph out of wedlock. This is the crucial bit, the point the author was trying to get across.

Jesus was going to be King of Israel and had a rightful claim on the throne.


Amazing how time and time again christians miss that simple point or even worse read it and think what Gabriel actually said was that Jesus was going to be the Saviour Of The World and Be some kind of half man/half God thang.

And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.


So was Mary lying? Well considering at the very least her admitting to having had sex before marriage would have got her been beaten and driven out, if not stoned to death, one could forgive her fibbing.

Christians like to imagine that Mary being 'blessed by God' and having 'found favour with God' was somehow incapable of lying. But they forget that throughout the OT that those beloved by god tended to be 'morally challenged'. King David himself was a liar, an adulterer, a murderer and a bad father and god LOVED him.

But again so many people misread the passage. Its just our dirty minds. We don't need to question Mary's virginity at that point Gabriel is talking about something that will happen, not something that has already happened. There is good reason a bit later one to question her fidelity to Joseph but thats something for another 101. Although the last line of this bit does kind of give those who know a bit about ancient religions a clue.

So what have we got?

A supernatural being coming down to earth to tell a sinless maiden that she is pregnant and that her son will be our own personal saviour?

Nope.

You can believe that if you want, thats your right.

But lets not claim the passage says its so.

ALL the passage says is that a man/prophet/preacher/scary loon you'd cross the street to avoid, turned up on Mary's door step one day and told her she WOULD have a child who would go on to be the rightful King of Israel.

No more than that.

And once you know a little of the historical background (like Herod was not the rightful king) then it all seems quite credible.

It's a neat way to look at the Bible. I'd never considered it before, to tell the truth.

You again succeed at showing you are a complete moron and most (if not all) of that bullshit was written using baseless assumptions.

http://youlosegoodday.ytmnd.com/

You again succeed at showing you are a complete moron and most (if not all) of that bullshit was written using baseless assumptions...

This exact statement could be applied to almost every post SAMMY249 has ever made.

Irony at it's finest.


Ok Sammy, show us exactly where and why Jack is incorrect in his views.

Which would mean the tyrannical God of the old testament hasn't changed to the compassionate one the Christians yap about and amusingly, completely ignore as far as behavior goes. Interesting but ultimately useless, people like to cling to their delusions so you might as well analyze some documents that might change someone's views

Let's all be civil and not dignify the trolls with a response to their blabber unless they put some effort into it instead of the usual UR A FAGOT things they spew

Best thread in a long time. I'd like to see some serious Christian responses to this.

"the whole virginity thing may very well be later attempt by christians to doctor the story so it seemed to fit with OT prophecy. Something they did all too often."

Baseless assumption.

"Some stranger with wild eyes, 'on a mission from god' turns up on your doorstep and says 'god wants you to do something' then you'd probably be 'greatly troubled' too? Lets not read more into this than is on the page, yeah?"

Huge assumption.

"Scholars tend to think she was about 13.But that may just be some wishful thinking."

Men arent always correct but im glad you threw in that last part to note it is just an assumption.

"This is the important part of the whole thing. Not whether or not Mary been shagging Joseph out of wedlock. This is the crucial bit, the point the author was trying to get across.

Jesus was going to be King of Israel and had a rightful claim on the throne.


Amazing how time and time again christians miss that simple point or even worse read it and think what Gabriel actually said was that Jesus was going to be the Saviour Of The World and Be some kind of half man/half God thang."

This kind of ignorance can only be made if you dont know the other parts of the Bible i find that when most people bash the Bible they forget about CONTEXT sometimes the Bible in its enirety need to be the context because remember the chapter and verses were added later to help readers it is one huge book.

"So was Mary lying?"

You ask the question then assume she was, ok now you are just pissing me off.

"a man/prophet/preacher/scary loon you'd cross the street to avoid, turned up on Mary's door step one day"

No that is complete crap he was Gabrial (look him up he is high ranking)

"told her she WOULD have a child who would go on to be the rightful King of Israel."

Context mister jack context.(by that i mean the entire Bible as context)

Punctuation, troll, punctuation.

god I'm not reading all that

god I'm not reading all that

lol

Yes I guess 'short' is a relative term. But when whole books,whole libraries even, have been written about some of the points I raise , my two line skimming over the top of the evidence is short.

If you're a bible sceptic then please try forgetting everything christians (who in general should not be allowed anywhere near the damn book) have ever told you the bible says.


A point to be had here: Not all Bible skeptics rely on second-hand interpretations of the good book to come to their own skeptical conclusions. Many have taken it upon themselves to read it as an historical account, and have still walked away feeling skeptical of the whole yarn.

Treating it as an historical document may still be the best way to glean any insights the Bible may offer, so hats off to you jack, for casting it in this light. What we should all keep in our heads while reading the passages is that history is often portrayed to illustrate what SHOULD HAVE been, rather than WHAT WAS.

Great care should be taken so as to not be manipulated into giving the characters in this tale any special consideration concerning their implied divine qualities. It seems more beneficial to understanding to just assume these were flesh-and-blood people, caught up in a supernatural fervor, and that is what has caused people to read into it as such.

Reading the Bible through Übermensch-like lenses could also greatly distort the history to be had in it.

A point to be had here: Not all Bible skeptics rely on second-hand interpretations of the good book to come to their own skeptical conclusions. Many have taken it upon themselves to read it as an historical account, and have still walked away feeling skeptical of the whole yarn.


It goes both ways I guess. Personally I find by treating it as an historical document and trying to understand what the author(s) originally said, it actually strengthens my faith.

I think even the most skeptical, assuming they have some knowledge of ancient history, would agree that my exegesis of the passage is credible, ie that it might have happened.

But it must be remembered that 'annunciations' of kingship can be found all over the ancient world.

Infact you probably didn't get to be king anywhere back then if some wizen crone or 'out of his tree' prophet didn't arrive at your parents house with a message from God.

Infact you probably didn't get to be king anywhere back then if some wizen crone or 'out of his tree' prophet didn't arrive at your parents house with a message from God.

That's because it wasn't until the enlightenment that the insane were classified as insane, sectioned off from society and put in madhouses. Beforehand, they were witchdoctors in some places, gurus in others, sources of amusement in others still, but never seen as "sick" and needing of being cast out of society.

That's because it wasn't until the enlightenment that the insane were classified as insane, sectioned off from society and put in madhouses. Beforehand, they were witchdoctors in some places, gurus in others, sources of amusement in others still, but never seen as "sick" and needing of being cast out of society.

Don't know if I'd go that far. Madness has always been recognised, although as you rightly say, all too often ascribed to some divine intervention or being of divine origin.

However even Jesus was described by his family as being insane (mad). Yet another gospel bit christians tend to overlook.

However even Jesus was described by his family as being insane (mad). Yet another gospel bit christians tend to overlook.

I've never read that myself, but it sounds like an incredibly interesting passage. Where is that?

I've never read that myself, but it sounds like an incredibly interesting passage. Where is that?

Mark 3: 20Then he went home, and the crowd gathered again, so that they could not even eat. 21And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, "He is out of his mind."

But be warned every single bible translates it a bit different.

It goes both ways I guess. Personally I find by treating it as an historical document and trying to understand what the author(s) originally said, it actually strengthens my faith.



I strongly approve of this approach and I don't see how it could weaken a person's faith, aside from their faith in what is currently taught by fundamentalists.

Also, I like your point regard David.

Regarding if Mary was lying....could that have been reflected in his compassion in the story of the adulterous woman he saved from being stoned? Is it not likely that his mother taught him such compassion based on her experience with Joseph's compassion?

Just a thought....

I strongly approve of this approach and I don't see how it could weaken a person's faith, aside from their faith in what is currently taught by fundamentalists.

Also, I like your point regard David.

Regarding if Mary was lying....could that have been reflected in his compassion in the story of the adulterous woman he saved from being stoned? Is it not likely that his mother taught him such compassion based on her experience with Joseph's compassion?

Just a thought....

Maybe but we have the problem that scholars really don't know if the whole 'woman about to be stoned' should be in the bible or is genuine.

Maybe but we have the problem that scholars really don't know if the whole 'woman about to be stoned' should be in the bible or is genuine.

What is it about that part that they question?

What is it about that part that they question?

The whole incident. Thats why in different bibles you'll find it under different verses.

The whole incident. Thats why in different bibles you'll find it under different verses.

Which versions differ....or are you going to make me research that? :)

Which versions differ....or are you going to make me research that? :)

Has all the details if you have time and tylenol (http://tinyurl.com/2hdspn):P

I liked.

A lot.

I thought it was very well done and thought out.
I especially liked they way you portrayed Gabriel as being in a mans form rather then a gleaming ball of light.
I wasn't sure what was difficult in believing that Mary was a virgin. If she was betrothed to a person of royal lineage, wouldn't he be sure she was a virgin? And Josoph being an honorable man and all, I find it easier to think she was a virgin.
I did like the fact that you humanized her, too many (if not all) catholics pray to the Virgin Mary, making her out to be some kind of deity.

I think even the most skeptical, assuming they have some knowledge of ancient history, would agree that my exegesis of the passage is credible, ie that it might have happened.


The historical interpretation is definitely credible, and your interpretation is as good as any I've ever heard. Farrrrr more believable than the Christian perspective of it, that's for sure.

However -

The amount of faith remains the same, regardless of the historical interpretation, and no matter how much you dumb it down into rational events from miraculous ones. There's still the Big Guy in the Sky to contend with, the ethereal being who sends messages (via audio? visual? telepathy?) to these unsuspecting madmen, and who also has an omnipotent grip on the entire Universe to the extent of being able to commandeer trillions of souls immediately upon their parting with the natural world.

That's where you lose me.

I still find your historical interpretations of the texts to be interesting. Are you taking requests? The Book of Micah is especially interesting, in my opinion. xtreem5150 offered it up once as suggested reading, and I walked away from the verses feeling as perplexed as ever. The political spew in those passages just smacked of Imperialism. Why would such a mighty presence who supposedly has the Mother of All Strongholds on All That Is To Be have such a vested interest in territorial disputes?

This is the important part of the whole thing. Not whether or not Mary been shagging Joseph out of wedlock. This is the crucial bit, the point the author was trying to get across.

Jesus was going to be King of Israel and had a rightful claim on the throne.

Amazing how time and time again christians miss that simple point or even worse read it and think what Gabriel actually said was that Jesus was going to be the Saviour Of The World and Be some kind of half man/half God thang.

I thought the whole Jesus/God thang came from...

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.

On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!

Like the core of Christianity's doctrine is based on the first chapter of John and everything some Pharisee wrote in letters and epistles. And what his companion wrote as the Acts of the Apostales.

"
This kind of ignorance can only be made if you dont know the other parts of the Bible i find that when most people bash the Bible they forget about CONTEXT sometimes the Bible in its enirety need to be the context because remember the chapter and verses were added later to help readers it is one huge book.


Actually, the 'bible' was never 'one big book' or even a 'book' to begin with. The so called 'old testament' (it wasn't called that until the 'bible' was translated into English) was a series of oral traditions passed on through teaching and perhaps recorded on some scrolls here and there. It only earned the name 'bible' when it was written into Greek for the Jews of Alexandria. Since the document was a collection of many 'books' (remember they weren't books at this point but oral traditions perhaps written down on scrolls here and there) it was referred to as a 'bible' (a Greek word meaning a collection of several books or documents) by the Greeks. That was of course, before the new testament existed, which was kept on scrolls and taught orally. The Greek translation of the 'old testament' was known as the Septuagint. The 'new testament' and 'old testament' were
translated into Latin this was known as the Vulgate, and this is what was read to people in church in places like England where no one actually understood Latin except for the priests. Of course, no one could read, let alone Latin, obviously Christians didn't have their own personal copies.
The printing press did not exist so it was all written down and copied by monks, the churches were the only ones with the documents.
Then King James translated the bible into English, and that is where what was previously known as the torah and the tanakh, or the Septuagint, was called the 'Old Testament' and the gospel called the 'New Testament'.
The 'books' we know today, covers with a spine and pages in between didn't exist until relatively recent, and even then, only very very few people had books for a very long time.
Even some 70 odd years ago books were a very rare thing for most people to have.
So the Idea that the 'bible', new and old testament together, was 'always meant to be read as one big book' is pretty damn retarded in the world of reality.

I still find your historical interpretations of the texts to be interesting. Are you taking requests? The Book of Micah is especially interesting, in my opinion. xtreem5150 offered it up once as suggested reading, and I walked away from the verses feeling as perplexed as ever. The political spew in those passages just smacked of Imperialism. Why would such a mighty presence who supposedly has the Mother of All Strongholds on All That Is To Be have such a vested interest in territorial disputes?

When I get up of a morning I put on BBC Radio Four (http://tinyurl.com/2zmm39) for the night's body count and of course The Shipping Forecast (don't worry , its a Brit thang).

Why do i mention this?

Well on any given morning I'll hear the names "assyria","Moab","Judah","samaria" or rather Iraq,Iran,Syria,Jordan, Lebanon.(nb in no order)

It is sad to see that sooo much has changed since Micah's time and yet not.

The reason why Micah smacks of rampant imperialism is 1. because it IS full of rampant imperialism and 2. to be found on CNN.

Anyways , yes if you give me a passage to do i will but only passages ...a chapter's worth at most cos a chapter of Micah is enough for anyone.

Oh an btw, just incase you didn't know only the first 3 chapters of Micah are held to be original Micah Tone ®. Its disputed whether some bits of the later chapters are from him.

To be honest: the bible is not a documentation of supernatural experience, it is quite simply the recording of historical events and an attempt to show the governments back then using metaphors. Revalations talks of many different Roman governers. The truth is: the bible is about as true as they get. The thing is most people see it as a religious manuscript and treat it as such.

I got kicked out of youth group for saying that shit.

Actually, the 'bible' was never 'one big book' or even a 'book' to begin with. The so called 'old testament' (it wasn't called that until the 'bible' was translated into English) was a series of oral traditions passed on through teaching and perhaps recorded on some scrolls here and there. It only earned the name 'bible' when it was written into Greek for the Jews of Alexandria. Since the document was a collection of many 'books' (remember they weren't books at this point but oral traditions perhaps written down on scrolls here and there) it was referred to as a 'bible' (a Greek word meaning a collection of several books or documents) by the Greeks. That was of course, before the new testament existed, which was kept on scrolls and taught orally. The Greek translation of the 'old testament' was known as the Septuagint. The 'new testament' and 'old testament' were
translated into Latin this was known as the Vulgate, and this is what was read to people in church in places like England where no one actually understood Latin except for the priests. Of course, no one could read, let alone Latin, obviously Christians didn't have their own personal copies.
The printing press did not exist so it was all written down and copied by monks, the churches were the only ones with the documents.
Then King James translated the bible into English, and that is where what was previously known as the torah and the tanakh, or the Septuagint, was called the 'Old Testament' and the gospel called the 'New Testament'.
The 'books' we know today, covers with a spine and pages in between didn't exist until relatively recent, and even then, only very very few people had books for a very long time.
Even some 70 odd years ago books were a very rare thing for most people to have.
So the Idea that the 'bible', new and old testament together, was 'always meant to be read as one big book' is pretty damn retarded in the world of reality.

Christians have been swallowing the interpetations from their religious leaders for hundreds of years.

A fine reading.

"the whole virginity thing may very well be later attempt by christians to doctor the story so it seemed to fit with OT prophecy. Something they did all too often."

Baseless assumption.


That wasn't an assumption. It was a guess. He stated it as such. It was an educated guess because the church has been known to do such things. He didn't say this is what happened. He said this is what may have happened.



Christians have been swallowing from their religious leaders for hundreds of years.

" It was an educated guess because the church has been known to do such things."

Again this brings me back to what i said do you have proof of this?

Actually, the 'bible' was never 'one big book' or even a 'book' to begin with. The so called 'old testament' (it wasn't called that until the 'bible' was translated into English) was a series of oral traditions passed on through teaching and perhaps recorded on some scrolls here and there. It only earned the name 'bible' when it was written into Greek for the Jews of Alexandria. Since the document was a collection of many 'books' (remember they weren't books at this point but oral traditions perhaps written down on scrolls here and there) it was referred to as a 'bible' (a Greek word meaning a collection of several books or documents) by the Greeks. That was of course, before the new testament existed, which was kept on scrolls and taught orally. The Greek translation of the 'old testament' was known as the Septuagint. The 'new testament' and 'old testament' were
translated into Latin this was known as the Vulgate, and this is what was read to people in church in places like England where no one actually understood Latin except for the priests. Of course, no one could read, let alone Latin, obviously Christians didn't have their own personal copies.
The printing press did not exist so it was all written down and copied by monks, the churches were the only ones with the documents.
Then King James translated the bible into English, and that is where what was previously known as the torah and the tanakh, or the Septuagint, was called the 'Old Testament' and the gospel called the 'New Testament'.
The 'books' we know today, covers with a spine and pages in between didn't exist until relatively recent, and even then, only very very few people had books for a very long time.
Even some 70 odd years ago books were a very rare thing for most people to have.


I knew all this but you missed my point.

Christians have been swallowing the interpetations from their religious leaders for hundreds of years.

And you people have been misinterpreting the Bible for (insert years here) see i can say things too.

And Christians have been misinterpreting the Bible for (insert years here) see i can say things too.
Fix'd.:rolleyes:

Is it just me, or do all the debunking threads seem to center around christianity? I dont see too many threads centering around other religions. Just an interesting fact i've noticed.

Is it just me, or do all the debunking threads seem to center around christianity? I dont see too many threads centering around other religions. Just an interesting fact i've noticed.

Probably because Christianity is the major religion in England and America.

Probably because Christianity is the major religion in England and America.

Or maybe just because i don't fancy anyone going all jihady on my sorry arse?:P

Seriously though, in my case its simply because the origins of christianity/the bible and modern christian sects are my areas of knowledge. I have a rough working understanding of the other major faiths but thats all.

Seriously though, in my case its simply because the origins of christianity/the bible and modern christian sects are my areas of knowledge. I have a rough working understanding of the other major faiths but thats all.

Right, but surely you admit that if you had been born elsewhere, where another religion was the major religion, you would more likely have more knowledge of said religion and only a rough working understanding of Christianity, yeah?