Sounds like medieval clergy made up (or twisted) the story of Lilith in order to ensure that their wives would be subservient.

I would be much more open minded if it came from a dead sea scroll or something dating to the 2nd century AD or earlier.

There is this great scene in Oz (HBO Mini Series) where one of the main characters is having a conversation with a neo-nazi white supremacist type. They are talking about the bible. At one point the main character says something along the lines of, "So you think Jesus was white? He was most probably middle-eastern in terms of ethnicity."

The white-supremacist opens up his American edition of the bible and points to a "picture" of a blond-haired Aryan featured Jesus and says something like, "look at the picture you dumb fuck."

What I find so amusing about this little scene is that people think like this, extremely literally, all around the world. Those people in this discussion saying "oh you should read the bible" should be countered with, "Which bible?"

To think that any single bible edition is in any way like another is a HUGE sign of the ignorance of both the origins of the bible, as well as the ultimate game of "telephone" that it represent. The "bible" that thumping-middle-america seems to think was written by god himself is actually just product from some publisher, who in turn got his content from a long line of sources, all of which made small changes along the way.

And that is just the English version. You have to realize that the Bible was likely written in something like Aramaic or some other dead semitic language. From there it was translated to endless languages, Latin, Greek, etc. etc. losing and gaining meaning in the process.

You might also want to look into the Dead Sea Scrolls, some of the earliest (if not the earliest) versions of the bible in existence. What's the problem? Well, they contain extra content which the Christian church leaders just decided to leave out. Are we to think that ever edition of the bible is correct and that every editor is "inspired by god" in his editorial management of the text? If it was just one line of bibles that ended in one "definitive" version, I could kind of see the logic there. The problem is that there are a gazillion (that is a technical term) version. Again, which is the "right" bible?

Personally, I think the Indian bible is the correct one. Look up that one. They are fairly certain that Jesus spent his "missing years" in India and there is a whole tradition based on that. I like it and I'm going with that one. Anyone who doesn't agree with me is unfortunately going to hell.

By the way, why aren't you guys voting on my video of the Rise and Fall of Nazi Dinosaurs. Yes, it is a shameless plug, but I really feel that video should be doing better than it is!!

No. It doesn't say that anywhere.

The Bible we know was passed down through many generations and translated from language to language over the years. Many other writings, traced back to ancient times, can be translated to read differently than do the many versions of the Bible in English today.

Here's one example of how certain things are lost over time. None of the Scrolls of Enoch (Fragments were found with the Dead Sea Scrolls) are included in the Old Testament, but Enoch is mentioned in the Bible as a Prophet who was taken up to return with God because he was so righteous. Why weren't his writings included in the Bible? All but a few of his words were lost.

I believe the original texts of the Bible (as written by the prophets) to have been 100% accurate. It is no longer 100% accurate due to error and corruption by man. Any logical human can see that there are many metaphors, similes, and fables in The Bible. 1000 years in Bible time could represent any length of time. Who knows how long Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden as immortals?

>> ^poolcleaner:

Is there anywhere in biblical scripture that specifically states that 100% of the Bible is the word of G-O-D? I'm not an expert on said text, but maybe someone can clarify this for me.

No. It doesn't say that anywhere.

The Bible we know was passed down through many generations and translated from language to language over the years. Many other writings that can be traced back to the same time period can be translated to read differently than do the many versions of the Bible in English today.

Here's one example of how certain things are lost over time. None of the Scrolls of Enoch (Fragments were found with the Dead Sea Scrolls) are included in the Old Testament, but Enoch is mentioned as a man who was taken up to return with God because he was so righteous.

I believe the original texts of the Bible (as written by the prophets) to have been 100% accurate. It is no longer 100% accurate due to error and corruption by man. Any logical human can see that there are many metaphors, similes, and fables in The Bible. 1000 years in Bible time could represent any length of time. Who knows how long Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden as immortals?



In reply to this comment by poolcleaner:
>> ^anti-mammon:
Here's the thing that bothers me, I have heard that the bible is "the word of god given to man". so if that is the case, then isn't it blasphemy to NOT take the bible literally? because god is omniscient, omnipresent and other omnis right? so he knows better than us as to the correct behavior, so we should stone our neighbors if they are wearing more than two types of cloth.


Is there anywhere in biblical scripture that specifically states that 100% of the Bible is the word of G-O-D? I'm not an expert on said text, but maybe someone can clarify this for me.

If he wants to wipe the Jews from the face of the Earth, why hasn't he started with the thousands of Jews that live in Iran?

Israel offered those Jews money to move to either California or Israel, and the Persian Jews refused, calling it an obvious political tactic.

And notice in the video he says, "Death to Israel," not "Death to Jews."

Also:

Petty Tyrant, allowed to run free and fuck his people in the ass.
Wants power and control according to his twisted view of empire, which includes wiping all suspected terrorists from the face of the earth, not unlike the square mustachioed fuckstick, of recent history.

Do you really see Bush that way? Because I do.

>> ^choggie:
I can.
Petty Tyrant, allowed to run free and fuck his people in the ass.
Wants power and control according to his twisted view of empire, which includes wiping all Jews from the face of the earth, not unlike the square mustachioed fuckstick, of recent history..
Kill this piece of human garbage quickly-if we don't Israel will.....excise the cancer, from the host, before it becomes aggressive and unstoppable....
Oh but wait....part of the deal Bush and his ilk made with the oil sheiks, was this phase of geopolitical abortion, that this is their time, to run free, in the name of peace, unity, acceptance and tolerance of another's religions, customs, and fucking sick programs.....forest for the trees folks, forest for the trees......Who lets a cocksucker like this run a country into oblivion???.....Find these fuckers and destroy their bloodlines......

the so-called "good points" thinker, are part of any successful propagandist's rhetoric.....appeals to everyone, very effective, especially with an undereducated and subservient populace.....
Strap Hackmenhandjob to a nice missile, and launch his stupid ass onnit, trajectory: Dead Sea.

I can.
Petty Tyrant, allowed to run free and fuck his people in the ass.
Wants power and control according to his twisted view of empire, which includes wiping all Jews from the face of the earth, not unlike the square mustachioed fuckstick, of recent history..
Kill this piece of human garbage quickly-if we don't Israel will.....excise the cancer, from the host, before it becomes aggressive and unstoppable....

Oh but wait....part of the deal Bush and his ilk made with the oil sheiks, was this phase of geopolitical abortion, that this is their time, to run free, in the name of peace, unity, acceptance and tolerance of another's religions, customs, and fucking sick programs.....forest for the trees folks, forest for the trees......Who lets a cocksucker like this run a country into oblivion???.....Find these fuckers and destroy their bloodlines......


the so-called "good points" thinker, are part of any successful propagandist's rhetoric.....appeals to everyone, very effective, especially with an undereducated and subservient populace.....

Strap Hackmenhandjob to a nice missile, and launch his stupid ass onnit, trajectory: Dead Sea.

Miraculous you call it babe
You ain't seen nothing yet
They've got Pepsi in the Andes
McDonalds in Tibet
Yosemite's been turned into
A golf course for the Japs
The Dead Sea is alive with rap
Between the Tigris and Euphrates
There's a leisure centre now
They've got all kinds of sports
They've got Bermuda shorts
They had sex in Pennsylvania
A Brazilian grew a tree
A doctor in Manhattan
Saved a dying man for free
It's a miracle
Another Miracle
By the grace of God Almighty
And the pressures of the marketplace
The human race has civilized itself
It's a miracle
We've got warehouses of butter
We've got oceans of wine
We've got famine when we need it
Got designer crime
We've got Mercedes
We've got Porsche
Ferrari and Rolls Royce
We've got choice
She said meet me
In the Garden of Gethsemene my dear
The Lord said Peter I can see
Your house from here
An honest family man
Finally reaped what he had sown
A farmer in Ohio has just repaid a loan
It's a miracle
By the grace of God Almighty
And the pressures of the marketplace
The human race has civilized itself
It's a miracle
We cower in our shelters
With our hands over our ears
Lloyd-Webber's awful stuff
Runs for years and years and years
An earthquake hits the theater
But the operetta lingers
Then the piano lid comes down
And breaks his fucking fingers
It's a miracle

What of 2001? Foundation? Childhood's End and my own personal favorite Dune? They all offer different takes on what a higher supreme being may or may not be. I mean it's perfectly possible that we are actually a large biological experiment run by extra terrestrials, who view us in the same vain we view mice, a baser animal that can be used to gain insights. Or perhaps it could really all be Douglas Adams like and the mice maybe running the whole thing... Or maybe there is a 'supreme architect' as the Freemasons put it, but thinking that his attention is purely focused on us would be delusional given the vastness and mystery of the Universe. Even then this superior intelligence would need a creator of and within itself.

But what's clear is that it's determental for human society to treat religious text as dogma, and the fervent word of God. Theologians themselves say that ultimately the Bible is an allegorical fable, put together over many year following the death of Jesus Christ, agreed on and put forward by the Council of Constantinople. See Dead Sea scrolls...

To Mauz15, thank you for your compliments. However, you make the argument that Mel Gibson had the movie putting stakes through the hands of Jesus and not the wrists of Jesus. Yes, I stand by the statement that Mel Gibson used so much blood because he was trying to stay historically accurate... but the semantics of if the nails were in the hands or the wrists really holds no relevance other than a simple mistake, if it is that, due to the fact that if I put a stake in your hand OR your wrist... you will still bleed copiously from both.

Benjee writes "The bible is the only documentated proof that Jesus existed - this book has been disproven by archeology and other sciences (the only historical accuracy it contains is on the 3rd page: King James edition). There's a larger readership of the IKEA catalogue throughout the world than bible readers - what the IKEA customers read is actually more factual than the Christians' book (and most of that is made-up Swedish words!) Just because its readers believe it's true, doesn't make it any more real."

Well, I have your sources of proof.

Gnostic texts

Gnostic texts date to the mid second century at the earliest, and show a lack of attention to history, generally avoiding the standard historical narrative in favour of sayings framed in the structure of a private, and often secret revelation, and therefore emphasize allegory. The Gnostics' opinion of Jesus varied from viewing him as docetic to completely metaphorical, in all cases treating him as someone to allegorically attribute gnostic teachings to, his resurrection being regarded an allegory for enlightenment, in which all can take part. Nonetheless, some scholars consider these texts valuable as they were generally not subject to the influences of Christian orthodoxy.

Early Church fathers

The early church fathers, such as Papias, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Eusebius and Jerome, wrote of Jesus. Papias preferred to rely on surviving witnesses who had known one of the twelve disciples, rather than what had been written in books. (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-4)

Flavius Josephus

(c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93. In it Jesus is mentioned twice, notably in the Testimonium Flavianum, found in Antiquities 18:3.3:

About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day. Josephus later, in chapter 20:9.1, refers to the trial and execution of James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." This is considered by the majority of scholars to be authentic.

Pliny the Younger

Pliny the Younger, the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan c. 112 concerning how to deal with Christians, who refused to worship the emperor, and instead worshiped "Christus".Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ—none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do—these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

Tacitus

Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117) wrote a paragraph in the Annals on the subject of Christianity and possibly Christ in 116. In describing Nero's persecution of Christians following the Great Fire of Rome c. 64, Tacitus stated that this group, originating from Judaea, derived its name from "Christus/Chrestus", who "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate"[19][20] Tacitus, in keeping with the Imperial edicts concerning Christianity, described it as a "most mischievous superstition" and "evil".[21] Some note that this makes it improbable that the text was interpolated by later Christians.

Tacitus simply refers to "Chrestus", a possible misspelling of "Christus", the Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah", rather than the name "Jesus", and he refers to Pontius Pilate as a "procurator", a specific post that differs from the one that the Gospels imply that he held—prefect or governor. In this instance the Gospel account is supported by archaeology, since a surviving inscription states that Pilate was prefect.It is also possible that Pilate held both offices, which was common.

Some scholars suggest that Tacitus is merely describing Christian beliefs that were uncontroversial (i.e., that a cult leader was put to death), and that Tacitus thus had no reason not to assume as fact, even without any evidence beyond that spiritual belief. Theologian Karl Adam, argues that, as an enemy of the Christians and as a historian, Tacitus would have investigated the claim about Jesus' execution before writing it.

Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman summarized the historical importance of this passage:

"Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign. We learn nothing, however, about the reason for this execution, or about Jesus' life and teachings."[22]

Others

Although Celsus, a late second-century critic of Christianity, accused Jesus of being a bastard child and a sorcerer, he never questions Jesus' historicity even though he hated Christianity and Jesus.[23] He is quoted as saying that Jesus was a "mere man".[24] Furthermore, there is a passage of debatable significance by Lucian of Samosata, which credits Jesus as the founder of Christianity.[25]

Consequently, scholars like Sanders, Geza Vermes, John P. Meier, David Flusser, James H. Charlesworth, Raymond E. Brown, Paula Fredriksen and John Dominic Crossan argue that, although many readers are accustomed to thinking of Jesus solely as a theological figure whose existence is a matter only of religious debate, the four canonical Gospel accounts are based on source documents written within decades of Jesus' lifetime, and therefore provide a basis for the study of the "historical" Jesus. These historians also draw on other historical sources and archaeological evidence to reconstruct the life of Jesus in his historical and cultural context.

Many scholars, such as Michael Grant, do not see significant similarity between the non-Abrahamic myths and Christianity. Grant states in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels that "Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the deaths and rebirths of mythical gods seemed so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a FABRICATION from its midst is very hard to credit."

Benjee also writes "P.S: Taking things out of context? Surely, the bible is taken out of context with its millenia's of 'translations' or 'editions' and without the rest of the removed sections...E.G: Dead Sea Scrolls anyone? in your own words, DirtyWildkat: 'The Bible has to be taken as a whole work, not just one book or verse' And don't even get me started on the anti-semitic inclusion of The Crucifiction by the church a few hundred years ago. Surely, if the bible is the true word of god, then the entirety of it must be true and followed 'religously'...therefore editing it must be the ultimate blasphemous act!? "

The problem with this statement about translations and what not are that we have original documents to TRANSLATE from. Yes, over the years as our knowledge of these ancient languages developed some words or phrases have changed, but scholars have basically come to an agreement now. Learn greek, as I had to in school, and read the greek New Testament for yourself, or learn hebrew and read the Old Testament. The meaning is there. And when I said the Bible has to be taken as a whole book to be in context, I think you misinterpreted my meaning. I am arguing that the Bible is a progressive work telling the story of a God and his people and their development over millenia of time that is written by men. Are there certain to be small spelling errors in Hebrew and Greek that get translated incorrectly? Yes,HUMANS WROTE THE ACCOUNTS, there will be minor errors but the message still stays the same, the basic meaning does not shift.

You also mention the Crucifixtion as something added by anti-semites later... since when? I've already given writings by non Christian ancient historians that record Jesus as being crucified.

I appreciate everyones thoughts on this...however, as a devout athiest and scientist (almost!) - I'd like to refute all of the above with one simple statement:

The bible is the only documentated proof that Jesus existed - this book has been disproven by archeology and other sciences (the only historical accuracy it contains is on the 3rd page: King James edition). There's a larger readership of the IKEA catalogue throughout the world than bible readers - what the IKEA customers read is actually more factual than the Christians' book (and most of that is made-up Swedish words!) Just because its readers believe it's true, doesn't make it any more real.

Find a different source of proof and I'll pay attention (and get your teeth into The Naked Truth in the meantime).

P.S: Taking things out of context? Surely, the bible is taken out of context with its millenia's of 'translations' or 'editions' and without the rest of the removed sections...E.G: Dead Sea Scrolls anyone? in your own words, DirtyWildkat: 'The Bible has to be taken as a whole work, not just one book or verse' And don't even get me started on the anti-semitic inclusion of The Crucifiction by the church a few hundred years ago. Surely, if the bible is the true word of god, then the entirety of it must be true and followed 'religously'...therefore editing it must be the ultimate blasphemous act!?

still amatuers compared to george carlin in the shock factor. i seem to remember the dead sea scrolls and recent archeological digs providing the opposite opinion.
overall...typical and boring, the two things these men dispise yet excell at.