funny thing, as an atheist, it ought not to make any damned difference, but suddenly this religion seemed much more humane, rather than just having one grumpy old dude sulking in the heaven. if that is the case, there should be a lot more about what she got up to in the bible.
Not only that, but Eve was not the first mate of Adam. It was Lilith.
There's a lot of misinformation going around regarding the Bible.
It's no wonder atheism makes sense to so many people.
While there are myths outside of the Word of God regarding Lilith, her complete absence from Scripture demonstrates that she is nothing more than a myth.
and the rest of the bible?
...which in the NRSV reads, "there too Lilith shall repose." This is a poor translation. Every other major translation of the Bible reads something to the effect of "night creature" or "screech owl." Even if "demon monster named Lilith" was the proper translation...
ok, so suddenly we're faced with a mistranslation? how'd that happen to the word of god?
too funny!
as for my favourite lady, it'd be the much maligned maria magnalena, who, scholars now say, was his wife, not a prostitute jesus picked up.
Yes, it's thought that she was Jesus's wife, not god's, but you know, all this amuses me. Nobody knows the truth at all, and I doubt they ever will. In pagan circles, Lilith was a dark goddess or demon, but always depicted as a beauty.
REALLY NOW? http://gnosis.org/lilith.htm
It seems that Hebrew scholars do not agree with gotquestions.org - then again those scholars didn't use the Internet to conduct their study. It's duly noted that even gotquestions admits there are several versions of the Bible. I must presume God speaketh with forked tongue.
LOL - well there ARE several versions of the Bible; all similar, but maybe with slight differences. Then you get holy texts from other countries and cultures, which again, border on similar teachings to Christian bibles.
It seems that a lot of biblical information's missing though, and translation might not be accurate.
that was interesting reading. it's great to just be handed a page with years' worth of studies and read it like a newspaper. thanks!
these translation arguments amuse me to no end. my rather simplistic thought goes along these lines: why not go as far back as possible and take a look at that translation? then think about what it might mean in the context of Judaic tradition and customs.
f. ex jesus and marriage. had he not been married would have raised a huge hue and cry as it was default custom to be married. and if he was a rabbi... well, rabbis had to be married, else how'd they be competent in advising on family life?
I agree. I don't think the Torah insists that rabbis're married men, but it stands to reason that it'd help - and this's why I can't understand the ruling that priests can't marry. How can they possibly give married/sexual advice if they haven't experienced it? I had an argument about this with a Jehovah's Witness one day. A young girl, looking no more than 12 or so, started preaching to me about the sanctity of marriage. I was speechless, and butt in on her, bluntly telling her that repeating what she'd learnt off by heart was nowhere near having the experience of!
sod, can't think of where I read about rabbi having had marriage as a requirement in Jesus' times, but here's something about the rabbinical 'time line':
Although the KJV is the closest to the most ancient copies of the scrolls, even it's name is erroneous.
First published in 1611!
Think about this for a second and let it sink in. The letter "J" was not invented until the mid-17th century.
Therefore, it is impossible for there to be a 1611 version of the King James bible.
Now, think of all the people in the bible who's name begins with or contains the letter J in our bibles.
There is no J in Hebrew, no J in Aramaic (Christ's Language) and no J in Greek.
Most of the names which now use the letter J, sound nothing at all like the original names, and using naming equivalents has never worked in any language or country yet. There is no sound on earth quite like the sound of your own name.
Ian will not answer to James, no matter how loud you yell James to get Ian's attention. Naming equivalents simply don't work.
There are two separate sets of ancient scrolls, similar in some ways, but quite different in others.
The scrolls used for the KJV translation are in complete harmony throughout.
The scrolls used for the Douay translation, do not agree among themselves.
Then we have Wescott and Hort who came up with their own version of the bible, totally different than all the rest, and are the fodder most of the modern day bibles chose as their reference works. Which makes most bibles totally erroneous from the git-go...
The closes English translation to the proper ancient scrolls is the KJV, but it even admits errors within itself. Such as references to important books not present in the bible itself. But one cannot discount the fact the scripture are harmonious, and verify themselves in the KJV.
Well I've read it, but I don't know. It made interesting reading in parts, but left big questions about bits of the old testament.
Can you imagine how erroneous each part's become, when it's been over 2000 years since Jesus was around? The missing texts, the translations, the passing on of these stories ..... You know what happens during Chinese whispers.
I certainly believe that Jesus lived. I believe that many other people mentioned also lived, the same as places which still exist today and were talked about in the Bible. Something went off around that time, but exactly WHAT, is debatable. We really don't know whether Jesus was a prophet, which even the Koran mentions, or whether he was a clever man, a false preacher - or just some unfortunate soul who spoke his mind and stories were attributed to him which probably never happened at all. I'm skeptical about the "son of God" bit, I have to say. It's not that I totally disbelieve; I just find it difficult to visualise all the "God in Heaven" stuff, unless there was an Erich von Daniken scenario?
