# Bible Study



## awoo (Aug 13, 2021)

I'm not religious but I do have a passing interest in ancient history and historical linguistics (without getting too bogged down in debates like KJV only). So if any of you guys have any interesting things to tell me, I'm open to listen.

I'll start: Recently youtube has recommended me a series called Who Wrote the Bible? which is taken from a purely historical perspective. I find it quite interesting, and the creator takes a pretty broad view and is careful to point out what is academically supported and what is still speculation. First video:






He also has great videos on genealogy of famous figures like Jesus and royalty


----------



## Drkinferno72 (Aug 13, 2021)

Bunch of Sumerians moved west to caanan and became Canaanite 

lived in Egypt for a couple generations 

then came back, became Israelites before their kingdom fell to Babylonia , Persia took that over and Jews scattered again

then fell to Greek then Roman spheres of influence


an extreme abridged version


----------



## Whatsup bud? (Aug 13, 2021)

A History of God is a good book if you're interested in the anthropology of it all, op. Author is a former nun iirc


----------



## Rome's rightful successor (Aug 13, 2021)

Metatron had recently had two pretty good videos of the historical of Jesus


----------



## ToroidalBoat (Aug 14, 2021)

I like to think the Bible is a spiritual allegory that also has some literal truth - like the story of Jesus - woven in.


----------



## LocalAnimeTard (Aug 18, 2021)

I can understand why people don't believe in the Bible, however the Biblical prophecies being fullfilled today and in ancient times(with other history accounts to back up the happenings) is pretty solid evidence to me that it is true.

And regardless how you feel about religion I think the world, society, and morality did way better following thr Bible's teachings.


----------



## awoo (Aug 18, 2021)

ToroidalBoat said:


> I like to think the Bible is a spiritual allegory that also has some literal truth - like the story of Jesus - woven in.


That's the perspective that Matt Baker at Useful Charts takes. He explains that ancient peoples did not write history for the sole purpose of recording literal happenings but also for conveying a message and telling a story.


----------



## Zarael (Aug 18, 2021)

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham is the gold standard for understanding the historicity of the gospels. You should also be very wary of source criticism since it ends up being little more than guesswork based on which words are used where. The documentary hypothesis is particularly ridiculous.


----------



## Bonesjones (Aug 18, 2021)

awoo said:


> That's the perspective that Matt Baker at Useful Charts takes. He explains that ancient peoples did not write history for the sole purpose of recording literal happenings but also for conveying a message and telling a story.


Who is also a Jew and goes out of his way to make them look good.


----------



## awoo (Aug 18, 2021)

Zarael said:


> The documentary hypothesis is particularly ridiculous.


Why do you say this?



Bonesjones said:


> Who is also a Jew and goes out of his way to make them look good.


It's reasonable enough. I'm not watching youtube videos for a serious study.


----------



## Bonesjones (Aug 18, 2021)

awoo said:


> Why do you say this?
> 
> 
> It's reasonable enough. I'm not watching youtube videos for a serious study.


Yeah its usually not a huge issue and he mentions it in a few of his videos.


----------



## DerKryptid (Aug 18, 2021)

Read the Bible and then read the Church Fathers. St. John Chrysostom is your best bet if you want to understand the New Testament and St. Cyril of Alexandria explains the Pentateuch faily well


ToroidalBoat said:


> I like to think the Bible is a spiritual allegory that also has some literal truth - like the story of Jesus - woven in.


A lot of that allegory is prophecy, mind you. Nearly every book of the Old Testament foreshadows the life and persecution of Jesus Christ and the eventual rise and growth of the Church. Allegorical passages from the Old Testament are what allowed the Fathers to discern truth from heresy at all seven of the Ecumenical Councils.


----------



## A Very Big Fish (Aug 18, 2021)

I'd say St. Augustine's Confessions. Its a fascinating autobiographical book about Augustine of Hippo's journey from base hedonism to a saint and doctor of the church. I also love it because it gives you a look into the world of Romanized Africa (I think like 400 AD). I've heard his other work City of God is great, but I have like 3 books or so that I need to finish before I get to that one.

Also, Mere Christianity by CS Lewis is always an interesting one, it definitely is a great gateway into his other works. Its based on his WW2 era broadcasts.


----------



## Raging Capybara (Aug 18, 2021)

TheAnimeAvatard said:


> however the Biblical prophecies being fullfilled today and in ancient times


List of prophecies being fulfilled:





End of the list.


----------



## LocalAnimeTard (Aug 18, 2021)

Raging Capybara said:


> List of prophecies being fulfilled:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Kys fedora tipper


----------



## Raging Capybara (Aug 18, 2021)

DerKryptid said:


> Nearly every book of the Old Testament foreshadows the life and persecution of Jesus Christ


So much that the guys who wrote these books don't give a single flying fuck about Jesus Christ. Seems legit.


----------



## LocalAnimeTard (Aug 18, 2021)

Raging Capybara said:


> So much that the guys who wrote these books don't give a single flying fuck about Jesus Christ. Seems legit.


Can you be a faggot somewhere else? We are expressing our beliefs and you are sperging out at people here simply for having them. Imagine being a non religious faggot and pretending you understabd the Bible better than others.

Jesus was prophecied in the old testament you idiot. That was a big theme during the old testament which was creating a bloodline for the Messiah.


----------



## DerKryptid (Aug 18, 2021)

Raging Capybara said:


> So much that the guys who wrote these books don't give a single flying fuck about Jesus Christ. Seems legit.


Hmm maybe because the incarnation didn't happen yet?


----------



## LocalAnimeTard (Aug 18, 2021)

DerKryptid said:


> Hmm maybe because the incarnation didn't happen yet?


WHAT are you telling me this atheist actually doesn't know anything about the Bible???


----------



## Imperial Citizen (Aug 18, 2021)

I find it interesting that the human characters of the Bible are morally flawed, especially for the principal Jewish characters. Abraham, for instance, was so devoted to God that he would have gone through with killing his son, Isaac, until an angel intervenes. Something to note is that Isaac does not follow Abraham afterwards and Sarah dies soon after. There is a possibility that Abraham's attempted killing of his son was wrong and that it ruined his family. Isaac leaves him and Sarah dies out of grief. More to the point is that Abraham gets another wife and fathers several children that will be the progenitors of nations that war with the Jews later in the Bible.

Another character would be King David. After David becomes King, he is infatuated with a woman, Bathsheba. He impregnates her, which may or may not have been consensual. David sends Bathsheba's husband to the frontlines so he can be killed, allowing David to marry Bathsheba. While David acknowledges that this was sinful, his repentance does not absolve him of future suffering from the loss of several of his children, including the son he had with Bathsheba.

What fascinates is me is trying to understand why the Jewish writers of the Old Testament give the "father of the nation" and the supposed progenitor of the messiah such character flaws. Maybe it is to highlight that even those that are in high esteem with God are not perfect, that they are just like everyone else.


----------



## DerKryptid (Aug 18, 2021)

Imperial Citizen said:


> I find it interesting that the human characters of the Bible are morally flawed, especially for the principal Jewish characters. Abraham, for instance, was so devoted to God that he would have gone through with killing his son, Isaac, until an angel intervenes. Something to note is that Isaac does not follow Abraham afterwards and Sarah dies soon after. There is a possibility that Abraham's attempted killing of his son was wrong and that it ruined his family. Isaac leaves him and Sarah dies out of grief. More to the point is that Abraham gets another wife and fathers several children that will be the progenitors of nations that war with the Jews later in the Bible.
> 
> Another character would be King David. After David becomes King, he is infatuated with a woman, Bathsheba. He impregnates her, which may or may not have been consensual. David sends Bathsheba's husband to the frontlines so he can be killed, allowing David to marry Bathsheba. While David acknowledges that this was sinful, his repentance does not absolve him of future suffering from the loss of several of his children, including the son he had with Bathsheba.
> 
> What fascinates is me is trying to understand why the Jewish writers of the Old Testament give the "father of the nation" and the supposed progenitor of the messiah such character flaws. Maybe it is to highlight that even those that are in high esteem with God are not perfect, that they are just like everyone else.


Inb4 some fedoras says "muh hercules was also morally-flawed"

Besides the wife-murder bit, Hercules' moral failings were not seen as unethical or embarassing by the time period. Neither were any of Ulysses', Achilles' or Agamemnon's flaws besides the hubris. Ethics is subjective and dependent on the host culture, and the difference between hellenistic tales and the Old Testament is that the figures from the OT were flawed even by OT standards. This fact alone makes the account all the more believable.


----------



## Zero Day Defense (Aug 18, 2021)

Imperial Citizen said:


> I find it interesting that the human characters of the Bible are morally flawed, especially for the principal Jewish characters. Abraham, for instance, was so devoted to God that he would have gone through with killing his son, Isaac, until an angel intervenes. Something to note is that Isaac does not follow Abraham afterwards and Sarah dies soon after. There is a possibility that Abraham's attempted killing of his son was wrong and that it ruined his family. Isaac leaves him and Sarah dies out of grief.


My general understanding of the record of the incident is that it was meant as a demonstration of 1) who God was, and 2) what kind of sacrifice He wanted/didn't want. Abraham would have been aware of the Canaanite pantheon, which included Moloch-- an idol to which people would sacrifice their children. It wouldn't have been outlandish for this god that came in contact with him to demand the same, but instead God prevents him from going through with the sacrifice of his son and provides him the kind of sacrifice that He wants from Abraham (animals).

The problem with your interpretation is that you're not accounting for the fact that Abraham had a great deal of faith in God, _and God told him to sacrifice his son._ It wasn't an action wholly generated from  Abraham's zeal, so it can't be understood as "wrong" especially given the stated aftermath. At any rate, nobody discussing Abraham in either the Christian or (general) Jewish thought continuities discusses Abraham as being wrong for doing what he did, and in fact extol his faith.


----------



## mindlessobserver (Aug 18, 2021)

The biblical texts after Exodus are pretty good historical records of the Levantine region of the Middle East. Leviticus is essentially the civil and criminal code of Ancient Israel and gives some good insights into their culture and social practices. Kings and Chronicles are biased first hand records of the events of the day. 

When reading the Bible it's important to remember that it was not written down in one go. It's actually a collection of various texts. Mythologies like Exodus, folk tales like the story of Job and Jonah, legal texts like Leviticus and historical chronicles with the suitable embellishments to make the opposing parties irredeemable monsters.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (Aug 18, 2021)

Imperial Citizen said:


> I find it interesting that the human characters of the Bible are morally flawed, especially for the principal Jewish characters. Abraham, for instance, was so devoted to God that he would have gone through with killing his son, Isaac, until an angel intervenes. Something to note is that Isaac does not follow Abraham afterwards and Sarah dies soon after. There is a possibility that Abraham's attempted killing of his son was wrong and that it ruined his family. Isaac leaves him and Sarah dies out of grief. More to the point is that Abraham gets another wife and fathers several children that will be the progenitors of nations that war with the Jews later in the Bible.
> 
> Another character would be King David. After David becomes King, he is infatuated with a woman, Bathsheba. He impregnates her, which may or may not have been consensual. David sends Bathsheba's husband to the frontlines so he can be killed, allowing David to marry Bathsheba. While David acknowledges that this was sinful, his repentance does not absolve him of future suffering from the loss of several of his children, including the son he had with Bathsheba.
> 
> What fascinates is me is trying to understand why the Jewish writers of the Old Testament give the "father of the nation" and the supposed progenitor of the messiah such character flaws. Maybe it is to highlight that even those that are in high esteem with God are not perfect, that they are just like everyone else.


Absolutely agree. Also, a massive part of the Old Testament is about the idea of parent's crimes passing into the children. It's a pretty nihilistic concept that's usually true besides the religeous aspects and probably created the concept of an "Original Sin". On the other end of the scale is tales like Job that basically amout to "sometimes being the most righteous men will get you fucked regardless", which is pretty hard for a religion to approach.


Zero Day Defense said:


> At any rate, nobody discussing Abraham in either the Christian or (general) Jewish thought continuities discusses Abraham as being wrong for doing what he did, and in fact extol his faith.


It's definitely a very morally grey act, though how much is dependent on the interpretation.


----------



## ArnoldPalmer (Aug 18, 2021)

I think it's important for everyone to read the bible, even if you don't believe it. So many redditors love to pick apart the bible, but they're only eating the tablescraps of something some rantsona on youtube deconstructed, who also did not read the book. I think if those faggots want to be taken seriously, they should try to have a better understanding of that which they hate so much. I can understand the reason why people TL;DR it if their only experience with Christianity is American Protestantism/Baptism, but more likely the reality is that they've probably never lived in an area like the religious south, either. Basically, I'm saying internet atheist smuggies are not valid in any way because they don't know shit all about what they're complaining about.

Even if you're a fencesitter agnostic, there's probably some insight, historical or otherwise, that could be gleaned from it. I personally enjoy it for that. There are places in that book that you can fly out and actually visit. That's really neat.

American Christians should probably believe their own bullshit, too. At least the preteens on reddit are right about that. I bet if they did that, they might have second thoughts about Our Greatest Ally.


With all that said, the Old Testament ain't canon.


----------



## Just Another Apocalypse (Aug 18, 2021)

The Greatest Story Ever Told. (Actually the best stories are in the OT).

outside of the 'original' source (although you got a lot of gnostic stuff) would recommend Lebnitz.

But I think Krist almight y has some pertinent words on TBOAPW.

"Cause there's still a lotta drinks that I ain't drunk
Lots of pretty thoughts that I ain't thunk oh yeah
Lord there's still so many lonely girls
In this best of all possible worlds"


----------



## Imperial Citizen (Aug 18, 2021)

wtfNeedSignUp said:


> Absolutely agree. Also, a massive part of the Old Testament is about the idea of parent's crimes passing into the children. It's a pretty nihilistic concept that's usually true besides the religeous aspects and probably created the concept of an "Original Sin". On the other end of the scale is tales like Job that basically amout to "sometimes being the most righteous men will get you fucked regardless", which is pretty hard for a religion to approach.


I wouldn't say that the parent's crimes are passed onto the child, but that the punishment is passed onto the child. It's a way of saying, if you fuck up, you are only hurting your future.

Take for example, Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (NIV):


> 8 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.


Pay attention to the last sentence, "All Israel will hear of it". That it being the fact that two parents were unable to properly raise their son and so got the rest of the village to kill him. Being stubborn, rebellious, a glutton, and a drunkard? Are we talking about an Iron Age Jew or a modern-day lolcow? How many times have we seen someone act like a complete embarrassment to their parents and their parents allow it? Not just online but in real life? Letting the rest of the village stone the child is the parents effectively giving up as parents and terminating their future, as it is the inheritor of property that is killed.


----------



## JohnDoe (Aug 18, 2021)

ArnoldPalmer said:


> Even if you're a fencesitter agnostic, there's probably some insight, historical or otherwise, that could be gleaned from it. I personally enjoy it for that. There are places in that book that you can fly out and actually visit. That's really neat.



Proverbs alone is a gold mine of timeless and practical advice for success and happiness. And Psalms is really great too.

Even taking the extreme position (with which I do not agree) that the Bible and Christianity is just an engineered social control system leads to the inevitable conclusion; it's an amazing system that for thousands of years produced highly stable, free, and just nations unlike anywhere else in the world. Even taken at it's theoretical 'worst' it's still a book that made the world a better place.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (Aug 18, 2021)

Imperial Citizen said:


> I wouldn't say that the parent's crimes are passed onto the child, but that the punishment is passed onto the child. It's a way of saying, if you fuck up, you are only hurting your future.
> 
> Take for example, Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (NIV):
> 
> Pay attention to the last sentence, "All Israel will hear of it". That it being the fact that two parents were unable to properly raise their son and so got the rest of the village to kill him. Being stubborn, rebellious, a glutton, and a drunkard? Are we talking about an Iron Age Jew or a modern-day lolcow? How many times have we seen someone act like a complete embarrassment to their parents and their parents allow it? Not just online but in real life? Letting the rest of the village stone the child is the parents effectively giving up as parents and terminating their future, as it is the inheritor of property that is killed.


Hurting your own future is usually what will happen from any crime, but the future generation being hurt is repeated a couple of times:


> 27 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will plant the kingdoms of Israel and Judah with the offspring of people and of animals. 28 Just as I watched over them to uproot and tear down, and to overthrow, destroy and bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant,” declares the Lord. 29 “In those days people will no longer say,
> 
> ‘The parents have eaten sour grapes,
> and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’
> 30 Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge.


Also killing an obvious troublemaker in making is disturbing to modern sensibilities but makes a lot of sense when the amount of resources the child is enormous. Though you are right that shitty children comes from shitty parenting.


----------



## Pissmaster (Aug 18, 2021)

awoo said:


> Useful Charts


Anything that uses CE/BCE notations as opposed to AD/BC is using tampered data from the Clown World era, as that's a modern standard that seeks to remove Christ from the Gregorian calendar, while still being attached to the time of Christ.  It's a standard that was invented in the 90s, and only came about into common usage in the late 2010s.  It's a clear sign that whjat you're reading is most likely a case of history revisionism.  Paying attention to any kind of researcher that uses that notation directly alongside Biblical studies is practically begging for misinformation.

That notation was visible in the very first second of the first video you posted, and that's enough to let me know that his research is unreliable and uses tainted sources.


----------



## awoo (Aug 18, 2021)

Pissmaster said:


> Anything that uses CE/BCE notations as opposed to AD/BC is using tampered data from the Clown World era, as that's a modern standard that seeks to remove Christ from the Gregorian calendar, while still being attached to the time of Christ.  It's a standard that was invented in the 90s, and only came about into common usage in the late 2010s.  It's a clear sign that whjat you're reading is most likely a case of history revisionism.  Paying attention to any kind of researcher that uses that notation directly alongside Biblical studies is practically begging for misinformation.
> 
> That notation was visible in the very first second of the first video you posted, and that's enough to let me know that his research is unreliable and uses tainted sources.


I really wish I had an autistic rating for this. A normal person would note the problem, grit his teeth, and move on to judge the whole video in an intellectually honest way.


----------



## Pissmaster (Aug 18, 2021)

awoo said:


> I really wish I had an autistic rating for this. A normal person would note the problem, grit his teeth, and move on to judge the whole video in an intellectually honest way.


Why's that point making you mad?  That notation makes it obvious that it comes from an unreliable source.  You gotta notice these kinds of details if you want to sus out the truth.  There's not much point in gritting my teeth and watching anyway when there's a bare-faced obvious telltale sign that absolutely everything the flaccid-voiced videographer says should be double checked by a reliable source.


----------



## DerKryptid (Aug 18, 2021)

wtfNeedSignUp said:


> Absolutely agree. Also, a massive part of the Old Testament is about the idea of parent's crimes passing into the children.


It's quite the opposite. It's a cautionary tale of the consequences of children rebelling against their parents and refusing to wisen up and take responsibility for their shortcomings. Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the serpent, Cain blamed Abel, Esau blamed Jacob, Joseph was made the scapegoat by everyone he had ever come across, Saul blamed David, David blamed Uriah, Daniel projected all his frustrations on the entire city of Nineveh, etc. etc.


----------



## Calvin Coolidge (Aug 18, 2021)

DerKryptid said:


> It's quite the opposite. It's a cautionary tale of the consequences of children rebelling against their parents and refusing to wisen up and take responsibility for their shortcomings. Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the serpent, Cain blamed Abel, Esau blamed Jacob, Joseph was made the scapegoat by everyone he had ever come across, Saul blamed David, David blamed Uriah, Daniel projected all his frustrations on the entire city of Nineveh, etc. etc.


Now I've "Pepper" by Butthole Surfers going through my head.


----------



## A Very Big Fish (Aug 18, 2021)

Imperial Citizen said:


> I find it interesting that the human characters of the Bible are morally flawed, especially for the principal Jewish characters. Abraham, for instance, was so devoted to God that he would have gone through with killing his son, Isaac, until an angel intervenes. Something to note is that Isaac does not follow Abraham afterwards and Sarah dies soon after. There is a possibility that Abraham's attempted killing of his son was wrong and that it ruined his family. Isaac leaves him and Sarah dies out of grief. More to the point is that Abraham gets another wife and fathers several children that will be the progenitors of nations that war with the Jews later in the Bible.
> 
> Another character would be King David. After David becomes King, he is infatuated with a woman, Bathsheba. He impregnates her, which may or may not have been consensual. David sends Bathsheba's husband to the frontlines so he can be killed, allowing David to marry Bathsheba. While David acknowledges that this was sinful, his repentance does not absolve him of future suffering from the loss of several of his children, including the son he had with Bathsheba.
> 
> What fascinates is me is trying to understand why the Jewish writers of the Old Testament give the "father of the nation" and the supposed progenitor of the messiah such character flaws. Maybe it is to highlight that even those that are in high esteem with God are not perfect, that they are just like everyone else.


Well, they're still just as human as the rest of us. That's why the intercession of God and Jesus is worth anything.
General thought is that the human machine went bust when we were kicked out of paradise, and we're being prepared for the Lord to fix us so to speak.

But to your point about David, Uriah and Bathsheba, there are characters who oppose even David when he's in the midst of making his mistakes. His court prophet Nathan basically gets a tip off from God about what David does, and Nathan confronts David, using a parable for the situation to get David to condemn himself. And while his life definitely takes a nose dive, God also blesses David with Solomon from his union with Bathsheba, so I always read that as a measure of forgiveness for David's contrition. In the end David was a leader, but he wasn't the messiah. Even in the New Testament, several of the major players are far from pure, Peter denies Christ three times, and Paul literally executes members of the early Christian church. But Jesus didn't come to save the pure and holy, he came to save the rest of us poor bastards.


----------



## awoo (Aug 19, 2021)

I recently learned about the denial(s) of Peter. I know he cried at the end - does that count as repentance?


----------



## Kosher Dill (Aug 19, 2021)

Imperial Citizen said:


> What fascinates is me is trying to understand why the Jewish writers of the Old Testament give the "father of the nation" and the supposed progenitor of the messiah such character flaws.


David's contemporaries (including the originators of the David stories passed down to us) may not have actually liked him that much. An interesting book on the subject is The Demise of the Warlord. In a nutshell: while today we might think of conquering and occupying a city as heroic, it was considered weak and decadent according to the nomadic warrior ethos of David's time. Warlords were supposed to keep the show on the road and go around sacking and pillaging, not settle in and rule cities.
Various other aspects of his behavior, including his treatment of Uriah, were also considered textbook "bad king" material.


----------



## PuffyGroundCloud (Aug 19, 2021)

awoo said:


> I recently learned about the denial(s) of Peter. I know he cried at the end - does that count as repentance?


His repentance is basically leading the new church.
not to mention he got crucified upside-down.


----------



## A Very Big Fish (Aug 19, 2021)

awoo said:


> I recently learned about the denial(s) of Peter. I know he cried at the end - does that count as repentance?


Well its definitely the start of it. After Christ is resurrected though, he asks Peter if Peter loves him three times, and that's usually seen as the moment of redemption.


----------



## Crux (Aug 19, 2021)

A Very Big Fish said:


> Well its definitely the start of it. After Christ is resurrected though, he asks Peter if Peter loves him three times, and that's usually seen as the moment of redemption.


Three is a 'magic' number, its the Holy Trinity, you see it pop up all over in Christian history, art, teachings etc, its all over the Bible. Look at any Cathedral, three main entries.


----------



## Positron (Aug 19, 2021)

Imperial Citizen said:


> I find it interesting that the human characters of the Bible are morally flawed, especially for the principal Jewish characters. Abraham, for instance, was so devoted to God that he would have gone through with killing his son, Isaac, until an angel intervenes. Something to note is that Isaac does not follow Abraham afterwards and Sarah dies soon after. There is a possibility that Abraham's attempted killing of his son was wrong and that it ruined his family.


Abraham also lied to not one but two kings that Sarah was his sister and not his wife, putting the kings at risk of inadvertently offending God.



Imperial Citizen said:


> Another character would be King David.


The only redeemable value of David is his almost absolute obedience to God.  I call him "Yahwah's Lapdog".  And to me the OT values a person's relationship with God far more than a person's relationship with other people.  When David offended God by conducting a census (despite Joab's protests -- a census is a survey of the number of able bodied men that can be drafted into war; conducting a census means David doesn't put enough trust in God's hand), God gave him a choice of three punishments.  David chose the plague that killed 70,000 men, rather than bearing the full force of punishment himself (being chased by his personal enemies for three months).  This scenario tells me that, at least in OT times, it is okay to sacrifice your people just to assuage God.



awoo said:


> I recently learned about the denial(s) of Peter. I know he cried at the end - does that count as repentance?


You can say so, but the affirmation of his repentance comes later.  For his three denials, Peter reaffirms Jesus three times.


----------



## Opticana (Aug 19, 2021)

*reads thread*
*sighs*
When it comes to the Bible, the only thing worse than reddit fedoras are A&H retards.

Anyway, the gold standard for a conservative/maximalist view on the historicity of the OT is Kitchen's (unsurprisingly named) "On the Reliability of the Old Testament".  I think most of his arguments are very persuasive, but there are a few points where he's a bit too dogmatic.

Re: Source Criticism/"who wrote the Bible" - I don't think there's any one (serious) work with a comprehensive treatment of the subject from a conservative position. Joshua Berman's "Inconsistency in the Torah" is probably the closest thing. There are some flaws (it succeeds more in casting doubt on source criticism than actively proving the unity of the Pentateuch, but tbf the author acknowledges this), but it's certainly worth reading. The chapter on the connections between the Song of the Sea and the Kadesh Inscriptions is incredible.

There's a ton of interesting things to say about the Bible, but if I had to pick one of the top of my head it would be this: there are more Egyptian loanwords in the book of Exodus (supposedly post-exilic fantasy/myth/historical fiction etc.) than there are Persian loanwords in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther (indisputably post-exilic books) combined.


----------



## Zero Day Defense (Aug 19, 2021)

DerKryptid said:


> It's quite the opposite. It's a cautionary tale of the consequences of children rebelling against their parents and refusing to wisen up and take responsibility for their shortcomings. Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the serpent, Cain blamed Abel, Esau blamed Jacob, Joseph was made the scapegoat by everyone he had ever come across, Saul blamed David, David blamed Uriah, Daniel Jonah projected all his frustrations on the entire city of Nineveh, etc. etc.


Fixed that for you.


----------



## mindlessobserver (Aug 19, 2021)

Positron said:


> Abraham also lied to not one but two kings that Sarah was his sister and not his wife, putting the kings at risk of inadvertently offending God.
> 
> 
> The only redeemable value of David is his almost absolute obedience to God.  I call him "Yahwah's Lapdog".  And to me the OT values a person's relationship with God far more than a person's relationship with other people.  When David offended God by conducting a census (despite Joab's protests -- a census is a survey of the number of able bodied men that can be drafted into war; conducting a census means David doesn't put enough trust in God's hand), God gave him a choice of three punishments.  David chose the plague that killed 70,000 men, rather than bearing the full force of punishment himself (being chased by his personal enemies for three months).  This scenario tells me that, at least in OT times, it is okay to sacrifice your people just to assuage God.
> ...


The thrust I get from the OT God smiting everyone but the ruler for the rulers missteps is that when you are put in a leadership position, your fuck ups are no longer just about you. They effect everyone under you. Often far more then they will you safe in your palace. 

When reading the Old Testament it's important to keep in mind God in this context is not precisely the same thing as in the New Testament. He's the personification of natural force and natural law. A King who parties all day and bangs his senior military officers wives is just asking to get invaded by his neighbors and when they do well, it's the iron age. Lots of raping and killing ensue. Likewise, a king who is gluttonous and slothful won't be prepared for a natural disaster like a drought or flood. 

The old Testament stories were getting at a fundamental truth of the human condition. When the leadership fucks up, its the little guy that gets squashed.


----------



## Carlos Weston Chantor (Aug 19, 2021)

Love atheistic fedora tipping faggot NERDS coming here to post their worthless pig-brain opinions, Our Lord Jesus Christ lives rent free in your mind 24/7 FAGGOTS

It's crazy how actual science (like real studies and shit, not the peepeepoopoo marxist dialectic sludge pre-packaged for 90-110 IQ range dimwit big bang theory nerds) 100% confirms the Bible, from genetics and archeology to cosmology, literally the only people who still deny God are retarded coomers (or worse) who are too weak and stupid to repent and become normal 

Atheists also ALL have submission fetish, imagine thinking you are an "evolved" monkey (the monkey itself "evolved" from rocks and shit after nothing exploded for no reason) and not a magnificent child of God, created in His image... lmao all atheists probably shit themselves while wearing diapers etc. It's literally the same mindset, might as well troon out and chop off your dick while you're at it

Anyway here's some undeniable proof for the divinity of Jesus and the historical fact of Resurrection:



Spoiler


----------



## Falling Star (Aug 19, 2021)

Although the rest of Reddit is a trashheap, r/AcademicBiblical is _amazing_. I wrote about it awhile back:



Falling Star said:


> I'm not particularly religious or irreligious, but when I first came across r/AcademicBiblical I ended up binge-reading it for like a week.
> It's a small(ish) sub for discussing Biblical scholarship, archaeology, etc. Theology is banned though, and the mods are pretty good about deleting posts made by Christian apologists or edgy atheists that derail the discussion. Commenters are generally respectful and very knowledgeable, sometimes extremely so (just check out this guy for example).
> 
> Anyway, here's a sample of some of the content I found really fascinating:
> ...



 Fascinating stuff, IMO. Highly recommended! 
r/AskBibleScholars is pretty good too, although sadly not as active. Their wiki and FAQs are excellent.


----------



## DerKryptid (Aug 19, 2021)

Zero Day Defense said:


> Fixed that for you.


Goes to show how retarded I become when I don't get any sleep


----------



## RMQualtrough (Aug 19, 2021)

Which religions are you interested in knowing about? The Christian Bible specifically?


----------



## ReturnedHermit (Aug 19, 2021)

Rome's rightful successor said:


> Metatron had recently had two pretty good videos of the historical of Jesus


I'd add a caveat to metatron that he is pretty biased in how he presents his material. The historical accuracy of an account is exaggerated or minimized based on how he regards the account itself. This is done by a lot of history and religion YouTubers so it's to be expected. On a more opinionated note: he comes off as a Jew that got into satanism and the occult as a hobby reading the new testament with more than a hint of disdain.
I don't believe in providing criticism without alternative, so I'll suggest two channels:
*N. T. Wright Online* - he always seems to have a good vid on whatever I'm trying to research. He shows up on other channels a lot, too.
*YaleUniversity* - has some great lectures if you can separate the color commentary from the teaching. These guys are proficient at political correctness to the degree that they can weave the woke around the truth without too much distortion.

*To the OP*: I like to study this stuff, usually for fun but occasionally to return to something like faith, loosely speaking. My advice is to learn where the history agrees with the scripture, where it doesn't, and sift through a few layers of translation ambiguities. There are some words specifically that do not play well with moving back and forth between Hebrew, Greek, and English. Most of the time when I find tonal inconsistency between what is written and the context it turns out to be one of many cases where the Hebrew was being ambiguous or poetic, and the resulting translation is very literal, usually erring on the side of  what's polite. The best advice I can give on the Apocrypha is to look for the agenda the author had in writing it and the agenda the church had in excluding it. There are a few exceptions where a text is left out for straightforward reasons, but for the most part it is about developing Christianity and The Church as a brand. Designing a centralized power structure able to contend with formal governments is not easy and the achievement is respectable if not honest. Take a look at Caesarion and how he relates to Christianity at the time, that's a trip. Another figure I find really interesting is Gamaliel, but you really need to do some groundwork to get it.

Anyways, any religious hot takes or fun theories? I enjoy reading the text and imagining a more high fantasy explanation. Like Jacob fucking the angel from sun-up to sundown rather than wrestling them. I mean, just look at the painting.


----------



## Agarathium1066 (Aug 19, 2021)

No lie this thread has some good posts in it, I didn't expect that given how stupid and edgy Deep Thoughts could be. Reminds me of many stories I read or listened to in my youth, especially those of David. I think I may do some rereading to refresh my memory wholly.


----------



## Kosher Dill (Aug 19, 2021)

ReturnedHermit said:


> Anyways, any religious hot takes or fun theories?


The angels Ezekiel saw were so weird because he was seeing them in four-dimensional space


----------



## Opticana (Aug 20, 2021)

Kosher Dill said:


> The angels Ezekiel saw were so weird because he was seeing them in four-dimensional space


I have a pet peeve with the whole "ackyshually biblically accurate angels" thing. Strictly speaking, the angels (malachim) in the bible look exactly like humans, which is why in most of the episodes where they show up people initially believe them to be just that (Abraham and the three men, Joshua at Jericho, Gideon, Manoah, etc.). It's the spiritual beings in the heavenly court (cherubim, seraphim, hayot) that have the otherworldly appearance.


----------



## Compulsory Games (Aug 20, 2021)

Anyone reading Religion of the Apostles by Fr. Stephen de Young? Certain parts of the internet are soiling themselves over this book, but I am much, much less excited about it.


----------



## Zarael (Aug 20, 2021)

awoo said:


> Why do you say this?


An example off the top of my head would be the story of Noah in Genesis 7. According to the traditional documentary hypothesis it's a combination of Yahwist and Priestly sources, which is their explanation for certain discrepancies that occur, for example the repeat of how the flood occurred from verses 6-10 then again in 11-12. The problem is when you start looking at this idea closely it doesn't really hold up very well. The Yahwist was supposedly responsible for the first part of the chapter (because he uses the Divine name YHWH) while the priestly source is responsible for the second part. But in the Yahwists account Noah is told to bring seven pairs of clean animals aboard for sacrifices, something that you would expect to be the concern of the Priestly source who DH proponents say is the primary source for all the rituals and sacrifice theology in the Torah. Conversely the Priestly source doesn't mention anything about clean animals but simply mentions a pair of every kind of animal.

The point is that it's an extremely crude methodology to carve up the Pentateuch based on whether you see a writer use YHWH or Elohim or mention Priestly rites and rituals. It rarely ever divides that neatly.

In general the "magic" of secular scholarship disappears when you realize a lot of it is predicated on the Young Hegelians attempt to undermine the Prussian State with biblical criticism. Many of the theories that still float around today come from Liberal Protestants of the early 19th Century who were more interested in advancing political agendas than they were any search for truth.


----------



## Opticana (Aug 21, 2021)

Zarael said:


> An example off the top of my head would be the story of Noah in Genesis 7. According to the traditional documentary hypothesis it's a combination of Yahwist and Priestly sources, which is their explanation for certain discrepancies that occur, for example the repeat of how the flood occurred from verses 6-10 then again in 11-12. The problem is when you start looking at this idea closely it doesn't really hold up very well. The Yahwist was supposedly responsible for the first part of the chapter (because he uses the Divine name YHWH) while the priestly source is responsible for the second part. But in the Yahwists account Noah is told to bring seven pairs of clean animals aboard for sacrifices, something that you would expect to be the concern of the Priestly source who DH proponents say is the primary source for all the rituals and sacrifice theology in the Torah. Conversely the Priestly source doesn't mention anything about clean animals but simply mentions a pair of every kind of animal.
> 
> The point is that it's an extremely crude methodology to carve up the Pentateuch based on whether you see a writer use YHWH or Elohim or mention Priestly rites and rituals. It rarely ever divides that neatly.
> 
> In general the "magic" of secular scholarship disappears when you realize a lot of it is predicated on the Young Hegelians attempt to undermine the Prussian State with biblical criticism. Many of the theories that still float around today come from Liberal Protestants of the early 19th Century who were more interested in advancing political agendas than they were any search for truth.


There's also a bunch of parallels with the Mesopotamian flood story/a very large chiastic structure that only show up in the received text and not in the reconstructions of the two proposed sources. IIRC the reconstructions also suffer from some of  the same issues (repetitions and such) that motivate them in the first place.


----------



## The Curmudgeon (Aug 21, 2021)

I'm also an atheist who enjoys doing independent Bible study. I have no agenda other than wanting to understand a book that's had a major impact on Western civilization.


----------



## HumanHive (Aug 21, 2021)

The Curmudgeon said:


> I'm also an atheist who enjoys doing independent Bible study. I have no agenda other than wanting to understand a book that's had a major impact on Western civilization.


It’s more than just “an important book”, it’s a snapshot of various points of ancient politics and history - the New Testament in particular.


----------



## Some Badger (Aug 21, 2021)

mindlessobserver said:


> When reading the Bible it's important to remember that it was not written down in one go. It's actually a collection of various texts. Mythologies like Exodus, folk tales like the story of Job and Jonah, legal texts like Leviticus and historical chronicles with the suitable embellishments to make the opposing parties irredeemable monsters.


This definitely spills into how a lot of modern Christians perceive the rival nations of the Israelites. I remember having this annotated Bible for preteens when I was kid that had a list of all the kings of the post-Solomonic Kingdoms of Israel and Judah where listed as being either good or bad kings. Most of the rulers of Judah where listed as good or mostly good with a few bad apples, but all the rulers of Israel were written off as bad simply because they worshipped Canaanite gods or desecrated Jewish temples in favor of said gods. It's a very black and white view of history that even a twelve year-old would question. Being an adult is realizing the Jews were no better than their neighbors, all things considered.





This was the book btw


----------



## Ishtar (Aug 22, 2021)

Some Badger said:


> This definitely spills into how a lot of modern Christians perceive the rival nations of the Israelites.


Question; what do you mean by this? The ammonites, edomites, etc... were historically Israel's enemies. I don't think most christians today attribute more to them then that(beyond prophetic interpretations-such as future incarnations of babylon or edom).


----------



## Clockwork_PurBle (Aug 22, 2021)

I find it quite interesting that the Bible has a lot of real "strong female characters."


----------



## Help Me Move This Table (Aug 22, 2021)

Impressed by the level of knowledge & scholarship here, this is a great thread. Curious about people’s favorite verses/passages, and what you like about them.


----------



## Basil Julep (Aug 22, 2021)

One thing that made the Bible a lot easier for me to read was this 1300 page book, Asimov's Guide to the Bible. It has a history lesson for each book of the bible so you can read the bible with some context.


----------



## TheRetardKing (Aug 22, 2021)




----------



## Clockwork_PurBle (Aug 22, 2021)

Help Me Move This Table said:


> Impressed by the level of knowledge & scholarship here, this is a great thread. Curious about people’s favorite verses/passages, and what you like about them.


I like the Book of Job. I especially like Chapter 39, and specifically this verse: 


Spoiler: 19-25



“Do you give the horse its strength
    or clothe its neck with a flowing mane?
Do you make it leap like a locust,
    striking terror with its proud snorting?
It paws fiercely, rejoicing in its strength,
    and charges into the fray.
It laughs at fear, afraid of nothing;
    it does not shy away from the sword.
The quiver rattles against its side,
    along with the flashing spear and lance.
In frenzied excitement it eats up the ground;
    it cannot stand still when the trumpet sounds.
At the blast of the trumpet it snorts, ‘Aha!’
    It catches the scent of battle from afar,
    the shout of commanders and the battle cry."


Chapters 38 and 39 has God highlighting creation (flora and fauna) as examples of his supremacy as a rebuttal to Job. Horses are also my favorite animal.


----------



## Opticana (Aug 22, 2021)

Help Me Move This Table said:


> Impressed by the level of knowledge & scholarship here, this is a great thread. Curious about people’s favorite verses/passages, and what you like about them.


Luther was effusive in his praise of Psalms - he called the book "the Bible in miniature", and he was spot on with that. Psalm 104 is at the top of a lot of lists, and while it's a tremendously beautiful piece, its neighbors 105 and 106 are my favorites. They each emphasize a different view of Israel's history - 105 recounts all the kindnesses God performed for them, and 106 lays into them for being unthankful and rebelling against him. Interestingly, the splitting of the sea is listed as a "rebellion" episode rather than a "miracle" one (it's absent from 105 entirely). This is probably due to the author/editor being influenced by the extremely critical historiography in Ezekiel, which comes out in a couple of other places in 106,

Speaking of Ezekiel, the vision of the dry bones is one of my favorites as well:


Spoiler: Ezekiel 37



37 The hand of the Lord was upon me, and He brought me out [a]by the Spirit of the Lord and set me down in the middle of the valley; and it was full of bones. 2 He caused me to pass among them round about, and behold, _there were_ very many on the surface of the valley; and lo, _they were_ very dry. 3 He said to me, “Son of man, can these bones live?” And I answered, “O Lord [b]God, You know.” 4 Again He said to me, “Prophesy over these bones and say to them, ‘O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord.’ 5 Thus says the Lord God to these bones, ‘Behold, I will cause [c]breath to enter you that you may come to life. 6 I will put sinews on you, make flesh grow back on you, cover you with skin and put breath in you that you may come alive; and you will know that I am the Lord.’”

7 So I prophesied as I was commanded; and as I prophesied, there was a [d]noise, and behold, a rattling; and the bones came together, bone to its bone. 8 And I looked, and behold, sinews were on them, and flesh grew and skin covered them; but there was no breath in them. 9 Then He said to me, “Prophesy to the breath, prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they come to life.”’” 10 So I prophesied as He commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they came to life and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army.

The Vision Explained​11 Then He said to me, “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel; behold, they say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope has perished. We are [e]completely cut off.’ 12 Therefore prophesy and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves, My people; and I will bring you into the land of Israel. 13 Then you will know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves and caused you to come up out of your graves, My people. 14 I will put My [f]Spirit within you and you will come to life, and I will place you on your own land. Then you will know that I, the Lord, have spoken and done it,” declares the Lord.’”


What's really great about this is that the revival of the dead is the *parable* here. On a deeper level the passage is saying is that it's easier for people to grasp the dead returning to life than an exiled, dispersed people returning to their land. The book as a whole is fascinating too; it's the only one in the Hebrew Bible outside of the Torah where there's an extensive discussion of the law, albeit one that's a utopian vision of the future (the last eight chapters). It's Leviticus on steroids.


----------



## Some Badger (Aug 22, 2021)

Shamash said:


> Question; what do you mean by this? The ammonites, edomites, etc... were historically Israel's enemies. I don't think most Christians today attribute more to them then that(beyond prophetic interpretations-such as future incarnations of babylon or edom).


I'm saying that these neighboring contemporaries of ancient Israel are viewed as evil by publishers of educational Christian nonfiction in the present day, when it's more likely that those peoples probably weren't any more or less brutal than the Israelites of the time.


----------



## Ishtar (Aug 22, 2021)

Some Badger said:


> I'm saying that these neighboring contemporaries of ancient Israel are viewed as evil by publishers of educational Christian nonfiction in the present day, when it's more likely that those peoples probably weren't any more or less brutal than the Israelites of the time.


Ah I see. The argument could be made they were heathens but no they were not substantially different from their Israelite neighbors.


----------



## 1 Guy 1 Taco (Sep 11, 2021)

I've been doing some armchair research covering a historical criticism approach to the New Testament. I went in thinking it would give me a better understanding of religion and help me be less agnostic but now I feel like the NT is 80 percent B.S. One of the big questions I've been wrestling with was the divinity of Jesus and the whole idea of the trinity. In that regard, I feel like historical criticism has provided some guidance and mostly debunked that theory.  I'm at a point where I have no confidence in the Gospel of John and I think the rest of the gospels only have the slightest hint of accuracy. But regardless of how it impacts my future religious endeavors I've come to enjoy it as a hobby. There's a surprising amount of decent content online relating to historical criticism and an endless stream of books. I don't have the balls to start tackling the Hebrew Bible though. I imagine it would be even more difficult to wrap my mind around that content.


----------



## Opticana (Sep 12, 2021)

1 Guy 1 Taco said:


> I've been doing some armchair research covering a historical criticism approach to the New Testament. I went in thinking it would give me a better understanding of religion and help me be less agnostic but now I feel like the NT is 80 percent B.S. One of the big questions I've been wrestling with was the divinity of Jesus and the whole idea of the trinity. In that regard, I feel like historical criticism has provided some guidance and mostly debunked that theory.  I'm at a point where I have no confidence in the Gospel of John and I think the rest of the gospels only have the slightest hint of accuracy. But regardless of how it impacts my future religious endeavors I've come to enjoy it as a hobby. There's a surprising amount of decent content online relating to historical criticism and an endless stream of books. I don't have the balls to start tackling the Hebrew Bible though. I imagine it would be even more difficult to wrap my mind around that content.


Purely on practical grounds, yes - the Hebrew Bible is around three times as large as the NT and covers a far greater span of time. But that doesn't mean it's not worth the effort! And if you enjoy historical criticism than there's certainly no lack of that either; I would argue that the OT is much more conducive to a doubtful form of faith than the NT.  Don't trust anything you find on (English) Wikipedia, though. I could sperg about that endlessly.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Sep 12, 2021)

Basil Julep said:


> View attachment 2469204
> One thing that made the Bible a lot easier for me to read was this 1300 page book, Asimov's Guide to the Bible. It has a history lesson for each book of the bible so you can read the bible with some context.


Due to being an asimov fan I got that maybe 15 years ago and never started it yet. I started reading bits a couple of weeks ago. My first impression was that he editorialised quite a bit, but perhaps that is to be expected from a secular jew. Will take me quite some time to finish.


----------



## Ishtar (Sep 13, 2021)

As far as the New Testament goes-there is a lot of variation amongst scholars, in terms of dating, and authorship. Some is more minimalist, others closer to the traditional views.

I'm familiar with the Q belief, in some sort of original manuscript. I don't buy it.

That said, it seems to me from my own research that the Gospel of Luke and Book of Acts comport fairly well with historical events as archaeology and contemporaneous literature have revealed them to us.

As far as John goes-its emphasis is on theology, rather than historical documentation or tying to Jewish prophetic concerns-like Luke and Matthew are.

Historical criticism should itself be understood in the context of 19th century Germany and the politics of the time. So I don't get too invested in it.



Imperial Citizen said:


> I find it interesting that the human characters of the Bible are morally flawed, especially for the principal Jewish characters. Abraham, for instance, was so devoted to God that he would have gone through with killing his son, Isaac, until an angel intervenes. Something to note is that Isaac does not follow Abraham afterwards and Sarah dies soon after. There is a possibility that Abraham's attempted killing of his son was wrong and that it ruined his family. Isaac leaves him and Sarah dies out of grief. More to the point is that Abraham gets another wife and fathers several children that will be the progenitors of nations that war with the Jews later in the Bible.
> 
> Another character would be King David. After David becomes King, he is infatuated with a woman, Bathsheba. He impregnates her, which may or may not have been consensual. David sends Bathsheba's husband to the frontlines so he can be killed, allowing David to marry Bathsheba. While David acknowledges that this was sinful, his repentance does not absolve him of future suffering from the loss of several of his children, including the son he had with Bathsheba.
> 
> What fascinates is me is trying to understand why the Jewish writers of the Old Testament give the "father of the nation" and the supposed progenitor of the messiah such character flaws. Maybe it is to highlight that even those that are in high esteem with God are not perfect, that they are just like everyone else.


That is actually rather interesting. Abraham and David and Jacob are not painted as ultra human paragons that lacked weakness or vice. They make mistakes, and get punished for them.



Help Me Move This Table said:


> Impressed by the level of knowledge & scholarship here, this is a great thread. Curious about people’s favorite verses/passages, and what you like about them.


Ecclesiastes. Basically its about the futility of life "under the sun". "Everything is vanity, says the Preacher". Solomon or whoever you interpret the writer to be, speaks to the same existential weariness that affects us today. Nothing in this world lasts, yet nothing ever really changes, sex, food, entertainment, people enjoyed and sought those things even three thousand years ago, and still like today found them enjoyable as they are ultimately unfulfilling.


----------



## Kosher Dill (Sep 13, 2021)

Shamash said:


> That said, it seems to me from my own research that the Gospel of Luke and Book of Acts comport fairly well with historical events as archaeology and contemporaneous literature have revealed them to us.


What archaeological sources are there for Acts? I was under the impression that most of what went on in that book didn't leave much of a historical record, besides very broad things like "There was a church at Antioch".


----------



## Ishtar (Sep 13, 2021)

Kosher Dill said:


> What archaeological sources are there for Acts? I was under the impression that most of what went on in that book didn't leave much of a historical record, besides very broad things like "There was a church at Antioch".


I'd have to look into it. Certain governors for example, the tetrarchy in Judea, among other things, local rebellions.

Acts itself takes place somewhere in the early forties to fifties AD. In the eastern Mediterranean and Asia Minor. (Though I believe I heard someone thinks Paul's conversion was actually 37 AD).

That's the clincher with the Bible-its set within a definite historical time and place, not some pagan "time before time" or "age forgotten before the world was as it is".

Like say the Aborigine Dream Time or whenever the Greek myths were supposed to have occurred.


----------



## jorgoth (Oct 12, 2021)

I was thinking that maybe the Bible was written to allow the Israelites/Jews to feel better about themselves while they themselves lived in exile. Maybe all that stuff about wiping out cities at God's command was just chest-thumping. "We were total badasses who would just commit genocide at God's command, we weren't matrilineal cucks like we are now." 

Part of my reasoning on this is that you can see a process like that taking place right now with black Americans. All that bullshit about WE WUZ KANGZ and WE WUZ REAL ISRAELITES is obviously an attempt on the part of a subjugated and deracinated people to create a culture and a birthright where none exists, maybe the actual Israelites were no different.


----------



## Bad Gateway (Oct 13, 2021)

Just read the book you dumb nigger its not that hard


----------



## Shroom King (Oct 14, 2021)

I love how King David is getting taken to task in this thread.

Christians name their kids Jesus or Christian, because, you know, Jesus Christ was the son of God.

Muslims name their kids Muhammad, because, you know, Muhammad was Allah's greatest prophet.

A lot of Jews are named David; the two-timing corrupt warmongering fuck that puts Dracula to shame. Really makes you think...


----------



## Fek (Oct 14, 2021)

E-Sword is a helpful resource for anyone in the process of furthering their understanding of Scripture. Strong's Concordance (included in the previous link) also helps a great deal when you're trying to figure out what the Bible is actually trying to tell you. Additionally, I'd recommend the New English Translation of the Bible to anyone who maybe didn't care for trying to wade through the harder to understand phrasings in previous Bible translations, and also cares a great deal about authenticity of the message. A _lot_ of Biblical translations are based on an ancient (the 3rd oldest, which should immediately raise some eyebrows..) translation of the original texts that was an ever so subtle smear job designed to make everyone's favorite rootless vagrants seem far more important and prominent than they really were. Yes, really.

Speaking of their role in Biblical perversion..


Shroom King said:


> A lot of Jews are named David; the two-timing corrupt warmongering fuck that puts Dracula to shame. Really makes you think...


Just for fun, here's a video both relevant to the conversation _and_ great at pissing off the tiny hats:




Your browser is not able to display this video.


----------



## Opticana (Oct 27, 2021)

I think it's a damn shame that this thread is being left to die while people who enjoy arguing about religion are plaguing  this other one beyond belief. To start things up again: I recently finished Daniel Block's commentary on Ezekiel, and although I have a few disagreements with him (mostly relating to his interpretation of certain passages in the Torah) it was a superb work overall. Has anyone here read any of his stuff on Deuteronomy?


----------



## Kosher Dill (Oct 31, 2021)

Opticana said:


> Has anyone here read any of his stuff on Deuteronomy?


No, but I'm picking up "Inconsistency in the Torah" on one of your previous recommendations.


----------



## Basil Julep (Oct 31, 2021)

Opticana said:


> To start things up again: I recently finished Daniel Block's commentary on Ezekiel, and although I have a few disagreements with him (mostly relating to his interpretation of certain passages in the Torah) it was a superb work overall. Has anyone here read any of his stuff on Deuteronomy?


So I looked this up and all his books on Amazon are around $40. I would totally be down for a book club but that was pretty steep. I should see if I can find one on interlibrary loan. 

To start, what if we just read Genesis in November and shared our favorite resources about it? Maybe in December Exodus?


----------



## Kosher Dill (Oct 31, 2021)

Basil Julep said:


> To start, what if we just read Genesis in November and shared our favorite resources about it?


Mine is:


----------



## Opticana (Nov 1, 2021)

Basil Julep said:


> So I looked this up and all his books on Amazon are around $40. I would totally be down for a book club but that was pretty steep. I should see if I can find one on interlibrary loan.


Yeah, that's definitely an issue. However, it is certainly worth the price - I think the two volumes run to a combined ~1800 pages.



Basil Julep said:


> To start, what if we just read Genesis in November and shared our favorite resources about it? Maybe in December Exodus?


Sounds cool. Most of the books I read nowadays are in Hebrew, but these are some English-language sites I use often:

AlHatorah - Has English translations of most classical Rabbinic commentaries on the Bible. Luzzatto in particular is a favorite of mine and worth checking out - a very eclectic nineteenth century commentator who responds to early historical criticism. Not as user-friendly to non-Hebrew speakers as Sefaria, but Sefaria is run by leftist cucks and I refuse to use it. 

STEP - I mostly use this for checking textual variants between the SP/LXX and MT.

VBM - Hard to navigate, and the materials are not arranged by chapter and verse, but still a great resource. You can find many of the more popular recent Israeli books on the bible (specifically those put out by Maggid/Yedioth) as English lecture series on this site.

Cassuto's commentary on Genesis 1-11 is a classic, if you're willing to drop $25 on the kindle version.


----------



## Splinters RCVD ✞ (Nov 1, 2021)

KJV Only is unfortunately a key issue, due to linguistic, historical and theological problems. _*Right off the bat, I will dismiss folks like Ruckmann, Jack Chick, Kent Hovind and Gail Riplinger. These people and those like them are lunatics and massive hypocrites fishing for clout and profit. Avoid them like the plague if you can.*_

The website scionofzion.com and the King James Bible Research Council are good sources, _though obviously not perfect_. Present day 'Bible science' has an absolutely insane story behind it, and the corruption surrounding it is worse than anything KF or ED has ever seen.


----------



## murdered meat bag (Nov 1, 2021)

Shamash said:


> I'm familiar with the Q belief, in some sort of original manuscript. I don't buy it.


It's a generalization but Q only exists in the ACADEMIC TM COPYRIGHT bible scholarship circles. among laity and clergy, it's nonexistent. the notion doesn't exist until the 19th century. and there isn't any 1st-2nd contemporary sources that point to such a document.


----------



## Ishtar (Nov 1, 2021)

Splinters RCVD said:


> KJV Only is unfortunately a key issue, due to linguistic, historical and theological problems. _*Right off the bat, I will dismiss folks like Ruckmann, Jack Chick, Kent Hovind and Gail Riplinger. These people and those like them are lunatics and massive hypocrites fishing for clout and profit. Avoid them like the plague if you can.*_
> 
> The website scionofzion.com and the King James Bible Research Council are good sources, _though obviously not perfect_. Present day 'Bible science' has an absolutely insane story behind it, and the corruption surrounding it is worse than anything KF or ED has ever seen.


Chick I’d disagree with. Whatever you think of him, the man was nothing but sincere and zealous.


----------



## Basil Julep (Nov 1, 2021)

OK so I suggested talking about Genesis this month but my knowledge of the Bible and Christianity is definitely at a lower level than some of you...so I guess I'll just throw out a question..

So Noah plants his vineyard and gets drunk and then he's in his tent. And then his son Ham "saw his nakedness." This ends up with Noah cursing Ham's son Canaan. 

So what is your take? Was this just literally seeing his dad naked? Code for incest with Noah? Code for incest with mom? Why was Canaan cursed and not Ham?


----------



## Opticana (Nov 2, 2021)

Basil Julep said:


> So what is your take? Was this just literally seeing his dad naked? Code for incest with Noah? Code for incest with mom? Why was Canaan cursed and not Ham?


It's definitely the first, as 9:23 makes clear:


> Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father's nakedness.


Why Canaan is cursed and not Ham is a much more difficult question (the Septuagint actually replaces Canaan with Ham in verse 25). Presumably Canaan is specified because of their later history with the Israelites and reputation for sexual deviance, and the story is meant to be read against that background. (By the way, one of the other traditional suggestions for Ham's action is that he castrated Noah).

In any case, what I find really interesting about the Flood story is that it doesn't seem to be very important in the broader Bible, despite the prominence it has in our consciousness. Outside of Genesis, you get an offhand mention of Noah in Isaiah 54:9 and a couple in Ezekiel, but it doesn't seem like people thought about it a lot. Isaac is another example of this, and I'd be interested if anyone has any suggestions on what the deal with him is. Abraham and Jacob especially are mentioned individually throughout the Bible, but Isaac only shows up as part of the patriarchs as a whole, with one odd exception in Amos 7:


> “Behold, I am setting a plumb line
> in the midst of my people Israel;
> I will never again pass by them;
> the high places of Isaac shall be made desolate,
> ...


----------



## Ishtar (Nov 2, 2021)

Basil Julep said:


> OK so I suggested talking about Genesis this month but my knowledge of the Bible and Christianity is definitely at a lower level than some of you...so I guess I'll just throw out a question..
> 
> So Noah plants his vineyard and gets drunk and then he's in his tent. And then his son Ham "saw his nakedness." This ends up with Noah cursing Ham's son Canaan.
> 
> So what is your take? Was this just literally seeing his dad naked? Code for incest with Noah? Code for incest with mom? Why was Canaan cursed and not Ham?


It was more his attitude. He gawked at his father’s shame and disrespected him. “Hey bros dad is out drunk and nude, come and see!” Whereas the other two brothers walked backwards to cover their father with a cloth IIRC. Thus demonstrating they weren’t taking advantage of or mocking him.

At least that’s the interpretation I was taught.


----------



## Splinters RCVD ✞ (Nov 3, 2021)

Shamash said:


> It was more his attitude. He gawked at his father’s shame and disrespected him. “Hey bros dad is out drunk and nude, come and see!” Whereas the other two brothers walked backwards to cover their father with a cloth IIRC. Thus demonstrating they weren’t taking advantage of or mocking him.
> 
> At least that’s the interpretation I was taught.


Finally someone who knows it right.


----------



## Opticana (Nov 6, 2021)

I figured I should get to know the NT at least somewhat, so I've been glancing at Matthew occasionally. In 19:18-19 we have:


> He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; also, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”​


Why is the fifth commandment out of order here, and why is the tenth missing? The first four commandments aren't interpersonal, so I get why they're not listed.


----------



## Splinters RCVD ✞ (Nov 6, 2021)

Opticana said:


> I figured I should get to know the NT at least somewhat, so I've been glancing at Matthew occasionally. In 19:18-19 we have:
> 
> Why is the fifth commandment out of order here, and why is the tenth missing? The first four commandments aren't interpersonal, so I get why they're not listed.


Jesus was making an allusion here, with a slight paraphrase. The latter, as long as it does diminish from the original message or pose a contradiction to it, is acceptable.


----------



## Opticana (Nov 6, 2021)

Splinters RCVD said:


> Jesus was making an allusion here, with a slight paraphrase. The latter, as long as it does diminish from the original message or pose a contradiction to it, is acceptable.


I'm not saying it's necessarily problematic. On the contrary - I assume there's a reason for the deviation, and would like to hear suggestions as to what it could be. See the conversation between the spies and Rahab in Joshua 2 - she paraphrases the first five commandments, while the second five are left out as they're not relevant to the story.


----------



## Splinters RCVD ✞ (Nov 6, 2021)

Opticana said:


> I'm not saying it's necessarily problematic. On the contrary - I assume there's a reason for the deviation, and would like to hear suggestions as to what it could be. See the conversation between the spies and Rahab in Joshua 2 - she paraphrases the first five commandments, while the second five are left out as they're not relevant to the story.


Where does she do that?


----------



## Opticana (Nov 6, 2021)

Splinters RCVD said:


> Where does she do that?


----------



## Splinters RCVD ✞ (Nov 6, 2021)

Opticana said:


> View attachment 2694740
> View attachment 2694741


Hmmm. Sounds quite nice, and the Hebrew is a nice extra, but it seems to me that these cross-references were made by someone trying to look clever.
Similarly worded does not neccessarily mean related or linked.
Keep in mind that Rahab lied to keep the Hebrew spies safe, a direct violation of 'thou shalt not lie'. This implies that either she was a very fresh convert, or someone who recognized God to be mighty, but was not an adherent of his yet. Her linguistics could simply be her quoting whatever she had heard before about God, the Israelites and the events surrounding them. As for the mother and father thing, it is a stretch IMHO.


----------



## Smolrolls (Nov 7, 2021)

Buddha was born in the highest caste of India. The Prophet Muhammid was adopted and married into wealth, Marcus Aurelius, one who would be called the ideal stoic, was adopted and groomed to be emperor of the Roman empire. Before I act out of bad faith let me just drop this:

Jesus Christ was born a carpenter, one arguably in rural Israel.

Suetonius, Tacitus, and Pliny the younger, two out of three we're roman historians who we're born and lived through the roman empire, confirmed the existence of Christians in the first hundreds years A.D. And even Marcus Aurelius in his book Meditations called them "obstinate Christians".

Now if you read the bible, you can say Jesus Christ was born an ordinary "one of us" working-class man in the equivalent of rural america in Israel. He wasn't born in a high caste-tier society, he wasn't taken in by a wealthy merchant-class family, neither was he spotted by an emperor of Rome to become the emperor of Rome.

Look you read the bible, you can get glimpses of his childhood, you know about the baptism of John. But what the bible doesn't tell you is....what did he do between being a child and his baptism? For even the bible said that if it we're list all the deeds Jesus has done...it would take alot more pages than say 1000+ pages. So what did Jesus do during that gap period?

You know that saying where if your religious, there are jobs and careers that make you lose faith with god? Careers like say customer support where karens wrestle with you. Or clients who are given an estimate on a carpentry job and then exclaim: "That's so expensive! Why would you charge me so much when Ikea offers less than your quote?" And you know how people look down on blue-collar workers, thinking them as low-lives yet view teachers and doctors in high esteem. I mention teachers because you know how some of them hate the kids that they teach, and raising them to be proper citizens to help people at least. And carpenters don't have it easy: locked up knees, sclerosis, and other injuries, not making enough to make ends meet sometimes, etc... Blue-collar jobs are dangerous, they can even get you killed. And it ain't exactly easy like being a merchant, and I'm sure any blue-collar Kiwis can call me out if you like. Now add how hard-working blue-collar jobs like carpentry is, and tackle dealing with haggling that make Karens shrill back into their covens and make you want to strangle said hagglers, some of whom have hook noses. Add to how hard it was to live between 0-53 A.D. with no Netflix and modern day comforts...yea.

TLDR: Jesus Christ lived through the same B.S. we do in life. Except an argument with a Karen might get you and your family killed. Or you'd be made to watch as said Karen butchers your family while they break your legs and make you be an indentured servant in general labor. King Herod cut John the Baptist head off because he had to keep a promise to a girl that danced very well for him. And that same King Herod executed 2 years old boys because the king feared a savior would usurp his throne when Jesus was barely a baby.


----------



## Quiet Guy (Nov 8, 2021)

Smolrolls said:


> Buddha was born in the highest caste of India. The Prophet Muhammid was adopted and married into wealth, Marcus Aurelius, one who would be called the ideal stoic, was adopted and groomed to be emperor of the Roman empire. Before I act out of bad faith let me just drop this:
> 
> Jesus Christ was born a carpenter, one arguably in rural Israel.
> 
> ...


That actually wasn't the same Herod as the one who killed the infants. The Bible mentions that Herod dying, but Joseph was warned in a dream about Herod's son, so they went to Nazareth instead of Bethlehem when returning from Egypt. After a quick search it looks like there is a total of six different people named Herod in the New Testament.

Also, from what I understand, I think carpenters actually did relatively well in those days, although I don't think they were especially wealthy either. Granted I suppose your point is that Jesus wasn't from what could be considered an elite class.


----------



## Kosher Dill (Nov 10, 2021)

Smolrolls said:


> Jesus Christ was born a carpenter


That's the common translation, but it's really not clear precisely what he and Joseph did for a living, other than being some sort of builders or workers with materials. At any rate he was born to a conquered people in an unimportant town, and nobody in his community or inner circle seems to have been well-to-do.


----------



## Action Orange (Nov 11, 2021)

Smolrolls said:


> Buddha was born in the highest caste of India. The Prophet Muhammid was adopted and married into wealth, Marcus Aurelius, one who would be called the ideal stoic, was adopted and groomed to be emperor of the Roman empire. Before I act out of bad faith let me just drop this:
> 
> Jesus Christ was born a carpenter, one arguably in rural Israel.
> 
> ...


Theres something really beautiful and poetic about God, a perfect being, incarnating as a human and experiencing pain that crosses the human pain threshold, all to save the little creatures he made from themselves, and he incarnated as a lowly person of seemingly little import. In doing so, he demonstrated that we, being made in his image, are capable of great, loving actions as well. 

Something I've noticed about God's character in scripture is that he loves inverting things. He seems to like subverting expectations by using evil to accomplish good, and by turning the lowly into the high. Inversion has been attributed to satan in pop culture, but it's really God's characteristic first and foremost. The same can be said about fire. I believe it was Moses that said that his God was an "all-consuming fire." 

Sorry for rambling a bit, I just think the bible is really neat


----------



## Ishtar (Nov 12, 2021)

I believe Jesus was what was called a "day laborer" as in the lowest class of worker-that wasn't a slave anyway. For the first two decades of his life(until his ministry began at thirty) he was a carpenter, which at that time was building houses, and working outside in the hot sun, in the rain, and being covered in dirt and grime.


----------



## BiggerChungus (Nov 12, 2021)

Splinters RCVD said:


> KJV Only is unfortunately a key issue, due to linguistic, historical and theological problems. Right off the bat, I will dismiss folks like Ruckmann, Jack Chick, Kent Hovind and Gail Riplinger. These people and those like them are lunatics and massive hypocrites fishing for clout and profit. Avoid them like the plague if you can.
> 
> The website scionofzion.com and the King James Bible Research Council are good sources, _though obviously not perfect_. Present day 'Bible science' has an absolutely insane story behind it, and the corruption surrounding it is worse than anything KF or ED has ever seen.


That's why I as a Christian am always cautious about Biblical sources. For one I don't believe the Bible was intended to be taken as literal scientific fact on every single thing it talks about, and likewise there've been so many intentional and unintentional mistranslations, modifications, and retcons. You've got to take many translations into account to piece together a whole picture, still taking it with a grain of salt that the book was written by men, even if inspired by God. Not that there's no truth to it, but I don't believe everything is objectively 100% true because in my view that'd be putting a lot of hubris on the authors to not have the same failings as any other of God's creations, whether He gave them wisdom when they wrote it or not. My two cents anyway.


----------



## Shig O'nella (Nov 12, 2021)

Imperial Citizen said:


> I find it interesting that the human characters of the Bible are morally flawed, especially for the principal Jewish characters. Abraham, for instance, was so devoted to God that he would have gone through with killing his son, Isaac, until an angel intervenes. Something to note is that Isaac does not follow Abraham afterwards and Sarah dies soon after. There is a possibility that Abraham's attempted killing of his son was wrong and that it ruined his family. Isaac leaves him and Sarah dies out of grief. More to the point is that Abraham gets another wife and fathers several children that will be the progenitors of nations that war with the Jews later in the Bible.
> 
> Another character would be King David. After David becomes King, he is infatuated with a woman, Bathsheba. He impregnates her, which may or may not have been consensual. David sends Bathsheba's husband to the frontlines so he can be killed, allowing David to marry Bathsheba. While David acknowledges that this was sinful, his repentance does not absolve him of future suffering from the loss of several of his children, including the son he had with Bathsheba.
> 
> What fascinates is me is trying to understand why the Jewish writers of the Old Testament give the "father of the nation" and the supposed progenitor of the messiah such character flaws. Maybe it is to highlight that even those that are in high esteem with God are not perfect, that they are just like everyone else.


The Bible is people, in all their messy, tempermental, petty glory. 

If you want to know what people _are_ - read the Bible.
If you want to know what people_ can be_ - read the Tripitaka.


----------



## Ishtar (Nov 13, 2021)

Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

This is probably one of the most accurate observations of human behavior ever written. People don't generally change or improve, they repeat the same patterns of behavior they always have.


----------



## Splinters RCVD ✞ (Dec 14, 2021)

Shamash said:


> Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
> 
> This is probably one of the most accurate observations of human behavior ever written. People don't generally change or improve, they repeat the same patterns of behavior they always have.


And even the saints of Christ are guilty of this to a lesser degree. We can never undo sin and become perfect on our own, the very best we can do is to always combat sin within us and follow Jesus Christ. Only through Him can perfection be gifted to us, if we accept Him and keep to Him to the very end.


----------



## TheRetardKing (Dec 16, 2021)




----------



## Opticana (Jan 19, 2022)

Does anyone know of a good article or something on Psalm 68?


----------



## John Titor (Jan 19, 2022)

Someone might find this video interesting.




Discusses how the Bible was not originally written in English (no shit) and that it's the result of a translation of a translation with some alterations being inevitable and some of it might have been intentional due to politics of the ancient world.


----------



## awoo (Jan 19, 2022)

I have been doing some reading of Bible verses over the past few months to see if they have any insightful messages for these plague times.









						2020’s Most-Read Bible Verse: ‘Do Not Fear’
					

In an uncertain and difficult year, a record number of people searched for healing, fear, and justice.




					www.christianitytoday.com
				




What struck me as funny is the search graph. "red skies from California wildfires" is correlated with "end times" searches lmao.


----------



## Splinters RCVD ✞ (Jan 20, 2022)

John Titor said:


> Someone might find this video interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


MMmhm. The Bible did suffer alterations unfortunately, but this does not mean the genuine original is not available to us. Research the Masoretic Text, the Textus Receptus (and the King James version for English). On this line you will find a traceable, real lineage that is uncorrupted. The best item I can recommend is the Original Languages Bible published by the Trinitarian Bible Society. God's word is still with us, if we only look.


----------



## Opticana (Jan 20, 2022)

Splinters RCVD said:


> MMmhm. The Bible did suffer alterations unfortunately, but this does not mean the genuine original is not available to us. Research the Masoretic Text, the Textus Receptus (and the King James version for English). On this line you will find a traceable, real lineage that is uncorrupted. The best item I can recommend is the Original Languages Bible published by the Trinitarian Bible Society. God's word is still with us, if we only look.


The Masoretic text is clearly corrupt at certain points, though. The easiest example is probably the mixup between Merab and Michal in 2 Samuel 21:8, where the KJV inserts words missing in the MT in order to resolve the issue:


> Verse 8. - Michal. It was Merab who became the wife of Adriel the Meholathite (1 Samuel 18:19). Michal was childless (see 2 Samuel 6:23). Whom she brought up for. This is one of the many cases of untrustworthiness in the renderings of the Authorized Version. We have noticed a very flagrant instance before in 2 Samuel 5:21. The object of these mistranslations is always the same, namely, to remove some verbal discrepancy in the Hebrew text. The Hebrew says here "five sons of Michal, whom she bare to Adriel;" but Michal never bore a child, therefore something must be substituted which will save the Hebrew from this verbal inaccuracy, and Michal must be represented as having taken Merab's place (perhaps at her death), and been foster mother to her children. This explanation is, it is true, taken from the Jewish Targum; but the Targum never professes to be an exact translation, and constantly perverts the meaning of the plainest passages for preconceived reasons.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jan 20, 2022)

Basil Julep said:


> OK so I suggested talking about Genesis this month but my knowledge of the Bible and Christianity is definitely at a lower level than some of you...so I guess I'll just throw out a question..
> 
> So Noah plants his vineyard and gets drunk and then he's in his tent. And then his son Ham "saw his nakedness." This ends up with Noah cursing Ham's son Canaan.
> 
> So what is your take? Was this just literally seeing his dad naked? Code for incest with Noah? Code for incest with mom? Why was Canaan cursed and not Ham?


Three plausible theories

1.  Mesopotamian culture of the time considered seeing someone’s nudity a major offense, so it’s more batshit desert lunatic shit

2. In alternative texts, Ham tells publicly about it, so it’s really about Ham shaming his father

3. In other parts of the Bible, seeing someone naked means laying with them. Elsewhere in the Bible parallelism is real common, and Lot in the cave also has a father being molested by his children.

I personally believe #3 as it makes the most literary and real world sense.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jan 20, 2022)

Opticana said:


> *reads thread*
> *sighs*
> When it comes to the Bible, the only thing worse than reddit fedoras are A&H retards.
> 
> ...


Esther is pure fantasy, at least going off what I read in Asimov Guide. The dates are all wrong and the story is absurd. Likely written as a satire of the decadent Persians (from Jewish perspective) and as a nationalist text.


----------



## Kosher Dill (Jan 20, 2022)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> 3. In other parts of the Bible, seeing someone naked means laying with them. Elsewhere in the Bible parallelism is real common, and Lot in the cave also has a father being molested by his children.
> 
> I personally believe #3 as it makes the most literary and real world sense.


Why would walking backward and carrying a blanket be a precaution against raping one's own father? Why would you need to take a precaution against that at all?


----------



## Opticana (Jan 20, 2022)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Esther is pure fantasy, at least going off what I read in Asimov Guide. The dates are all wrong and the story is absurd. Likely written as a satire of the decadent Persians (from Jewish perspective) and as a nationalist text.


Why would the dates be wrong? The only dates referenced in the book are counted using the regnal years of Xerxes (or whoever the king is). The only possible issue I can think of that Ezra 4:6 records an accusation against the Jews at the beginning of his reign, and only against those of Judea. But even so, this shows that there was certainly*some sort of issue* going on at the time with the Jews of the Persian empire, and it's not that difficult to come up with explanations as to why the Babylonian and Judean Jews would tell the story differently.

Honestly, the "Esther is fantasy" thing is ridiculous. It completely ignores that the book was written to explain the reasons for the celebration of Purim, which was already going on at the time of its composition (as chapter 9 shows). As far as I know, no one has come up with a convincing alternative explanation for how the holiday got started (there's no other events listed on those dates in Megillat Taanit, for instance). The most obvious explanation is the traditional one - there was a decree against the Jews in the Persian empire and Esther is presenting the events as understood by the author (with the caveat of the usual ancient
literary license applying).


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jan 20, 2022)

Kosher Dill said:


> Why would walking backward and carrying a blanket be a precaution against raping one's own father? Why would you need to take a precaution against that at all?


That's a good point.
I read Genesis recently, but I was zoned out for half the time (I hate reading the Old Testament) so it wasn't real quality reading comprehension.


----------



## Splinters RCVD ✞ (Jan 20, 2022)

Opticana said:


> The Masoretic text is clearly corrupt at certain points, though. The easiest example is probably the mixup between Merab and Michal in 2 Samuel 21:8, where the KJV inserts words missing in the MT in order to resolve the issue:


Or, Michal was a byname of Merab. Having a byname is something that happens over and over again in the Bible, especially in the historical records, and it legitimately can get confusing or seem like a mistake. The first example of bynaming is with Jacob, who is simultaneously referred to as Israel and Jacob, sometimes the two in the same sentence. The Bible explains itself. You just have to pay careful attention.


----------



## Opticana (Jan 20, 2022)

Splinters RCVD said:


> Or, Michal was a byname of Merab. Having a byname is something that happens over and over again in the Bible, especially in the historical records, and it legitimately can get confusing or seem like a mistake. The first example of bynaming is with Jacob, who is simultaneously referred to as Israel and Jacob, sometimes the two in the same sentence. The Bible explains itself. You just have to pay careful attention.


There's no indication anywhere in the Bible that this is the case with Michal and Merab. They are clearly two different people - otherwise two of Saul's daughters would have had the same name! Anyway, this still doesn't explain why the King James reads "brought up" instead of "bore to" when the latter ("ילדה") is in the actual Hebrew of the MT. They translate that same word *differently* (and correctly) in the first part of the verse:

If the translators thought that Merab was a just a byname, as you say, they wouldn't have bothered to do this.


----------



## Splinters RCVD ✞ (Jan 20, 2022)

Opticana said:


> There's no indication anywhere in the Bible that this is the case with Michal and Merab. They are clearly two different people - otherwise two of Saul's daughters would have had the same name! Anyway, this still doesn't explain why the King James reads "brought up" instead of "bore to" when the latter ("ילדה") is the actual Hebrew of the MT. If the translators thought that Merab was a just a byname, as you say, they wouldn't have bothered to do this.


If you read 1 Samuel 18:19-21, it becomes clear that this Merab is bynamed Michal. What gives this away is this: "Merab" is described as being married to Adriel. Later "Michal" is described as loving David, and Saul being pleased about this, as he could use a relationship between David and "Michal" as a device for his plot to have David killed by the Philistines. If "Merab" and "Michal" were different people, why would it have mattered to Adriel and his men that David was with "Michal"? _Multiple people having the same name happens._

An example of this  is with the 12 apostles. Peter is a byname of Simon, otherwise having the same name as the other Simon, Simon Zelotes.
As recorded by Luke 6:14-16.


----------



## JJLiautaud (Jan 24, 2022)

Here's an interesting secular explaination of biblical dates in the bible.








						The dates of Jesus. 1. The dates
					

What do ancient sources actually say about the dates of Jesus' life?




					kiwihellenist.blogspot.com


----------



## BelUwUga (Jan 27, 2022)

Good morning. In case it's ambiguous even with my avatar, I am not _huge_ on piety in a strict sense. That said I was raised, baptized, and confirmed in the Presbyterian Church (USA)- since they don't really do excommunication type stuff I'm also an ordained elder. I am trying to get back into my bible studies and figured I'd pop in and say hey. I noticed up thread it sounded like there was maybe a plan to read Genesis this month? I'd like to join group reading if y'all are doing that.

All of that said, some days simply call for a scriptural invocation. I felt my heart calling for Proverbs* 26:11(KJV) this morning. Considering recurring themes I've noticed in general, and current events in particular, it seems very fitting. I had Hebrew and Russian translations queued up anyways and figure I might as well keep them.
"As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly"
(Hebrew: כְּ֭כֶלֶב שָׁ֣ב עַל־קֵאֹ֑ו כְּ֝סִ֗יל שֹׁונֶ֥ה בְאִוַּלְתֹּֽו Kəḵeleḇ šāḇ 'al-qê'ōw; kəsîl, šōwneh ḇə'iwwaltōw.)
Как пес возвращается на свою блевотину, так и глупец повторяет свою глупость
This is the word of our Lord, _thanks be to God!_
Amen!
Go forth and may these words inspire you to greater spirituality and introspection on this blessed day!

*Proverbs is a good cheat book by the way if you want/need to prepare something non-denominational/interfaith. It's Old Testament so it is Kosher, it's largely inoffensive to Islam, and it contains some really practical life lessons.


----------



## The Great Chandler (Jan 27, 2022)

BiggerChungus said:


> That's why I as a Christian am always cautious about Biblical sources. For one I don't believe the Bible was intended to be taken as literal scientific fact on every single thing it talks about, and likewise there've been so many intentional and unintentional mistranslations, modifications, and retcons. You've got to take many translations into account to piece together a whole picture, still taking it with a grain of salt that the book was written by men, even if inspired by God. Not that there's no truth to it, but I don't believe everything is objectively 100% true because in my view that'd be putting a lot of hubris on the authors to not have the same failings as any other of God's creations, whether He gave them wisdom when they wrote it or not. My two cents anyway.


I wholly agree with this. You can say most of it is an allegory of faith, rather than just simply true events. This reminds me of a Chinese Tao saying from Laozi:

"Tao that can be spoken is not the real Tao."

I see it the same way with the Bible. How can you be sure the wisdom of human writers are the same wisdom from God? I'm not trying to sound like a heretic, but it's not a bad idea to differentiate between the ideals of God and the shackled insecurities of man.


----------



## Opticana (Jan 27, 2022)

Wasabi Bobbi said:


> I am trying to get back into my bible studies and figured I'd pop in and say hey. I noticed up thread it sounded like there was maybe a plan to read Genesis this month? I'd like to join group reading if y'all are doing that.


That was a while ago and nothing ever came from it anyway. I think there just aren't enough regular posters on the thread for it catch on. That said, if we could get something going I'm certainly in. Maybe I'll
write something later on the weekly Torah portion - this week is Exodus 21-24, which is very interesting. For now I'll leave it at this (23:20-21):


> Behold, I am going to send an angel before you to guard you along the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. Be attentive to him and obey his voice; do not be rebellious toward him, for he will not pardon your rebellion, since My name is in him.


Needless to say, there is a great deal of discussion over the meaning of the passage. Is the angel Moses? God's presence? An actual angel? The second person of the Trinity (for Christians)? Admittedly, this is a speculative theory, but I believe that this passage may be connected with Joshua in some way - he is the only figure in the Torah, aside from Jochebed the mother of Moses, to have a theophoric name based on YHWH (ones using El are very common). Special mention of this is noted in Numbers 13:16, and of course he is the one who eventually leads the Israelites into the promised land. There is also Deuteronomy 31:1-3:


> So Moses went and spoke these words to all Israel. And he said to them, “I am a hundred and twenty years old today; I am no longer able to come and go, and the LORD has said to me, ‘You shall not cross this Jordan.’ “It is the LORD your God who will cross ahead of you; He will destroy these nations before you, and you shall dispossess them. Joshua is the one who will cross ahead of you, just as the LORD has spoken.


Who is going ahead of the Israelites - God or Joshua? 


The Great Chandler said:


> I wholly agree with this. You can say most of it is an allegory of faith, rather than just simply true events. This reminds me of a Chinese Tao saying from Laozi:
> 
> "Tao that can be spoken is not the real Tao."
> 
> I see it the same way with the Bible. How can you be sure the wisdom of human writers are the same wisdom from God? I'm not trying to sound like a heretic, but it's not a bad idea to differentiate between the ideals of God and the shackled insecurities of man.


I believe the Bible is, as the Catholics put it, "the words of God in the language of men" (there is also a similar Jewish saying). You can never be entirely sure of anything in life - men can be fallible but I think that you can still believe there is something greater behind it.


----------



## The Great Chandler (Jan 27, 2022)

Opticana said:


> I believe the Bible is, as the Catholics put it, "the words of God in the language of men" (there is also a similar Jewish saying). You can never be entirely sure of anything in life - men can be fallible but I think that you can still believe there is something greater behind it.


Yeah exactly! Despite the flaws (in our modern lenses), there is still a lot to respect. Even an irreligious person can find solace in the more timeless texts.


----------



## ♦️ King of Diamonds ♦️ (Jan 29, 2022)

Are there any other LDS Kiwis willing to discuss the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, or the Books of Abraham and Moses?


----------



## BiggerChungus (Jan 29, 2022)

The Great Chandler said:


> I wholly agree with this. You can say most of it is an allegory of faith, rather than just simply true events. This reminds me of a Chinese Tao saying from Laozi:
> 
> "Tao that can be spoken is not the real Tao."
> 
> I see it the same way with the Bible. How can you be sure the wisdom of human writers are the same wisdom from God? I'm not trying to sound like a heretic, but it's not a bad idea to differentiate between the ideals of God and the shackled insecurities of man.


I've been listening to JP's Bible series lately, and a lot of it clicks when you think about it. Even if what's told is allegorical, primarily in the Old Testament, there's underlying psychological truth there in what it's saying, and what it's saying is, in my opinion, too deep and interwoven to just be passed off as superstition. Even if you don't follow the metaphysical aspect, if you're irreligious or atheistic, there's something there that touches on the human psyche and nature with shocking accuracy, and it's something people can learn from.


----------



## Gender: Xenomorph (Jan 29, 2022)

Is this the Bible Discussion and Study Meeting?


----------



## WaveBreak (Jan 29, 2022)

I’ve spend days and days reading on the origins of the bible and historical jesus, it’s really captivating


----------



## CAPTAIN MATI (Jan 29, 2022)

Splinters RCVD said:


> KJV Only is unfortunately a key issue, due to linguistic, historical and theological problems. _*Right off the bat, I will dismiss folks like Ruckmann, Jack Chick, Kent Hovind and Gail Riplinger. These people and those like them are lunatics and massive hypocrites fishing for clout and profit. Avoid them like the plague if you can.*_
> 
> The website scionofzion.com and the King James Bible Research Council are good sources, _though obviously not perfect_. Present day 'Bible science' has an absolutely insane story behind it, and the corruption surrounding it is worse than anything KF or ED has ever seen.


I remember that time when Kent said that since the KJV was used by Paul and it was good enough for him, then it should be good enough for anybody or some shit.
Reminded me about Islamic theological history where the Virgin Mary is Moses' cousin or niece because Mary's dad's name appears somewhere in the Pentateuch.
Gangster tier scholarship.


----------



## Splinters RCVD ✞ (Jan 29, 2022)

CAPTAIN MATI said:


> I remember that time when Kent said that since the KJV was used by Paul and it was good enough for him, then it should be good enough for anybody or some shit.
> Reminded me about Islamic theological history where the Virgin Mary is Moses' cousin or niece because Mary's dad's name appears somewhere in the Pentateuch.
> Gangster tier scholarship.


Kent has ever since descended into more madness than that. He, like many other scammers, has set a date for Christ's return, (2068 if I recall correctly), which stands in blatant contradiction with how Jesus said no one knows the day of His return except the Father, denies the Sabbath commandment to this day, has been denounced by at least one website for endorsing The Shack and teaching from it (a pentecostal voodoo-jumbo book, later adapted into a movie, where God is reportrayed as a black woman) and is mostly concerned with his Dino-themed park. Just about the only useful things he says are about the KJV and debunking evolution, he is an idiot otherwise. The KJV and the issues around it are not invalidated just because some idiot or something an idiot says about them though, let me make this clear.


----------



## Zarael (Jan 29, 2022)

Sergius Bulgakov was one of the greatest theologians of the 20th Century and had some interesting views on scripture. You can read his "Unfading Light" here, part VI of the introduction titled "The Nature of Myth" is what you'll be after in terms of understanding the relationship between myth and interpretation, but if you have the time I highly recommend reading the whole book since it's an absolute masterwork on proper Christian doctrine and worldview.

A brief taste:


> First of all one ought to remove a widespread conception of myth as the product of fantasy and invention. A question so simple and yet so fundamental does not even cross the mind of the partisans of this understanding of myth: “What was a myth for the myth’s creators themselves, in whose consciousness it arose? What did they themselves think about the myth that they produced? Some will say, perhaps, that they consciously invented it in order to deceive others. And have they not seriously affirmed that priests invented religion and consequently established it on a conscious and deliberate deception? But in such a case they would have had to deceive themselves first of all, for they did believe in the myths, and they imparted an objective meaning to the myths’ content, not considering it in any way to be only the result of poetic fantasy. Only with such a supposition does the role of mythopoesis in the history of humanity become understandable, where the Dichtung of myth frequently clarifies the weighty Wahrheit of history





> In order to understand the meaning of cult, it is necessary to take into account its symbolic realism, its mythopoetic energy. For the faithful, cult is not a theatrical presentation with the goal of creating a mood and it is not an aggregate of willfully selected symbols, but a completely real divine operation, experienced myth, or mythologized reality. True, it is limited by place (a temple, sacred places), objects (sacred things), and time (divine worship, sacred times); it forms therefore only theurgic points on the timeline, but this particularity corresponds on the whole to the nature of religion. Although religion strives to have God as “all in all,” to fuse the transcendent and the immanent into one and thereby overcome their reciprocal polarity, still it arises precisely from that tension and exists only by it and together with it. In this sense religion is a certain transitory state — it strives to overcome itself, it perceives itself “as an old testament.” When God becomes “all in all” there will be no religion in our sense; it will no longer be necessary to reunite (religare) what has been disunited, and there will not be a special cult, for all life will be a divinely operated divine worship.


Heavy stuff but well worth the effort to dig through.


----------



## Splinters RCVD ✞ (Jan 29, 2022)

Zarael said:


> Sergius Bulgakov was one of the greatest theologians of the 20th Century and had some interesting views on scripture. You can read his "Unfading Light" here, part VI of the introduction titled "The Nature of Myth" is what you'll be after in terms of understanding the relationship between myth and interpretation, but if you have the time I highly recommend reading the whole book since it's an absolute masterwork on proper Christian doctrine and worldview.
> 
> A brief taste:
> 
> ...


Hs sounds kind of like today's typical new ager syncretic rhetoric.


----------



## Opticana (Jan 29, 2022)

> 42 They did not remember his power—
> the day he redeemed them from the oppressor,
> 43 the day he displayed his signs in Egypt,
> his wonders in the region of Zoan.
> ...


Psalm 78 is one of two retellings of the Exodus in the book, the other being found in psalms 105/106. If you count the plagues listed here, you will notice that there are three missing* - lice, boils and darkness (the third, sixth, and ninth plagues respectively). I have my own theory as to why this is, but I'd like to hear your thoughts before I share it. I'll give you two hints - what do the missing three plagues have in common, and how does that fit in with what psalm 78 is trying to teach? Secondly, doesn't verse 49 look like it's out of place? It doesn't seem to be describing a specific plague, so what is it doing here? Again, look in the rest of psalm 78 and see if you spot anything.

*The LXX, Peshitta, and Targum read "their cattle" instead of "them" in verse 50 (it's a difference of one vowel in the Hebrew), and the MT could conceivably be translated this way as well.


----------



## Splinters RCVD ✞ (Jan 29, 2022)

Opticana said:


> Psalm 78 is one of two retellings of the Exodus in the book, the other being found in psalms 105/106. If you count the plagues listed here, you will notice that there are three missing* - lice, boils and darkness (the third, sixth, and ninth plagues respectively). I have my own theory as to why this is, but I'd like to hear your thoughts before I share it. I'll give you two hints - what do the missing three plagues have in common, and how does that fit in with what psalm 78 is trying to teach? Secondly, doesn't verse 49 look like it's out of place? It doesn't seem to be describing a specific plague, so what is it doing here? Again, look in the rest of psalm 78 and see if you spot anything.
> 
> *The LXX, Peshitta, and Targum read "their cattle" instead of "them" in verse 50 (it's a difference of one vowel in the Hebrew), and the MT could conceivably be translated this way as well.


Food for thought. IMHO, those three plagues were omitted for the sake of conciseness, or for some other reason, the author did not think them important to mention. Verse 49 could be understood as God having unleashed some of those plagues upon the Egyptians by letting wicked angels loose on them (the KJV says "evil angels", for clarification). Psalm 78 teaches us about the Lord's providence and forgiving, forbearing nature, even if at times he turns angry on us, or some truly unrepentant ones are to pay the ultimate price.

I looked at lice, boils and darkness, but after a semi-quick reading, could not find commonalities that are strictly unique to these three.


----------



## Opticana (Feb 9, 2022)

Splinters RCVD said:


> Food for thought. IMHO, those three plagues were omitted for the sake of conciseness, or for some other reason, the author did not think them important to mention. Verse 49 could be understood as God having unleashed some of those plagues upon the Egyptians by letting wicked angels loose on them (the KJV says "evil angels", for clarification). Psalm 78 teaches us about the Lord's providence and forgiving, forbearing nature, even if at times he turns angry on us, or some truly unrepentant ones are to pay the ultimate price.
> 
> I looked at lice, boils and darkness, but after a semi-quick reading, could not find commonalities that are strictly unique to these three.


You're more or less in the same direction I was heading. The commonality among plagues three, six and nine is that they are delivered without warning, and it may be that the author of Psalm 78 considers them unfit to use as an example of divine retribution for that reason - they were a special punishment for Pharaoh, and God wouldn't normally act that way.

In any case, I have another thing that I've been thinking about these past few days. If you look at Ezekiel 45-46, you will notice that there are a few holidays from the Torah missing from the instructions for the offerings in the Temple:

Rosh Hashana (the first day of the seventh month)
Yom Kippur (the tenth day of the seventh month)
Shemini Atzeret (the 22nd day of the seventh month)
Shavuot (the festival of weeks)

Instead, we find two new days of atonement, on the first and seventh of the first month. I think I've come up with a very interesting answer to explain this, but as before I'd like to invite your contributions.

Hint: Who/what else is missing in Ezekiel's Temple that appears very prominently in the Torah? (I'm thinking of two things, and in Hebrew their names are very similar. Even in English, they start with the same letter).


----------



## BeepBoopBeepBoop (Aug 5, 2022)

>Solomon is the Wisest Man in the history of the world
>Still puts pussy on a pedestal to the point of sacrificing kids to moloch

Was he really that wise? I mean David at least tried to cover up Solomon's conception by recalling a guy and trying to get him drunk so they could pass off Solomon as Uriah's. Solomon just kept tried to please his too many wives.


----------



## Spamton G. Spamton (Aug 5, 2022)

One thing I think most people forget about the Bible is that it's not a normal book. Rather, it's a collection of many books comprising numerous different genres. The Song of Songs (or the Book of Songs/Song of Solomon) is a piece of erotic literature spaced between Ecclesiastes and the Book of Wisdom. All three books are vastly different in intent and composition. However, I think one of the most fascinating things about the Bible is that it's a rather miraculous group of text, as it's the most cross-referenced piece of literature in the world.

Below are two images visually showing references between books in the Bible. 



Spoiler: Images













We have still yet to find every single cross reference in the Bible. If you do some more digging into the matter, you'll find a vast wealth of information regarding the complexities of this singular collection. Not even other holy books compare, to my knowledge.


----------



## BeepBoopBeepBoop (Aug 5, 2022)

Someone told me an interesting idea on Job. If you take it literally, then it's a very hopeful story. The idea is that Job is the most unblemished man to walk the Earth prior to Jesus and Adam. He's righteous and loyal to God more than maybe David. He's God's top guy at that point. God is not drafting Job to be tortured against the Devil, he's basically betting that Job will win. 
It's odd because Job suffers horrifically, but he never himself curses God, he at most wishes for death or non-existence. It's very odd to put it into words, but God has absolute faith in Job, who proves throughout the Book that his love of God is unshakable. 

People like Job and Uriah have become my favorite side stories of the Bible. Uriah suffers only because of someone else sin, and Job stands as the man who beat the Devil.


----------



## Michael Wade (Aug 7, 2022)

Anybody got good book recommendations?   Ive got a few.  



The Rational bible:  

Very excellent, It breaks down a lot of things that are easy to miss on a casual reading of the old testament bible. Especially in terms of morals, translation and meaning.  A real page turner. 





Diary of an american exorcist:

 I like how   sincere and matter of fact it is.   its a slice of life for these guys and very compelling.  The website is legit and they have a wonderful list of prayers for the leity.  





An exorcist explains the demonic:   

Similar to the book above it but a lot more technical and breaks down  what demons can and cannot do.  It also explains why possessions happen and what needs to be done.   Extremely informative.  It explains better then anything else ive read why demons can never be forgiven.   (They dont want to be, they knew exactly what they were getting into and ironically know that they screwed up.)   






BeepBoopBeepBoop said:


> >Solomon is the Wisest Man in the history of the world
> >Still puts pussy on a pedestal to the point of sacrificing kids to moloch
> 
> Was he really that wise? I mean David at least tried to cover up Solomon's conception by recalling a guy and trying to get him drunk so they could pass off Solomon as Uriah's. Solomon just kept tried to please his too many wives.


He did ask god directly for wisdom, so It's one of the more  perplexing parts of the bible.  Did god think he could use the power without becoming corrupt? Or did he know he was gonna run with demons and  it had to happen for some reason?   He straight up gave him the tools to summon and bind demons.  

I could be overthinking it, but there's a bit of a new dimension if you separate intelligence from wisdom.  

 intelligence can give  the ability to build and innovate, while wisdom is the knowing how to properly use the byproducts of intelligence.  Maybe he knew what he needed to do but didn't know how to do it correctly and just assumed god  would fill in the blanks?  More likely absolute power corrupted, but its interesting to talk about.  


The Great Chandler said:


> I wholly agree with this. You can say most of it is an allegory of faith, rather than just simply true events. This reminds me of a Chinese Tao saying from Laozi:
> 
> "Tao that can be spoken is not the real Tao."
> 
> I see it the same way with the Bible. How can you be sure the wisdom of human writers are the same wisdom from God? I'm not trying to sound like a heretic, but it's not a bad idea to differentiate between the ideals of God and the shackled insecurities of man.


I agree with that up to a certain point, but various circumstances in my life have led me to believe the new testament is almost entirely true barring a few misremembered details.   

I especially give credence to Luke, he's the one who focuses on Mary the most, and Mary has power over demons hardcore.


----------



## HodgePodgeRogerDodger (Aug 7, 2022)

Michael Wade said:


> Anybody got good book recommendations?   Ive got a few.
> 
> View attachment 3572318
> 
> ...


I mean Solomon was just the wisest. He does a good job as king and enriches his people, but he’s still just a man. He can still fall to temptation. 
I’m pretty certain both Samuel and Nathan relay that the Israelites will regret their kings. David has the right balance of humors that he’s almost perfect, but he still kills a man. 

Samson becomes egotistical due to his strength. Moses freaks out constantly due to the stress of following God’s commands, I cannot stress that about Moses. He basically betrays the family that took him in, for people he barely knows and then has to lead those assholes as they keep fucking up. 

Some of the greatest judges, prophets, and kings are very flawed. The whole point of Elijah is how flawed he is, that’s why God chose Elijah. Elijah is a coward who keeps spilling spaghetti without God interceding to give him confidence.


----------



## EyeGuy (Aug 7, 2022)

Michael Wade said:


> Anybody got good book recommendations?   Ive got a few.
> 
> View attachment 3572318
> 
> ...


If you like this, then maybe check out Leon Kass. I have his book on Exodus.


----------



## Circular Square (Aug 7, 2022)

Talking about Solomon, he's a very peculiar figure. In one sense he prefigures Messiah, because of his wealth, wisdom, the glory of his kingdom, to the point that the Queen of Sheba visits him because he is so famous. But he also made massive mistakes, violating the Law in all his wisdom (or perhaps he was trying to search out foolishness if you believe he wrote Ecclesiastes), building high places for idols and setting the stage for the constant theme of rebellion "not like David his father". Even with God-given wisdom, I don't find it hard to believe that a thousand women could make a fool out of him.


----------



## Admin Dissipate Swordfish (Aug 7, 2022)

I always have mixed feelings about Demons and demonology. On one hand, being able to "know the enemy" makes it easier to combat their tactics and resist, but on the other hand, too much knowledge or false knowledge can make one feel arrogant in being able to deal with supernatural enemies without the grace of God and also it may lead into too much fascination with demons that it inevitability leads to tripping up and temptation

Furthermore, and its hilarious to say it in a religious context, some Demonology stuff (even from theological authors) feels like "Christian Pseudoscience" in that its difficult to take seriously at times with how it tries to categorize and "scientifically" analyze something supernatural like a pre-modern era SCP Wiki

I'd like to hear people's thoughts on stuff like this (both from a literature perspective and spiritual perspective)


----------



## The Great Chandler (Aug 7, 2022)

Locke And Doula said:


> I always have mixed feelings about Demons and demonology. On one hand, being able to "know the enemy" makes it easier to combat their tactics and resist, but on the other hand, too much knowledge or false knowledge can make one feel arrogant in being able to deal with supernatural enemies without the grace of God and also it may lead into too much fascination with demons that it inevitability leads to tripping up and temptation
> 
> Furthermore, and its hilarious to say it in a religious context, some Demonology stuff (even from theological authors) feels like "Christian Pseudoscience" in that its difficult to take seriously at times with how it tries to categorize and "scientifically" analyze something supernatural like a pre-modern era SCP Wiki
> 
> I'd like to hear people's thoughts on stuff like this (both from a literature perspective and spiritual perspective)


Even though most Christians refute demonology, it do be cool though.


----------



## Boyd McVoid (Aug 7, 2022)

Locke And Doula said:


> I always have mixed feelings about Demons and demonology. On one hand, being able to "know the enemy" makes it easier to combat their tactics and resist, but on the other hand, too much knowledge or false knowledge can make one feel arrogant in being able to deal with supernatural enemies without the grace of God and also it may lead into too much fascination with demons that it inevitability leads to tripping up and temptation
> 
> Furthermore, and its hilarious to say it in a religious context, some Demonology stuff (even from theological authors) feels like "Christian Pseudoscience" in that its difficult to take seriously at times with how it tries to categorize and "scientifically" analyze something supernatural like a pre-modern era SCP Wiki
> 
> I'd like to hear people's thoughts on stuff like this (both from a literature perspective and spiritual perspective)


Maybe there's no "enemy" and people just separate parts they don't personally like of the work of God as "work of the Devil"


----------



## Mothra1988 (Aug 7, 2022)

The Great Chandler said:


> I wholly agree with this. You can say most of it is an allegory of faith, rather than just simply true events. This reminds me of a Chinese Tao saying from Laozi:
> 
> "Tao that can be spoken is not the real Tao."
> 
> I see it the same way with the Bible. How can you be sure the wisdom of human writers are the same wisdom from God? I'm not trying to sound like a heretic, but it's not a bad idea to differentiate between the ideals of God and the shackled insecurities of man.



The Bible isn't supposed to be wholly allegorical.  Although you can do some accounting for how writers in the 1st century and hundreds of years before that would describe things out of their comprehension, that's mostly a postmodern irreligious mindset imo.  If most people had any inkling of how fucked up the spirit work really was, they wouldn't have as hard of time getting that the Bible contains truth.  But most people are more comfortable with their scientism than having to deal with the fact the world really is a lot more scary than what Bill Nye told them as kids.



The Great Chandler said:


> Even though most Christians refute demonology, it do be cool though.



Who does really?  I think the message from Christians is don't get involved with it or give it attention.  Maybe they wouldn't support all the technical definitions and those could be fanfiction, but the New Tesatement defnitely backs it up on most levels.  The fact is it's very real, and any atheist that confront it will be shaken out of their beliefs almost immediately.



Locke And Doula said:


> I always have mixed feelings about Demons and demonology. On one hand, being able to "know the enemy" makes it easier to combat their tactics and resist, but on the other hand, too much knowledge or false knowledge can make one feel arrogant in being able to deal with supernatural enemies without the grace of God and also it may lead into too much fascination with demons that it inevitability leads to tripping up and temptation
> 
> Furthermore, and its hilarious to say it in a religious context, some Demonology stuff (even from theological authors) feels like "Christian Pseudoscience" in that its difficult to take seriously at times with how it tries to categorize and "scientifically" analyze something supernatural like a pre-modern era SCP Wiki
> 
> I'd like to hear people's thoughts on stuff like this (both from a literature perspective and spiritual perspective)



I'm probably half "open" so I have spirits trying to communicate or harass me from time to time.  It's obvious some of these things out there aren't really human-derived like ghosts (although communication with human and animal spirits is common), so I have no problem with believing they could be the manifestation of fallen angels and their spawn since I've yet to hear any other good explanations for why these things exist on earth.  

The thing about "black magic" is it often works on blood sacrifice, in the case of Santaist edgelords usually small animals, which ties directly into parallels in the Jewish religion before the destruction of the 2nd Temple.  That was one of the big tells for me this is all connected, that blood sacrifice has real power just like the Bible said it did.


----------



## Circular Square (Aug 12, 2022)

Mothra1988 said:


> blood sacrifice has real power just like the Bible said it did.


Though blood sacrifice may be efficacious in attracting the demonic, once done it also attracts the wrath of God. If God didn't spare the sons of Aaron who carried strange fire in the sanctuary, he will not spare those who spread violence like the giants of Noah's day, eradicating them with a flood of fire.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (Aug 12, 2022)

I always wondered what is the normal religious explanation for children being born with some fatal condition. I sort of justify it with god not being "hands on" with the physical world. 


Circular Square said:


> Talking about Solomon, he's a very peculiar figure. In one sense he prefigures Messiah, because of his wealth, wisdom, the glory of his kingdom, to the point that the Queen of Sheba visits him because he is so famous. But he also made massive mistakes, violating the Law in all his wisdom (or perhaps he was trying to search out foolishness if you believe he wrote Ecclesiastes), building high places for idols and setting the stage for the constant theme of rebellion "not like David his father". Even with God-given wisdom, I don't find it hard to believe that a thousand women could make a fool out of him.


I don't think there is a single biblical figure (except maybe Job, but with him it's the point) that is perfect. There is always a flaw to show that you can never reach perfection.


----------



## Circular Square (Aug 12, 2022)

wtfNeedSignUp said:


> There is always a flaw to show that you can never reach perfection.


Definitely, but it's peculiar because one would think one's closeness with God can/will remain the same (ensures some security from falling). But as with the Fall, so all sin separates us from the Almighty.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (Aug 12, 2022)

Circular Square said:


> Definitely, but it's peculiar because one would think one's closeness with God can/will remain the same (ensures some security from falling). But as with the Fall, so all sin separates us from the Almighty.


I think the opposite, the closer you are to god, the higher the risk of committing sin out of over confidence and the more catastrophic the results. David's sin has assured he'll never build the temple, while Solomon's sins has doomed Judea.


----------



## BeepBoopBeepBoop (Sunday at 1:39 AM)

@wtfNeedSignUp I actually want to ask you this considering you are a Christ-killing Jew who practices Blood libel under the full moon whilst snacking on gentile foreskins. 

I consider the story of the Prodigal Son in the New Testament to effectively be the story of Jacob/ Israel in miniature in some ways. Why the fuck do Jews seem to hate the fuck out of Esau in their rabbinical texts? From what I know he gives shelter to his brother after thinking him dead for 20 years and then he basically is never mentioned again. 

Also, I'm pretty sure Joshua is basically the only guy next to Job who really never fucks up and his entire death message is "GATE KEEP HARDER EVEN WITH YOUR OWN KIDS."


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (Sunday at 6:22 AM)

BeepBoopBeepBoop said:


> @wtfNeedSignUp I actually want to ask you this considering you are a Christ-killing Jew who practices Blood libel under the full moon whilst snacking on gentile foreskins.
> 
> I consider the story of the Prodigal Son in the New Testament to effectively be the story of Jacob/ Israel in miniature in some ways. Why the fuck do Jews seem to hate the fuck out of Esau in their rabbinical texts? From what I know he gives shelter to his brother after thinking him dead for 20 years and then he basically is never mentioned again.
> 
> Also, I'm pretty sure Joshua is basically the only guy next to Job who really never fucks up and his entire death message is "GATE KEEP HARDER EVEN WITH YOUR OWN KIDS."


From a short check, the problem with Esau is that he is a hairy ginger that was dumb enough to sell his inheritance for a momentary gain. Also yeah Joshuah is relatively alright flaw wise, he's primarily a second fiddle to Moses.


----------



## EyeGuy (Sunday at 8:22 AM)

BeepBoopBeepBoop said:


> Why the fuck do Jews seem to hate the fuck out of Esau in their rabbinical texts? From what I know he gives shelter to his brother after thinking him dead for 20 years and then he basically is never mentioned again.


The long and short of it is that Genesis depicts Esau as the progenitor of Edom, a Semitic people that lived to the southeast of Israel and who had a very turbulent relationship with them, to put it lightly. Eventually, through various historical coincidences (such as Obadiah's comparison of Edom to an eagle), Edom became identified in Rabbinic tradition with the Roman empire, and that identification was later carried over to Christian civilization as a whole.


----------



## BeepBoopBeepBoop (Sunday at 2:52 PM)

wtfNeedSignUp said:


> From a short check, the problem with Esau is that he is a hairy ginger that was dumb enough to sell his inheritance for a momentary gain. Also yeah Joshuah is relatively alright flaw wise, he's primarily a second fiddle to Moses.


From what I remember, Jacob didn't even get most of the inheritance. Rebecca basically spirited him away because Esau was pissed when he stole the birthright blessing and Issac was also pretty pissed. The whole Lentil soup bit was never really honored and really only Rebecca ensures the blessing gets passed to Jacob. Esau basically gets everything and Jacob gets a taste of his own medicine when working for his Mother's cousin. Esau warmly welcomes Jacob back, forgives his transgressions, and refuses any gifts Jacob gives him because he's worried about his nieces and nephews. 



EyeGuy said:


> The long and short of it is that Genesis depicts Esau as the progenitor of Edom, a Semitic people that lived to the southeast of Israel and who had a very turbulent relationship with them, to put it lightly. Eventually, through various historical coincidences (such as Obadiah's comparison of Edom to an eagle), Edom became identified in Rabbinic tradition with the Roman empire, and that identification was later carried over to Christian civilization as a whole.


Oh, so it's just Rabbi's getting butthurt over nothing and twisting themselves into knots to validate some obscure bullshit? I swear Moses or Joshua basically joined the remnants of Esau's family back into the camp of Israel sometime in Exodus.

I've been noticing a few Bible stories that have weird Rabbinical commentary that comes out of fucking no where when I've been diving into some of the history. Like it literally is one Rabbi is just an ultra kike and says that polygamy is okay even though Leah is unhappy and Reuban wants to cuck Jacob with Rachael's servants.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (Sunday at 3:00 PM)

BeepBoopBeepBoop said:


> I've been noticing a few Bible stories that have weird Rabbinical commentary that comes out of fucking no where when I've been diving into some of the history. Like it literally is one Rabbi is just an ultra kike and says that polygamy is okay even though Leah is unhappy and Reuban wants to cuck Jacob with Rachael's servants


It's not a few, virtually every fucking sentence in the old testament will have multiple interpretations, historical anecdotes and folklore stories mixed with it as a result of 2000 years of kvetching.


----------



## BeepBoopBeepBoop (Sunday at 3:19 PM)

wtfNeedSignUp said:


> It's not a few, virtually every fucking sentence in the old testament will have multiple interpretations, historical anecdotes and folklore stories mixed with it as a result of 2000 years of kvetching.


I mean a few seem to literally be against what a story or Pslam could be saying, but one Rabbi had enough clout to basically force an interpretation that goes against what the story is saying. It happens a fuck ton in Judges.


----------



## EyeGuy (Sunday at 3:19 PM)

BeepBoopBeepBoop said:


> Oh, so it's just Rabbi's getting butthurt over nothing and twisting themselves into knots to validate some obscure bullshit? I swear Moses or Joshua basically joined the remnants of Esau's family back into the camp of Israel sometime in Exodus.


You're probably thinking of something else. There's never a reintegration of Esau's family into Israel.


BeepBoopBeepBoop said:


> I've been noticing a few Bible stories that have weird Rabbinical commentary that comes out of fucking no where when I've been diving into some of the history. Like it literally is one Rabbi is just an ultra kike and says that polygamy is okay even though Leah is unhappy and Reuban wants to cuck Jacob with Rachael's servants.


Well, polygamy is "okay", as evidenced by the multiple biblical laws that take it as a given (e.g. Exodus 21:10, Deuteronomy 21:15-17). It's definitely portrayed as a bad idea, though. The rabbinic understandings can seem a little strange at times, but they usually reflect a deeper understanding of the text then people give them credit for, and it's pretty easy to show that their modes of interpretation have precedent in the Bible itself (e.g. revisionist histories for didactic purpose such as Ezekiel 20, or harmonizing conflicting passages like in 2nd Chronicles 35:13).


----------



## BeepBoopBeepBoop (Sunday at 3:38 PM)

EyeGuy said:


> You're probably thinking of something else. There's never a reintegration of Esau's family into Israel.
> 
> Well, polygamy is "okay", as evidenced by the multiple biblical laws that take it as a given (e.g. Exodus 21:10, Deuteronomy 21:15-17). It's definitely portrayed as a bad idea, though. The rabbinic understandings can seem a little strange at times, but they usually reflect a deeper understanding of the text then people give them credit for, and it's pretty easy to show that their modes of interpretation have precedent in the Bible itself (e.g. revisionist histories for didactic purpose such as Ezekiel 20, or harmonizing conflicting passages like in 2nd Chronicles 35:13).


Yeah, some of the Rabbinical commentaries can be pretty good, it's just a lot of them just seem like kvetching bullshit. I typically read Orthodox Jewish, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox commentaries, Lutherans are a mix of retards and Germans so for every well-researched and reasoned commentary you'll get 700 retard scrawls. 

I read Reform Jew stuff and Anglican stuff when I want to get angry.


----------



## EyeGuy (Sunday at 3:54 PM)

BeepBoopBeepBoop said:


> I typically read Orthodox Jewish, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox commentaries,


I'm curious, which Jewish ones do you read? My go-to goy commentator is Daniel Block, who I think is some sort of Calvinist.


----------



## Abyssal Bulwark (Sunday at 10:01 PM)

Spamton G. Spamton said:


> One thing I think most people forget about the Bible is that it's not a normal book. Rather, it's a collection of many books comprising numerous different genres. The Song of Songs (or the Book of Songs/Song of Solomon) is a piece of erotic literature spaced between Ecclesiastes and the Book of Wisdom. All three books are vastly different in intent and composition. However, I think one of the most fascinating things about the Bible is that it's a rather miraculous group of text, as it's the most cross-referenced piece of literature in the world.
> 
> Below are two images visually showing references between books in the Bible.
> 
> ...


When I was new to Christianity, a piece of advice someone gave me was that almost all Bible verses have two to three other verses that back up what it's saying. These diagrams prove this is very true.


----------



## EyeGuy (Monday at 8:46 AM)

Abyssal Bulwark said:


> When I was new to Christianity, a piece of advice someone gave me was that almost all Bible verses have two to three other verses that back up what it's saying. These diagrams prove this is very true.


Well...



Both types of charts are mostly BS, if we're being honest.


----------



## Jonah's Whale (Tuesday at 4:02 PM)

The Holy Spirit of God is required for the interpretation of God's Word, implementation of God's knowledge and identification of God's will. As Jesus Christ said, "Ye must be born again."​Not many people know that the Holy Bible had books removed, had texts added and altered and had messages manipulated to fit the Council of Nicaea via Constantine, a false Christian. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either deceived, or a liar. The Book of Revelation warns us that those who add to the Book of this prophecy will have the plagues of this Book added to them and if anyone removes from this Book, their name shall be removed from the Lamb's Book of Life. Once I read the Book of Enoch, I understood why they would do this. 

I finally understood why I never believed that Jesus Christ was a 'magician' who made a coin appear in a fish's mouth to pay Caesar taxes, never accepted that I must bow to the governing body of my day, never believed the Jews were God's 'chosen' people and the rest of us were outcast scum, never followed man-made organized religion and never thought for one second that God wasn't in control of what occurs on Earth. I choose to follow Jesus' teachings and trust God only, not man - not even myself. You cannot serve God and mammon, God and Satan or God and the kings of this age, you must choose 'this day while it is called to-day' whom you will serve. God is love but always remember, He is Holy and will not be mocked or bend His will to ours. We must surrender our will to His if we truly want to know His love, favor and peace. Even in the midst of war, His mercy endures forever.

That is why it is imperative to humble yourself in holy fear (reverence), bow down your soul, repent of your sinfulness, seek God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength on your knees in sincerity and believe on Jesus Christ His only begotten Son, our King, Lord and Savior. Pray the Lord of hosts grant you His Holy Spirit in His grace that your soul may be saved alive. Selah. 

Then reread the Bible, the Holy Spirit's revelation, discernment and knowledge will unfold to you as it never could have before.

_*John 3:6-8-*_*That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7Marvel not that I said unto you, "You must be born again." *_*8The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from, and where its going: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.*_
​_Ecclesiastes Chapter 12:12-14__-And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. 13Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. __14For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil._​
_*John 3:19**-**And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.*_


----------



## Crysocyan (Tuesday at 6:11 PM)

Jonah's Whale said:


> I finally understood why I never believed that Jesus Christ was a 'magician' who made a coin appear in a fish's mouth to pay Caesar taxes, never accepted that I must bow to the governing body of my day, never believed the Jews were God's 'chosen' people and the rest of us were outcast scum, never followed man-made organized religion and never thought for one second that God wasn't in control of what occurs on Earth. I choose to follow Jesus' teachings and trust God only, not man - not even myself. You cannot serve God and mammon, God and Satan or God and the kings of this age, you must choose 'this day while it is called to-day' whom you will serve. God is love but always remember, He is Holy and will not be mocked or bend His will to ours. We must surrender our will to His if we truly want to know His love, favor and peace. Even in the midst of war, His mercy endures forever.


Lol you're a heretic, stop it.

Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God, honour the king.


----------

