Religions > Atheism > Why was the bible not rewritten by "holy men of God" to reflect changes in knowledge over the years?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bob Travis" |
| Date: |
07 Nov 2005 01:17:37 AM |
| Object: |
Why was the bible not rewritten by "holy men of God" to reflect changes in knowledge over the years? |
It is said by the "born again" Christian than God knows all things, past,
present, and future. If this is not disputed by any Christian it follows
that God Knew from the beginning that man would discover first hand that the
moon is not made of green cheese. God knew from the beginning that His Word
would be transmitted globally by satellite television. Man would discover
the double helix of DNA, map the human genome, and clone animals from
embryonic stem cells native to every living creature that is cloneable.
It is a given that many morally responsible people think many of the things
I mentioned are sinful. But are they wrong because the average man does not
believe how things can be possible without exercising the powers of black
magic or witchcraft? If such things are "wrong" are they "wrong" for the
same reason Galileo was condemned as a heretic when he declared that earth
is not the center of the universe, when clergy in his era (i.e., those "in
power") called him a heretic for saying things contrary to the accepted
tenets of the religions of the day?
If the bible is the inspired word of God and God has known all things that
would occur from the beginning of time to the end of time, then He knew that
someday man would walk on the moon, the manipulation of DNA would become a
reality, and man would learn the earth is not at the center of the universe.
If it is true that the Bible was written for all time then why do readers of
the bible get the impression it was written for generations of people who
lived 2,000 to 3,000 years ago when God could easily have inspired "holy men
of God" to write a Bible for all generations to come.
If it would one day be decided that splitting the atom was immoral or
cloning may be a sin, why were the Ten Commandments limited only to the
types of sins a person could commit with the technology available two or
three millennia ago. If God was the inspiration and if God is all-powerful
and all-knowing, why didn't he have his holy men write a bible additional
commandments (the sense of which would become apparent with the passage of
time) such as thou shall not split the atom for purposes of warfare or man
shalt not use stem cells to create new life? What would it matter if the
writing was nonsensical to the people of the time? "Relevelations" is
nonsensical to this day and it's allegories have been interpreted by
preachers to mean anything they conjecture in their sermons because there is
no believer who would refute a man of God with the comment, "That's
riduculous!" Or, "that is totally absurd!"
The fundies STILL do not question what they have been taught in Sunday
School because should they lose their belief in the basics the whole house
of cards is subject to falling down. Therefore fundies have to overlook
famed TV preachers who state "all men will sin" after they have been caught
with a prostitute on more than one occasion, after the very priests who
bapitized their kids are later put in jail for having had anal sex with
adolescent boys, after history books have made it clear there were Catholic
popes in the middle ages who had mistresses on the side; so, no, I'm not
saying I'm an atheist. What I am saying is why doesn't God inspire modern
holy men of God to write a new bible updated for the times which can be
found believeable by the intellectuals as well as imbeciles (and every one
in between). Isn't it absurd to have complete faith in a document over 2,000
years old, mistranslated by thousands of who stood to benefit by reiterating
the Word as best benefits themselves, doing so under the ruse that to
question the handed down Truth is nothing but lack of faith -- in the old
days known as "heresy" punishable by a death sentence?
Isn't death a bit extreme just for asking questions that really make sense
if you think each one for longer than twenty minutes?
.
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Why was the bible not rewritten by "holy men of God" to reflectchanges in knowledge over the years? |
07 Nov 2005 08:41:03 PM |
|
|
Bob Travis wrote:
It is said by the "born again" Christian than God knows all things, past,
present, and future. If this is not disputed by any Christian it follows
that God Knew from the beginning that man would discover first hand that the
moon is not made of green cheese.
===>It would mean he knew all along how things would turn out
in the Garden with A&E, that he would be sorry he did create things,
that he would first choose the Jews and then replace them with
Gentiles, that he would make a baby with a human female who would
then be sacrificed to him so he would not kill ALL humans, only
the ones who did not believe in that "atonement", etc., etc., etc.
Of course that "all-knowing" deity, like the all-knowing Rushi,
is just a fantasy. -- L.
God knew from the beginning that His Word
would be transmitted globally by satellite television. Man would discover
the double helix of DNA, map the human genome, and clone animals from
embryonic stem cells native to every living creature that is cloneable.
It is a given that many morally responsible people think many of the things
I mentioned are sinful. But are they wrong because the average man does not
believe how things can be possible without exercising the powers of black
magic or witchcraft? If such things are "wrong" are they "wrong" for the
same reason Galileo was condemned as a heretic when he declared that earth
is not the center of the universe, when clergy in his era (i.e., those "in
power") called him a heretic for saying things contrary to the accepted
tenets of the religions of the day?
If the bible is the inspired word of God and God has known all things that
would occur from the beginning of time to the end of time, then He knew that
someday man would walk on the moon, the manipulation of DNA would become a
reality, and man would learn the earth is not at the center of the universe.
If it is true that the Bible was written for all time then why do readers of
the bible get the impression it was written for generations of people who
lived 2,000 to 3,000 years ago when God could easily have inspired "holy men
of God" to write a Bible for all generations to come.
If it would one day be decided that splitting the atom was immoral or
cloning may be a sin, why were the Ten Commandments limited only to the
types of sins a person could commit with the technology available two or
three millennia ago. If God was the inspiration and if God is all-powerful
and all-knowing, why didn't he have his holy men write a bible additional
commandments (the sense of which would become apparent with the passage of
time) such as thou shall not split the atom for purposes of warfare or man
shalt not use stem cells to create new life? What would it matter if the
writing was nonsensical to the people of the time? "Relevelations" is
nonsensical to this day and it's allegories have been interpreted by
preachers to mean anything they conjecture in their sermons because there is
no believer who would refute a man of God with the comment, "That's
riduculous!" Or, "that is totally absurd!"
The fundies STILL do not question what they have been taught in Sunday
School because should they lose their belief in the basics the whole house
of cards is subject to falling down. Therefore fundies have to overlook
famed TV preachers who state "all men will sin" after they have been caught
with a prostitute on more than one occasion, after the very priests who
bapitized their kids are later put in jail for having had anal sex with
adolescent boys, after history books have made it clear there were Catholic
popes in the middle ages who had mistresses on the side; so, no, I'm not
saying I'm an atheist. What I am saying is why doesn't God inspire modern
holy men of God to write a new bible updated for the times which can be
found believeable by the intellectuals as well as imbeciles (and every one
in between). Isn't it absurd to have complete faith in a document over 2,000
years old, mistranslated by thousands of who stood to benefit by reiterating
the Word as best benefits themselves, doing so under the ruse that to
question the handed down Truth is nothing but lack of faith -- in the old
days known as "heresy" punishable by a death sentence?
Isn't death a bit extreme just for asking questions that really make sense
if you think each one for longer than twenty minutes?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AcesLucky" |
|
| Title: Re: Why was the bible not rewritten by "holy men of God" to reflectchanges in knowledge over the years? |
07 Nov 2005 06:50:23 PM |
|
|
Bob Travis wrote:
It is said by the "born again" Christian than God knows all things, past,
present, and future. If this is not disputed by any Christian it follows
that God Knew from the beginning that man would discover first hand that the
moon is not made of green cheese. God knew from the beginning that His Word
would be transmitted globally by satellite television. Man would discover
the double helix of DNA, map the human genome, and clone animals from
embryonic stem cells native to every living creature that is cloneable.
It is a given that many morally responsible people think many of the things
I mentioned are sinful. But are they wrong because the average man does not
believe how things can be possible without exercising the powers of black
magic or witchcraft? If such things are "wrong" are they "wrong" for the
same reason Galileo was condemned as a heretic when he declared that earth
is not the center of the universe, when clergy in his era (i.e., those "in
power") called him a heretic for saying things contrary to the accepted
tenets of the religions of the day?
If the bible is the inspired word of God and God has known all things that
would occur from the beginning of time to the end of time, then He knew that
someday man would walk on the moon, the manipulation of DNA would become a
reality, and man would learn the earth is not at the center of the universe.
If it is true that the Bible was written for all time then why do readers of
the bible get the impression it was written for generations of people who
lived 2,000 to 3,000 years ago when God could easily have inspired "holy men
of God" to write a Bible for all generations to come.
If it would one day be decided that splitting the atom was immoral or
cloning may be a sin, why were the Ten Commandments limited only to the
types of sins a person could commit with the technology available two or
three millennia ago. If God was the inspiration and if God is all-powerful
and all-knowing, why didn't he have his holy men write a bible additional
commandments (the sense of which would become apparent with the passage of
time) such as thou shall not split the atom for purposes of warfare or man
shalt not use stem cells to create new life? What would it matter if the
writing was nonsensical to the people of the time? "Relevelations" is
nonsensical to this day and it's allegories have been interpreted by
preachers to mean anything they conjecture in their sermons because there is
no believer who would refute a man of God with the comment, "That's
riduculous!" Or, "that is totally absurd!"
The fundies STILL do not question what they have been taught in Sunday
School because should they lose their belief in the basics the whole house
of cards is subject to falling down. Therefore fundies have to overlook
famed TV preachers who state "all men will sin" after they have been caught
with a prostitute on more than one occasion, after the very priests who
bapitized their kids are later put in jail for having had anal sex with
adolescent boys, after history books have made it clear there were Catholic
popes in the middle ages who had mistresses on the side; so, no, I'm not
saying I'm an atheist. What I am saying is why doesn't God inspire modern
holy men of God to write a new bible updated for the times which can be
found believeable by the intellectuals as well as imbeciles (and every one
in between). Isn't it absurd to have complete faith in a document over 2,000
years old, mistranslated by thousands of who stood to benefit by reiterating
the Word as best benefits themselves, doing so under the ruse that to
question the handed down Truth is nothing but lack of faith -- in the old
days known as "heresy" punishable by a death sentence?
Isn't death a bit extreme just for asking questions that really make sense
if you think each one for longer than twenty minutes?
It would appear that god's knowledge has always been limited to the
knowledge of the people/person doing the testimony of god's word.
Of course this is a clear indication that it's not god's word at all,
but the inspired thoughts of various writers as they're edited
throughout history.
I personally believe that these people, like Moses (if he existed),
simply got high. Any of us can do the same and get great inspiration
from "on high".
But our knowledge would still be limited only to what we know or think
we know at the time. And that's why you have stories like Genesis that
are completely ignorant of the facts.
Where's the scripture that speaks of electricity, computers, cell
phones? Wouldn't god know of these things and much more?
Instead, the Muslim heaven consists of "milk and honey" and "many virgin
wives" while the Christian heaven is "eternal life", while the Mormon
heaven is, for men, the god of their own world, etc..
I think if a book be truly written by God, it would be phenomenal! I
mean truly phenomenal...like people who are completely illiterate and
blind, would still be able to read it and understand it regardless of
age or limitation.
You know, if a god man can turn wine into water (that's right) he could
write so that the lowest can understand the highest. He could tell the
truth about the age of the earth, the universe, and DNA, and electricity.
Mankind almost perished from the Black Plague, but he couldn't advise
the solution was as simple as soap and water? He couldn't advise the
evil spirits were mostly microscopic germs, that got people sick?
These stories can't advise what they don't know. God would know. So it's
clear these stories aren't from god but from men "on high".
AcesLucky
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Travis" |
|
| Title: Re: Why was the bible not rewritten by "holy men of God" to reflect changes in knowledge over the years? |
08 Nov 2005 11:53:59 PM |
|
|
"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:ulNbf.65795$WR2.16813@fed1read03...
Mankind almost perished from the Black Plague, but he couldn't advise the
solution was as simple as soap and water? He couldn't advise the evil
spirits were mostly microscopic germs, that got people sick?
These stories can't advise what they don't know. God would know. So it's
clear these stories aren't from god but from men "on high".
LOL, lot's of great thoughts, Aces. Especially when you take into account
"men of God" take many forms. For example, even his own pastor thought the
church elder infamously known to the public as BTK, thought this dude was a
great guy, or as his pastor might have put it, "a true man of God."
So with priests going to jail for sex crimes and tv evangelists getting
caught with prostitutes and other sureties that all men are sinners, where
does a person go to be redeemed when ten different "believers" are each
going to have ten sure fire ways to get to heaven, yet only a few think
there is a chance in a million that any of the other nine are right (unless
they all walked out of the same church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of
worship, all following the tenets preached by one religion.
Bob
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: Why was the bible not rewritten by "holy men of God" to reflectchanges in knowledge over the years? |
07 Nov 2005 03:01:04 AM |
|
|
I have often asked why the bible stopped 2000 years ago. It had been
written continuously, off and on, for the entire period previous to
that. So no more prophets? No more miracles? No more amazing tales or
developments, through all of the history we have been through since then?
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "H Dickmann" |
|
| Title: Re: Why was the bible not rewritten by "holy men of God" to reflect changes in knowledge over the years? |
07 Nov 2005 05:55:39 AM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Qrzbf.34659$kd.29621@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
I have often asked why the bible stopped 2000 years ago. It had been
written continuously, off and on, for the entire period previous to that.
So no more prophets? No more miracles? No more amazing tales or
developments, through all of the history we have been through since then?
Gary Eickmeier
The Canonised Bible stopped at the time it became canonised. However, since
then the Popes have written Epistles to the Churches. Many of those Epistles
deal with issues that only come up now with the advancement of Science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Why was the bible not rewritten...THE REAL "BIBLE". |
07 Nov 2005 09:08:02 PM |
|
|
H Dickmann wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Qrzbf.34659$kd.29621@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
I have often asked why the bible stopped 2000 years ago. It had been
written continuously, off and on, for the entire period previous to that.
So no more prophets? No more miracles? No more amazing tales or
developments, through all of the history we have been through since then?
Gary Eickmeier
The Canonised Bible stopped at the time it became canonised. However, since
then the Popes have written Epistles to the Churches. Many of those Epistles
deal with issues that only come up now with the advancement of Science.
===>In fact LOTS of writers have written lots of things both before and after
the production of the select few books edited and compiled in the "BIBLE" by
Church authorities. The "Bible" collection is unique only inasmuch as
people actually believe what was written by those few men is "the truth".
With that in mind, it can be reinterpreted in hundreds of ways, but
cannot be "rewritten".
Read some SCIENCE books if you want to know the truth based on
"changes in knowledge", which those ancient writers could not have
known.
Actually, the real "BIBLE" consists not just of those few books found
in the Christian collection, but of ALL BOOKS (Greek "biblia",
as in "biblioteka" - a library) indeed ALL THE WRITINGS EVER
PRODUCED BY HUMAN WRITERS.
In THAT sense, of course, the "BIBLE" is constantly being "updated". -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SJAB1958" |
|
| Title: Re: Why was the bible not rewritten by "holy men of God" to reflect changes in knowledge over the years? |
07 Nov 2005 07:31:50 AM |
|
|
H Dickmann wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Qrzbf.34659$kd.29621@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
I have often asked why the bible stopped 2000 years ago. It had been
written continuously, off and on, for the entire period previous to that.
So no more prophets? No more miracles? No more amazing tales or
developments, through all of the history we have been through since then?
Gary Eickmeier
The Canonised Bible stopped at the time it became canonised. However, since
then the Popes have written Epistles to the Churches. Many of those Epistles
deal with issues that only come up now with the advancement of Science.
So why isnt the Bible updated with these new Epistles?
.
|
|
|
| User: "H Dickmann" |
|
| Title: Re: Why was the bible not rewritten by "holy men of God" to reflect changes in knowledge over the years? |
07 Nov 2005 11:31:32 AM |
|
|
"SJAB1958" <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131348710.303045.54790@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
H Dickmann wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Qrzbf.34659$kd.29621@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
I have often asked why the bible stopped 2000 years ago. It had been
written continuously, off and on, for the entire period previous to
that.
So no more prophets? No more miracles? No more amazing tales or
developments, through all of the history we have been through since
then?
Gary Eickmeier
The Canonised Bible stopped at the time it became canonised. However,
since
then the Popes have written Epistles to the Churches. Many of those
Epistles
deal with issues that only come up now with the advancement of Science.
So why isnt the Bible updated with these new Epistles?
With every Protestant being his own infallible Pope it wouldn't work.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: Why was the bible not rewritten by "holy men of God" to reflectchanges in knowledge over the years? |
07 Nov 2005 03:20:35 PM |
|
|
H Dickmann wrote:
"SJAB1958" <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131348710.303045.54790@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So why isnt the Bible updated with these new Epistles?
With every Protestant being his own infallible Pope it wouldn't work.
Good point. Protestants take the bible, which was created and canonised
by the Catholic Church, as their sole authority, but they would not
accept any additions to it by the Church. It was the authority then, but
not now. Fascinating.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Why was the bible not rewritten by "holy men of God" toreflectchanges in knowledge over the years? |
07 Nov 2005 09:11:47 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
H Dickmann wrote:
"SJAB1958" <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131348710.303045.54790@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So why isnt the Bible updated with these new Epistles?
With every Protestant being his own infallible Pope it wouldn't work.
Good point. Protestants take the bible, which was created and canonised
by the Catholic Church, as their sole authority, but they would not
accept any additions to it by the Church. It was the authority then, but
not now. Fascinating.
===>Actually, the Protestants removed a number of books from the
Catholic collection, but still sell their version as the "BIBLE".
Actually, the real "BIBLE" consists not just of those few books found
in the Christian collection, but of ALL BOOKS (Greek "biblia",
as in "biblioteka" - a library) indeed ALL THE WRITINGS EVER
PRODUCED BY HUMAN WRITERS.
In THAT sense, of course, the "BIBLE" is constantly being "updated". -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "H Dickmann" |
|
| Title: Re: Why was the bible not rewritten by "holy men of God" to reflectchanges in knowledge over the years? |
08 Nov 2005 08:04:53 AM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:436FC313.8EDFFFCA@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
H Dickmann wrote:
"SJAB1958" <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131348710.303045.54790@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So why isnt the Bible updated with these new Epistles?
With every Protestant being his own infallible Pope it wouldn't work.
Good point. Protestants take the bible, which was created and canonised
by the Catholic Church, as their sole authority, but they would not
accept any additions to it by the Church. It was the authority then, but
not now. Fascinating.
===>Actually, the Protestants removed a number of books from the
Catholic collection, but still sell their version as the "BIBLE".
Actually, the real "BIBLE" consists not just of those few books found
in the Christian collection, but of ALL BOOKS (Greek "biblia",
as in "biblioteka" - a library) indeed ALL THE WRITINGS EVER
PRODUCED BY HUMAN WRITERS.
In THAT sense, of course, the "BIBLE" is constantly being "updated". -- L.
That is incorrect.
You can have a bibliotheca of Science books or exclusively of Children's
books. The bible is a bibliotheca of sacred books.
The bible itself claims that all sacred books are inspired by God. There are
some problems with this claim.
1) That claim was made before most of the new testament was written.
2) Many books had been written and claims had been made that they were
sacred, but were often nothing more than a lot of nonsense. ( Similar to
fundamentalists having all kinds of inspirations.) Among rabbinical
literature there were 27 different accounts of Creation.
The catholic church collected all the books which were said to be sacred.
They studied those books and sorted them out as follows:
1) Books that were heresies and were rejected.
2) Books that were sacred books but were only suitable for study.
3) Sacred books that were suitable to be read during Church service. This
were the canonised books which makes up the Bible.
Different Protestant groups do not accept all the canonised books, usually
because they conflict with the particular believe they have accepted. For
the same reason they do not accept books suitable to be studied such as the
Didache.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Travis" |
|
| Title: Re: Why was the bible not rewritten by "holy men of God" to reflectchanges in knowledge over the years? |
08 Nov 2005 11:40:57 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:436FC313.8EDFFFCA@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
Actually, the real "BIBLE" consists not just of those few books found
in the Christian collection, but of ALL BOOKS (Greek "biblia",
as in "biblioteka" - a library) indeed ALL THE WRITINGS EVER
PRODUCED BY HUMAN WRITERS.
In THAT sense, of course, the "BIBLE" is constantly being "updated". -- L.
So we are ALL inspired by the Word of God and we need only read the
newsgroups to stay in the loop?
- Bob -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Why was the bible not rewritten by "holy men of God" toreflectchanges in knowledge over the years? |
10 Nov 2005 12:23:34 AM |
|
|
Bob Travis wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:436FC313.8EDFFFCA@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
Actually, the real "BIBLE" consists not just of those few books found
in the Christian collection, but of ALL BOOKS (Greek "biblia",
as in "biblioteka" - a library) indeed ALL THE WRITINGS EVER
PRODUCED BY HUMAN WRITERS.
In THAT sense, of course, the "BIBLE" is constantly being "updated". -- L.
So we are ALL inspired by the Word of God and we need only read the
newsgroups to stay in the loop?
===>No "word of God", just BIBLIA.
And it is up to your discernment to decide what you read and how you
analyze what you read. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Why was the bible not rewritten by "holy men of God" to reflectchanges in knowledge over the years? |
07 Nov 2005 09:09:05 PM |
|
|
SJAB1958 wrote:
H Dickmann wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Qrzbf.34659$kd.29621@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
I have often asked why the bible stopped 2000 years ago. It had been
written continuously, off and on, for the entire period previous to that.
So no more prophets? No more miracles? No more amazing tales or
developments, through all of the history we have been through since then?
Gary Eickmeier
The Canonised Bible stopped at the time it became canonised. However, since
then the Popes have written Epistles to the Churches. Many of those Epistles
deal with issues that only come up now with the advancement of Science.
So why isnt the Bible updated with these new Epistles?
===>It was decided long go what is to be included in the collection of
books called "BIBLE". -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Why was the bible not rewritten by "holy men of God" to reflect changes in knowledge over the years? |
07 Nov 2005 11:15:53 PM |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I have often asked why the bible stopped 2000 years ago. It had been
written continuously, off and on, for the entire period previous to
that. So no more prophets? No more miracles? No more amazing tales
or developments, through all of the history we have been through
since then?
Gary Eickmeier
Snigger! Book of Mormon. Dianetics. The Quran.
Principles of the Unification Church. Book
of the SubGenius. The Collected Works of
Aleister Crowley.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|