Posts by pseudoxristos

16

So how do you explain

by plmkrzy in

i asked this q in another thread but thought the question might fit in better over here in bible research .

thinking out loud again.

it doesn't seem to matter what bible you read, unless you're looking for discrepancies in translation it's not easy to just abandon the big picture.

pseudoxristos

Plum,

Am I understanding you right? Those two subjects are the major reason you chose to chuck the entire Bible?

Not exactly, those two subjects more or less started the process of examining the rest of the Bible and finding that there are reasonable explanations to show that it is nothing more than a work of Man. If only one part of the Bible can be shown to be incorrect then the entire Bible can be questioned. For example: If it can be shown that Moses did not write the Torah, then this brings to question the authority of someone like Jesus, who quotes Moses and assumes that he is the author.

Without getting into to much detail the following are some of the problems I've found with the Bible.

Two conflicting creation accounts,
Conflicting sections of the flood account
Didiograhps (sp?) (same story repeated 2 or more times, often in different settings) (Abraham passes his aged wife off as his sister and the King falls in love with the old lady, his nephew does the same thing with his wife)
Torah supposable written by Moses contains an account of Moses' death.
Three discernable writers of the Torah (Priestly, Yahwist, Elohist) . When the Torah was edited to combine these writings very little effort was spent to harmonize conflicting accounts.
Daniel is a pseudopigraph (Daniel was not the author) (much later writing than it claims) (not part of the prophets) (very similar to other pseudopigraphia during the same time period) (late writing explains the accuracy of the fulfilled prophesies)
Synoptic Gospels (Mark appears to be written first, with Matthew and Luke copying and using it as a general outline)
Paul never really quotes the Gospels. They seemed to have surfaced to fill the void of no biography.
The fact that there are other writings (obviously fiction) not included in the canon. With this many fictitious works around how was the canon of the NT decided.

Some of these points by themselves could be explained away, but these and many other points when combined provide strong evidence against the Bible as God's word.

How do you feel about other so called "Inspired" writings? Do you think the Bible was a knock off of prior writings or do you think all writings said to be inspired by God or a higher life-force are just story's/fairy tails? I would have to go back and read over some of your posts because I can't remember if you stopped believing in God completely or not. Sorry, I don't make notes of who still believes and who does not etc. etc. so I have to ask.

Other writings. Apocrypha, OT pseudopigraphia, NT Apocrypha:

Most are obvious fictions and just add more evidence that Men alone could have produced the writings of the Bible.

Hope this answers the questions.

pseudo

16

So how do you explain

by plmkrzy in

i asked this q in another thread but thought the question might fit in better over here in bible research .

thinking out loud again.

it doesn't seem to matter what bible you read, unless you're looking for discrepancies in translation it's not easy to just abandon the big picture.

pseudoxristos

It doesn't seem to matter what bible you read, unless you're looking for discrepancies in translation it's not easy to just abandon the big picture. Unless you didn't really buy it to begin with, starting at childhood.

I was raised as a Baptist, and I never once really doubted that the Bible was God's word. I started having serious doubts after my wife (now ex-wife) became a Witness and started trying to convert me. The more Witnesses showed me that some of my former beliefs were incorrect, the more I wanted to know the "Real Truth". I had to start from scratch and base my new beliefs on facts and not what someone had taught me as a child. After studying Biblical Criticism, I realized that there were reasonable explanations to how the Bible could have be composed not by inspiration but by mere Men. Many of the cornerstones of the Christian religion, such as the fulfilled prophecies, no longer seemed convincing. The problems with the Biblical Flood and the fact that the book of Daniel is obviously a pseudopigraph are the two main points that convinced me that the Bible is just a clever book of stories.

pseudoxristos

edited for spelling and clarification

Edited by - pseudoxristos on 1 September 2002 19:33:36

42

re: question on the magi

by A Paduan in

i think that i read somewhere that jws believe that the magi who followed the star were 'evil' .

is that the case - if so how did they figure that?

paduan

pseudoxristos

Yadirf,

You seem to have commented on everything in my post but the one sentence that had a question mark on the end of it.

Is there really a problem with it moving if it was only an illusion?

In your reply to Lee's post you said:

There are answers to those questions you know.

We are still waiting for the answer, instead of your comment about his question.

One could just as well ask: Why didn't God prevent Satan from tempting Eve to begin with, rather than wait until after the harm had been caused only to then have to furnish his son Jesus as a sacrifice in order to set matters straight in the end?

pseudo

42

re: question on the magi

by A Paduan in

i think that i read somewhere that jws believe that the magi who followed the star were 'evil' .

is that the case - if so how did they figure that?

paduan

pseudoxristos

Good point Lee.

Yet another reason to show that the author of Matthew was not writing a historical account, but a symbolic story meant to show that Jesus was the expected Messiah. He probably never expected it to be picked apart like this.

I have always wondered why an all-powerful God is portrayed as acting in such an indirect manner. The account of the Flood is also a situation where God could have acted in a more direct manner. Why would God go to all of the trouble to have Noah build an Ark, collect all of the animals, then flood the entire world. Force Noah and his family to care for these animals for a year. Then finally when the floodwaters recede have Noah immediately sacrifice some of those animals just to please him. Wouldn't it be easier for God to just snap his fingers and be done with all of the evil people?

pseudo

4

Please share your formatting tricks

by Zechariah in

jw
friends

i have observed that posters have some neat formatting tricks.

the things i have observed that i would like to know how they are done are: (1) highlighting text in different colors (2) importing running sites and displaying html files right in the post.

......... whats the secret?

pseudoxristos

What happens when you embed this page into itself?

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=35388&site=3

oops that was the link button, trying again.

Ok, not quite what I expected, but interesting anyway. Clicking refresh seems to mess up the formating at the top of the page.

Hey, thats more like it. HIT STOP IF IT KEEPS GOING!!!!!!!

Edited by - pseudoxristos on 25 August 2002 23:4:20

Edited by - pseudoxristos on 25 August 2002 23:11:29

Edited by - pseudoxristos on 25 August 2002 23:21:21

Edited by - pseudoxristos on 25 August 2002 23:23:14

Edited by - pseudoxristos on 25 August 2002 23:25:24

42

re: question on the magi

by A Paduan in

i think that i read somewhere that jws believe that the magi who followed the star were 'evil' .

is that the case - if so how did they figure that?

paduan

pseudoxristos

LOL @ mevirginia,

Maybe the moving star was a flying saucer

That fits the account better than anything else mentioned.

pseudo

42

re: question on the magi

by A Paduan in

i think that i read somewhere that jws believe that the magi who followed the star were 'evil' .

is that the case - if so how did they figure that?

paduan

pseudoxristos

Yadird,

It's interesting to note how that (even in view of their footnote) those who translated the Living Bible had concluded that the Magi did not see a MOVING "star," that is, they did not see the star in motion as is commonly believed that they did. When next seen, the star was already "standing over Bethlehem."

Of course the translators of the Living Bible don't want to admit that the Magi had seen a MOVING "star". It sounds too much like MYTH.

So let me get this straight. The Magi saw the star when they were in the East. The star had to be in the West to suggest that Jesus was born in Jerusalem or Bethlehem. Depending on how far East the Magi had been, it is possible that the star was actually over Bethlehem. After beginning their journey, the star was no longer visible. They naturally went to Jerusalem where they would expect the King of the Jews to be. After speaking with Herod, they depart again. The star again becomes visible. The star is now in the south leading them to Bethlehem.

Please explain where this non-moving-on-again-off-again-star that wasn't really a star but an illusion was located (sounds like the WT new light doctrine). It would have to be high enough to be seen from a nation in the east. Yet low enough to not only indicate Bethlehem, but the exact house in Bethlehem where Jesus was located.

Your insistence that it did not move seems to indicate that you still want to hold on to the idea that it was an actual star. Is there really a problem with it moving if it was only an illusion?

pseudo

42

re: question on the magi

by A Paduan in

i think that i read somewhere that jws believe that the magi who followed the star were 'evil' .

is that the case - if so how did they figure that?

paduan

pseudoxristos

Additional points I left out.

If this star (light) was from Satan, then he is a real dumb a**. The Magi obviously had good intentions for the beginning, because when they arrived, they worshiped Jesus and gave him gifts. They never had any intention of harming him. Satan should have known this.

Funny how pagan astrologers came to believe that Jesus was the King of the Jews and they went prepared to worship him and give gifts all because Satan guided them.

pseudo

42

re: question on the magi

by A Paduan in

i think that i read somewhere that jws believe that the magi who followed the star were 'evil' .

is that the case - if so how did they figure that?

paduan

pseudoxristos

Heathen,

Good points. If I recall correctly the meaning of the word "Lucifer" is morning star.

Matthew 2:9 When they had heard the king, they went their way; and, look! the star they had seen [when they were] in the east went ahead of them, until it came to a stop above where the young child was.

The magi were astrologers, how could they mistake a moving object like this as a star. This account seems to have been fabricated for it's symbolism. The historical accuracy of the account is unbelievable. The only thing worth debating may be its symbolism or why the author of Matthew would include it in his gospel. Yadirf's argument's over details from the point of view that it really occured are ridiculous.

One point the author of Matthew may have been trying to make was, that Jesus would be recognized by the rest of the world as the King of the Jews. The star or light represents Jesus. The Magi represent the Nations.

Matthew 4:15-17 that there might be fulfilled what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying: 15 "O land of Zeb'u-lun and land of Naph'ta-li, along the road of the sea, on the other side of the Jordan, Gal'-i-lee of the nations' 16 the people sitting in darkness saw a great light, and as for those sitting in a region of deathly shadow, light rose upon them. 17 From that time on Jesus commenced preaching and saying: "Repent, you people, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near."

pseudo

edited because I can't spell

Edited by - pseudoxristos on 25 August 2002 3:31:7

42

re: question on the magi

by A Paduan in

i think that i read somewhere that jws believe that the magi who followed the star were 'evil' .

is that the case - if so how did they figure that?

paduan

pseudoxristos

Yadirf,

Satan had made the star to reappear

So, was this an actual star (sun in a distant solar system) a distant galaxy or a planet. And does Satan really have the power to make these objects appear and reappear.

This is one point in the NT that has so many characteristics of a Myth that it hardly seems worth debating.

pseudo