[Ace]

I mean, Revelations is just a set of letters from some guy that the Catholics decided to stick in the Bible.

I don't take that book seriously either. It's not even in the Bible. Revelation, on the other hand...

That's what he was talking about. It's a not-so-subtle 'Nero is evil but don't worry, the good times for us are around the corner' hidden in a 'revelation' from god.

There's already been a few discussions on this, such as how '666' is actually a mistranslation of a number that represented Nero, etc.

But bah, believe your doomsday stuff if you really want to.

[Bobboau]

Charismatic, give me an online version of your Bible. or at the very least tell me what yours says in NUmbers 31:17-18

[achtung]

I mean, Revelations is just a set of letters from some guy that the Catholics decided to stick in the Bible.

I don't take that book seriously either. It's not even in the Bible. Revelation, on the other hand...

Is another Grammar Inquisition about to begin?

But I dunno I just heard on the histroy channel that all the parts that are "Fire and Brimstone" so to speak were added by the Catholics from several letters some guy wrote.

[Janos]

If this thread is not locked by tomorrow night, I will personally flame you all for this BS. Reading all of your posts has really pissed me off.

TAKE NOTE: Most if not, ALL of the versions of the bible you guys have posted have been: 1) off, 2) plain wrong, or 3) a really ****ed up transilation or a really bad mispelling.

Yes were all entitled to our opinions, and my opinion is that all your opinions suck:P and i dislike them greatly.

As i said, by thursday night. Il make sure to bring my bible and correct you all (if i can, heck, im only 18 and i know the bible a little but not enough; im still willing to try and attempt it).

Bah-humbug to you all..

I think Bible should be outlawed.

[karajorma]

If this thread is not locked by tomorrow night, I will personally flame you all for this BS. Reading all of your posts has really pissed me off.

Then your comments will be removed and hopefully you'll be monkied. The topic has managed to stay pretty much flame free. I doubt any of the admins will want to look so bad as to stiffle discusssion just because one person couldn't bear to hear what is written in some versions of the bible.

TAKE NOTE: Most if not, ALL of the versions of the bible you guys have posted have been: 1) off, 2) plain wrong, or 3) a really ****ed up transilation or a really bad mispelling.

And yet they were all taken directly from a bible. The whole point of the thread was to expose the crap that is in some versions of the bible that people still use and worship from. IF you have an issue with what it actually says then your beef is with the people who worship those versions.

Instead of being an idiot and deliberately flaming in order to get this thread closed how about acting like a rational adult human being and simply posting what your bible says for each of those passages along with the name of the bible you're using.
To be honest I doubt your version says anything that different but I'm prepared to lsiten.

[Annorax]

monkied.

Explain.

[kode]

monkied.

Explain.

a monkey is not abel (haha) to post in this particular forum (hard light), but all the others.

[Kamikaze]

Well, this thread's about as useful as reading the newspaper and looking for bits that would sound awesome out of context. I'm not going to be the one to suggest that people just learn to read the newspaper, though.

That's the whole point of the thread. It's showing how idiotic it is to take the bible literally (e.g. people who argue against the big bang or evolution because of Genesis) because there's a whole lot of stuff that, if taken literally, depicts God and religion badly in the bible.

[TrashMan]

well, I was gonna call the "show me a source" card, but then I remembered that trashman, being trashman, is full of crap.

Hey, my job is to take care of trash, but I'm not the one who produces it...

Oh..and from your own link:

"The 27 books of the New Testament were written by various authors at various times and places. Unlike the Old Testament, the New Testament was written in a relatively narrow span of time, probably over less than a century, from c. AD 50 to c. AD 125."

[kode]

well, I was gonna call the "show me a source" card, but then I remembered that trashman, being trashman, is full of crap.

Hey, my job is to take care of trash, but I'm not the one who produces it...

Oh..and from your own link:

"The 27 books of the New Testament were written by various authors at various times and places. Unlike the Old Testament, the New Testament was written in a relatively narrow span of time, probably over less than a century, from c. AD 50 to c. AD 125."

oh, well, trashheap, also from my own link:
The New Testament was written by many different people. The traditional view is that all the books were written by apostles or their followers (e.g. Mark and Luke). Modern scholars now largely discount this assumption aside from seven of Paul's letters.

[Goober5000]

It depends on which "modern scholars" they're talking about.  Wikipedia is not without its own emergent bias.

[Stealth]

Then your comments will be removed and hopefully you'll be monkied. The topic has managed to stay pretty much flame free. I doubt any of the admins will want to look so bad as to stiffle discusssion just because one person couldn't bear to hear what is written in some versions of the bible.

I think we can all agree on the fact that whoever wrote the book was an idiot

Old Testament = full of crap that was written/added by crazy priests (or should I say rabi?)

but then I remembered that trashman, being trashman, is full of crap.

how idiotic it is to take the bible literally

Instead of being an idiot...

you may not be directly flaming someone in most cases, but you're definately 'flaming' what a lot of people believe in, which, as i remember, was not the original purpose of this thread...

[karajorma]

I think we can all agree on the fact that whoever wrote the book was an idiot

Blackdove took great pains to point out that this was his opinion and not a flame. So that quote is rather out of context.

Old Testament = full of crap that was written/added by crazy priests (or should I say rabi?)

You'll notice that Trashman is the one who made that comment. This is the view of someone who is one of the most vocal christians on the board, saying that the Old Testament is full of crap even though it is part of the holy book he believes in.  Don't be getting into an all us and them situation.

but then I remembered that trashman, being trashman, is full of crap.

Fair enough that's a flame. I only said it had remained pretty flame free, not completely flame free. And given the nature of the quote above I'd bet you're probably thinking that he was full of it too. Even if you didn't say it.

Instead of being an idiot...

you may not be directly flaming someone in most cases, but you're definately 'flaming' what a lot of people believe in, which, as i remember, was not the original purpose of this thread...

Nonetheless deliberately flaming in an attempt to close the thread is a childish over-reaction. The correct response is to tell people not to flame. I'd rather see the topic back on track too.

[Ghostavo]

You can't have a thread "mocking" the bible without legos!

http://www.thebricktestament.com/

[TrashMan]

oh, well, trashheap, also from my own link:

Tsk, tsk...now is that a nice way to behave? Such namecalling.. someone should have washed your mouth out with soap..

EDIT:
@kajorama
Calling the Old Testament full of crap was a bad move from my side. It's not nearly that bad, but it does have some part that doesn't sound like God had anything to do with..

[kode]

Tsk, tsk...now is that a nice way to behave? Such namecalling.. someone should have washed your mouth out with soap..

I've never pretended to be nice. And it's not even really namecalling. namecalling would've been like "you worthless piece of human excrement"

[WMCoolmon]

Hooooookay.

I'm a big supporter of people taking responsibility for their religion, to a certain extent. Obviously if the Pope passes some edict, there's not much your average Catholic can do about that. But it's not like you can deny that the Pope did that if a whole bunch of people complain. If someone calls themself a Christian, and then starts running around and shooting and raping 'sinners'...according to the Bible, I don't think it's possible for anyone to judge them as not being a Christian, because they'll have sinned as well.

If you really aren't comfortable with the stuff that your religion, whatever it may be, says you should or shouldn't do, you should probably think about that...cause you'll be living with the guy who comes up with the rules for awhile, at least if you're in one of the derivations of Christianity.

So, I mean, own up. If this stuff is in the bible, and you think the bible is generally true, and you're offended that people are pointing this stuff out (which in today's context seems brutal) then the only way you're going to stop feeling offended is to
A) come to terms with not supporting that part of the bible (Whether it's just "that part is stupid, I'm not going to support THAT" or something more reasoned.)
Or, you can B) convince people that the passage is translated wrong.
Or, C) convince everyone that the passage is right.


For example, the first quote in the thread. Was the passage translated improperly? Or do you think we should adopt a practice of forcing rapists to marry their victims?

[Whitelight]

lets try Numbers 31 on for size, some highlights

17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

in other words God comanded the his people to rape pillage and plunder, to slaughter captives, captive children, and keep the little girls as basicly sex slaves. aparently God himself gets a little peice of the score later on too.

[/td][/tr][/table]

 Where in the bible does it say to rape the girls, they were saved because they were virgins and kept as maids(to do cleaning and cooking) (not sex slaves).. Its that simple.. I can see not all of us take the bible as it was ment to be taken.

(edit) Everyone takes the bible differently, but if you read it carefully, you may learn something.

[Charismatic]

... Il take to what Kara said.

Sorry all. Sorry i missed my chance to correct you all. Something came up.

[Deepblue]

You can't have a thread "mocking" the bible without legos!

http://www.thebricktestament.com/

I think you mean "without lego."