Supporting the "scientific Bible": You need to remember that when the Bible was written some 1500 years ago they were... forgive me, simpletons...! They probably sat there and babbled over numbers and said "give me a big number!" and the answer from the buddy was "6000?". Alright, that's a big number, my good man, it is now written! This is the way the Bible came into being. They had no clue over 900 000 things and so on... And they certainly didn't have the Carbon-14 (C-14) dating method in place either! Thus, I think one can expect most or all "reasonable religious people to reject or do away with the old notions of "religious truths" and that it's not serious to bother to hold these old views AGAINST religious people _unless_ they promote these stupid ideas of "these ancestors of ours, these simpletons!" Alright? Put the idiocy to the anachronistic religious people...! By the way, the highest number of the Roman Numbers is M = 1000, so there they sit with 6 Ms and it's almost impossible to describe 900 000 things with the Roman Numbers. So certainly, the "Scientific Bible" should be made!
One thing more over this "evolution theory" (as if it could be crucial whatsoever): There is NO religious _duty_ to stay WITH the description of fx. the Bible (by Noah's Ark and the 6000 year old planet) as such. The core of Religious belief is ethics, meaning, true description and a possibleknowledge entailment of its claims of Heaven or some stage toward reincarnation! Thus, every Religious person can _accept science w/o qualms and PLACE Religion on TOP of this, w/o any (formal) problem_ whatsoever! This is point nr. 2 _pro_-Scientific Bible!
Note: first written to Facebook 04.01.2012, by time, 03:39 CET.
The Old Testament is, by the Norwegian Bible, as published from the Norwegian Biblical Company, 1077 pages. Surely, this can be "updated", don't you think? [May this be based on the King James Version of 1611?]
ReplyDeleteI also note our common ground of the Old Testament by Early Monotheism as culture! (I'm not a Christian and favour metaphorical/symbolic approach to Religious teachings from the Old Testament that we now may make a commentary to on Scientific Grounding, making it far more suitable for the young to rest their minds on in growing up!)
ReplyDeleteThe word for God in Hebrew is YHWH, now it's spelt Yahweh, I've forgotten the h in the word above.
ReplyDeleteWhen I refer to the Old Testament in the future, I'll refer to the Septuagint (LXX)! Alright?
Some links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism , http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/TextsOT.PNG and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_testament !
Hebrew Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
Let's also hold in consideration the Latin Vulgate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Vulgate !
Vulgate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
So there is no doubt that the Early Monotheism that I've referred to by the Old Testament /can/ be named Hebrewism represented by the Hebrew Bible, including various versions, but only 2 being interesting for myself, the Latin Vulgate and the Septuagint (LXX)! Alright?
So we identify a good target here by: "The Eastern Orthodox books included in the Old Testament are the seven deuterocanonical books listed above, plus 3 Maccabees and 1 Esdras (also included in the Clementine Vulgate), while Baruch is divided from the Epistle of Jeremiah, making a total of 49 Old Testament books in contrast with the Protestant 39-book canon.[29]". This makes the Catholic Bible, the Deuterocanonical books, very promising because you get to evaluate and potentially adjust a bigger, more true set! This can make a fine entry for our "Scientific Bible" project as described elsewhere in response to Roman Numbers and C-14 Dating Method. Good?
The small comments above are also written to Facebook first, you know, some time around the last 48 hours [time stamp for this comment, CET if nothing's changes by the Blogspot team].
ReplyDeleteFinally, my search for the particular mentioning of God's Lamb pays off by: (The hunt has been...)
ReplyDeleteAny help from anyone, please, over the story in the Bible where a sheep/lamb/goat is gathered around by some people to "lay down the sins on" and for it to be sent into the desert? Does anybody know? It's not the most common quote of the lamb/sheep/goat in the Bible and that I may be looking for only a single reference throughout the Bible, all of its 1000 pages (appx.) or so. "The Bible is tough sometimes." LFOlsnes-Lea
Alright! Here is something: "The subject of this study concerns the activities of the high priest on the Day of Atonement; in particular, confessing the sins of Israel upon the head of the goat that was sent away into the wilderness (Lev.16:21)." by URL, http://www.israelofgod.org/azazel.htm ! LFOlsnes-Lea. Done!
First, some on Jesus (Weapon/Metaphorical): King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
ReplyDeleteJesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)
Second: It has been said that John of the Bible, by book of John, is /the/ most dubious book in the Bible and that he really may have been outside the Christian belief because he's disposition wouldn't be suitable for it! Agree?
Thirdly. Formal notice: I am strictly devoted to a kind of *commentary* to the original documents of the Bible, adding everything, from the Torah/Talmud, Bible (most comprehensive version, Ev. Luth, and Cath., some research), Quran and some matters from the Bahai faith. So, I do not touch nor "contest" (as if I could ever do that) any of these holy documents (to believers).
I think I withdraw on John as dubious and rather stick to the other "word" that says he "is second to Peter as Peter is first and both relate to Jesus as these" and Peter is known as Peter, the rock of faith. This means of course that John is second best "believer" to both Jesus and God. So this is it for now. Enjoy (your Bible)!
ReplyDeleteIn addition, John starts with the classic Jehovas' sentence: In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.(John 1:1) This is pretty strong wording in the Bible and I think it stands well as it does!
Some preaching for today. I note that 1 Corinthians 3:16 - 3:17 reads:
ReplyDelete16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is sacred, and you are that temple.
Just put this with Plotinus and forget still that the above needs to be compatible with the Path to God, that you DO NOT replace God with yourself, falling prey to the Cardinal Sin of "Pride"/"Aloofness", the sin no. 7!
“In God, whose word I praise— in God I trust and am not afraid. What can mere mortals do to me?” Psalm 56:4 NIV..
More on the Bible as well, claim: instead of throwing oneself in to prove that Noah's Ark never could experience flooding like that, I claim instead that Noah's Ark is really the story-telling/metaphor of how human kind assumes at the time of writing or later the responsibility of all animals (and nature too, at the time of writing) and also has the responsibility to "ship" this to a better future, safely into the future, well-knowing that life can be a matter of "high seas" and "more calm seas" and that human kind now, at the time of writing controls fire and hunt animals effectively! Cheers!
To "man-up", valid for all men, women and children, may be the answer to "manna" of the Bible in such a way that inspiration from God becomes virtually a physical fruit that replaces food for a people marching through desert, starving!
For pre-emptive strike toward "any retard" out there in the World who thinks I do not understand the notion of (necessary) God as modal notion. Here are the 4 "components" more definitely put, in terms of religious belief:
ReplyDeleteNec. E -> Nec. God
(Nec. E biconditional Nec. God)
Nec. M -> Nec. God
(Nec. M bicond. Nec. God)
Nec. H (Heaven, "entailment") -> Nec. God
(Nec. H identity Nec. God)
Nec. D (definition of God) identity Nec. God)
These are all logical and /easy/ to deduce to *Nec. God!!!*
Btw, the cardinal sins are written in Proverbs of Solomon / Proverbs 6:16-19. The cardinal virtues stand differently.
ReplyDeleteGiven some people's insistence (probably out of stupidity), the upside-down cross /is/ the Satanic Cross because it doesn't relate to Jesus and because to hang people upside-down is an act of torture and that people die from it, being in this condition after /appx./ 2 hrs, given the "rumours from the Dr. Mengele-Club"!
ReplyDeleteThere are only 3 theological/Biblical cardinal virtues and they are "faith, hope, and love" and are found in 1 Cor 13.
ReplyDeleteThe other 4 are developed by St. Aquinas and St. Augustine. Check for yourself.
(My) Scientific Bible (after the 1901 version of a woman): Attempts on making a scientific bible have been made earlier and at that point in time "The Science of God: Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom" by Gerald L. Schroeder (1994) has been a part of my own inspiration, in being criticised for a kind of "flood" view that other people, scientists of geology and others, have criticised shortly after publishing by "Illustrated Science" (Norw. "Illustrert Vitenskap" with url, http://illvit.no/ ). There are lots of other "scientific bibles" from what I can find on Amazon. Enjoy yours! To the Catholic Church, I've also been intrigued by the so-called Galileo-question, that has probably attracted a good deal of negative attention to Christianity up to our times. This is now slashed, I believe and that the Catholic Church and other churches are now moving forward with some greater confidence, perhaps. Times are difficult and people are asked to arm themselves with guns and protect homes with the usual intrusion-countermeasures.
ReplyDeleteUpon my other efforts to religiousness around the World, I bring also this (as happy they may always be, Jesus, God, the Holy Ghost combined):
ReplyDeleteI bring these good news today, despite general difficulties of society and I hope you like them:
Given this Foundation, I'd like to point out that religious faith now lies inside the fortress of 3 very hard notions:
Privacy - the Atheists bring NOTHING extra when it comes to religion and we are entitled the religious belief (always, insofar as this is commensurable with law and order, the vitae of human kind) because it's a private matter (or pertaining to specific/legal places of worship, the churches, temples, mosques or whatever, well, well, red in face or not, "synagogues"?)!
2nd, Modal God of Logics, the hardest academic notions, stand (almost) theoretically irrefutable to the Atheists! They are struggling with the logical questions nowadays! Ref.: also Kripke on Modal Logics!
3rd, the notions of the Cardinal Sins are so distasteful that it even shatters Kierkegaard's doubt be "Either/Or", witness, please, Se7en/Seven with Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman as "evil or evil" by the Cardinal Sins and add as Priest's final words: "with this [fetus in a box] I've brought (my) Wrath clean!" as the "Priest" has then conducted an insane wrathful war against the (hidden lust of his of the) Cardinal Sins, as Wrath over the other 6!
All in all, You are very defended, the fortress likely to stand forever! Good?
(You may take this also to the Humanism by https://www.facebook.com/RichardDawkinsFoundation?fref=ts .)
Also by a friend's story to another by Perfect Lovers Slash Perfect Strangers (also as "flow" and "oceans" by Deep Purple).
Best wishes,
Lenny Olsnes-Lea
More under "Seven" as the sins of distaste:
It, the notion of the seven cardinal sins, is also propelled by Kierkegaard's notion of "aesthetics" and as importance grow by the 3 steps, like rocket stages lifting a cargo to outer space, to the stars, so also is aesthetics giving power to ethics and aesthetics and ethics to religiousness! Note also that the seven cardinal sins are found /in/ the Bible "and not somewhere arbitrary", that is, the Bible gets the moral virtue for describing them overall and thus impels the readers (further) to believe in it, becoming (more) Christians, as the Bible makes the case for winning "hearts and minds"! /Therefore/, by logical deduction, "Seven" is a case for Christianity and other religions and not "something else"!
(Actually an 8-year old idea, but here is:)
ReplyDeleteThe tree of knowledge:
the tree of knowledge as I interpret it under this new project of mine as the Scientific Bible Ver. 2, must be the the tree of knowledge as the tree that has the knowledge that's dangerous such as the knowledge of how to abuse and torture people.
With the forbidden fruit (of energies).
One the other hand, all the other trees of good knowledge are there where you can eat all the fruit you can possibly have the appetite for!
Iffy, Telepathy as part of ESP proves true, another little paper-hill of Atheist argumentation slams to the ground! Check for yourself, please.
ReplyDeleteFirst victim: the 747 Gambit (for the magical wine-making of Jesus, you need to compare this with Jesus walking on water).
When it comes to (Metaphorical) Jesus, as a Christian counter-part to Jihad of Islam/Quran, one may want to remember that storytelling tricks can take many turns and that "Jesus was given birth to by Mary, the (Holy) Virgin, just to mention one example!
ReplyDelete