The Bible rumors

[Elijah John]

Do you believe the Bible rumors about God? The negative ones, like Him condoning slavery, or Him drowning babies in the Flood?

Do you believe rumors against the people in your life that you love?

Do you believe the worst that's said about them? Or the best about them.

For debate,

How can anyone who claims to love God believe the worst things said about him, i.e. the negative Bible rumors?

(apologies to DI for the term "rumors" I borrowed for this post )

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 7 by Tcg]

Did you notice that God says that the "slaves" must be treated well?

I don't see that in the verses I quoted.

Servitude was not like the ruthless treatment of slaves in our day.

Please present the evidence that lead you to this conclusion.


Tcg

[onewithhim]

This will generate different answers no doubt. What is good to some is not good to others.

Me personally, what God does I would be foolish to criticize. Who am i to decide what is right for God. I only know how to think like a human. Because thats what i am

I do know that I would never believe in a religion that says it was my fault that God killed himself. (Jesus) becsuse I refused to obey him. Abd to have statues and paintings if him bloodued abd nearly naked and dead on a cross?? For the love of God.... that is God hanging there. They have no shame in doing this. Instead they'll say it shows how much he loves them. No. It shows what they really wish God was like. They love the idea of him suffering for them. This shows hiwy much they love him.

Christians somehow feel the God of Israel is an angry God who is unapproachable. And Jesus the god is just the opposite. Well... Christianity is merely a reflection of theur hearts desire. In their hearts they know they disobey God and refuse his law. Of course they belueve they cant be righteous in God's eyes. Thats because they don't try. So yeah...they dont think highly of themself. So when someone like myself says that they can fo right in God's eyes they reject it. They believe God thinks like they do. They cant forgive their mother/ father/sister/ brother/ friend for ________ so they think God wont forgive them. Thats why they accept Jesus as God because then God is like them. But by believing a human was sinless in the flesh they are admitting to God that it can be done. A guy from Nazareth could do it. Why coukdnt they? It can be done. Their whole religion is centered aroubd a nan who proved it can be done. If I were them i wouldn't be in a hurry to tell God that they know the law can be kept but they just didn't want to do it. Theyd rather have God kill himself instead. Ouch!!

I wouldn't believe in a religion that says even that "God killed himself." How can God die? I would say God cannot die.

And for it to be your fault or my fault? Nah. YHWH isn't looking to blame anyone, nor does he keep account of our faults. He looks for the good in people.

"If errors were what you watch, O Jah, then who, O Jehovah, could stand?" (Psalm 130:3)

"He has not dealt with us according to our sins, nor has he repaid us what our errors deserve. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so great is his loyal love toward those who fear him....As a father shows mercy to his sons, Jehovah has shown mercy to those who fear him. For he well knows how we are formed, remembering that we are dust." (Psalm 103:10,11,13,14)


I agree that it is gross and heart-breaking to display images of Jesus all bloody, hanging on a cross. Who would do that who really loves him? Would I hang up a picture or make a statue of my brother who was murdered, with his head half blown off and blood everywhere? Why do people do this?

Actually, I think that Jesus being dead is just how Christendom wants him. The RCC has said that the Popes are "Jesus on Earth." If he's dead, they don't have to take orders from anyone, they feel. I shudder at what the Popes carry around with them---a staff made of pitiful skinny bloody dead Jesus hanging on a cross.

I agree that mainline Christendom teaches what they themselves have in their hearts. They have visions of people roasting in a fire, so they teach it as scriptural fact. It is not scriptural fact. They just like the idea. People who turned from YHWH would sacrifice their own children in fire to pagan gods, so we can see that godless people kind of like that whole idea. They blacken YHWH's reputation by teaching such lies.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 11 by Checkpoint]

I think what you say about removing punctuation is a fair idea. It would be better than having a comma in the wrong place. What a great idea to leave it out of Luke 23:43! I think that then the people that insist that Christ and the thief would go somewhere that day would stop using that verse to prove their erroneous point.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 7 by Tcg]

Did you notice that God says that the "slaves" must be treated well?

I don't see that in the verses I quoted.

your post #7: ..."you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 11 by Checkpoint]

I think what you say about removing punctuation is a fair idea. It would be better than having a comma in the wrong place. What a great idea to leave it out of Luke 23:43! I think that then the people that insist that Christ and the thief would go somewhere that day would stop using that verse to prove their erroneous point.

Thanks.

"in the wrong place"?

That's what each school of thought claims they don't do, but that their opponents do do in order "to prove their erroneous point".

The translators have created conflict over a verse that says nothing about the state of the dead, and thus neither confirms nor denies either view.

It was neither spoken nor recorded for that purpose.

Grace and peace be to you.

[marco]

Rumors against God's Word started with Satan.....
The first rumor was an exaggeration. Which Eve was quick to pick up on.

"At this the woman said to the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. But God has said about the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden: ‘You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; otherwise you will die.’� - Gen 3:2, 3

I have to remind myself here that we are dealing with a creation story, an idea of primitive construction that places homo sapiens in some mystery location, whicht has just been landscaped by the Primal Craftsman. And we are talking of the two characters not as we would discuss Anna Karenina's suicide, with an eye on Tolstoy's expert portrayal, but with unshakeable belief in its absurd truth.

Still, let us immerse ourselves analytically in the nonsense. Rumours involve various people spreading part-truths. The person culpable is the one who started the rumour, not those deceived and in our speculative scenario, the villain was Satan, Iago's poor equivalent. In the creation play he is left to rule and reappear while the impotent puppets, Adam and Eve, are cruelly punished.

Later "rumours" are spread by those charged, apparently, with disseminating news of the Maker. They might be lies about Jehovah, but they are what is in the "Good Book" and are presumably sacrosanct. Our modern disbelief is not like Eve's: human writers told us stories or rumours and our own intelligence must decide whether or not to believe these humans. In our disbelief we are not disobeying God. He has told us nothing.

The reader's conclusion is that that the character, Jehovah, is not a Macbeth, misled into killing by "supernatural solicitings", but the instigator of nastiness. He giveth and very quickly he taketh away, for a crime of his own designing. Allow a snake to slither and people are bitten. The sensible question is why would one allow a serpent into an innocent garden and why would one place a "forbidden tree" there? Its entire purpose would be to set up a "fall".

We are lucky to have Shakespeare, once more, come to our aid with a wise speech:



Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

I learned this by heart as a child. As a child I heard adult lips repeat the story of Adam. As years passed it became obvious where truth was located. Macbeth is a guide to life infinitely better than the rubbish that grandly calls itself Genesis. When I read the words "Eve was quick to...." and realise, in horror, that they are offered as truth, I experience great sadness. Taken as a yarn there is some slight merit in Adam's rib and the Eden orchard; but there is much more merit and depth when Eve is replaced by Alice and Eden by Wonderland.

[marco]

[Replying to post 3 by marco]

None of that is in the least bit problematic for me, is there any reason why it should be? What is the link between the OPs "rumours about the bible", my answer and your comment?

I thought the onus was on the reader to make such decisions. Supplying footnotes is tedious. Your post informed us that you correct wrong interpretations. Presumably, this piece of information was relevant to the OP in that it related to the correction of false rumours about God.

My post examines how one goes about making such corrections about the false rumours of the OP. It involves interpreting; it involves accepting a translation; it involves trust in the accuracy of a translation not to mention the level of expertise that the corrector brings to the supposed rumours. Hence our correction of false rumours relies a lot on many assumptions. My point.

[marco]

This translation problem has a simple solution:

Do not interpret either way; that is, just translate the sentence and do not put that comma in anywhere.

This would mean they do not "make a decision based on what[they] already believe", but leave that to the reader.

Is this a serious suggestion for avoiding misunderstanding? The reader is then left to decide which of the two versions is correct and will make this decision based on preconceived ideas.

In general, the reader is largely responsible for taking away a meaning and when a reader is told that God kills children or wants a man to kill his son, then decisions have to be made about the nature of a being who wills this. In a way the bible is written by the reader, by the interpreter, by the translator.

.

[marco]

[Replying to post 11 by Checkpoint]

I think what you say about removing punctuation is a fair idea. It would be better than having a comma in the wrong place. What a great idea to leave it out of Luke 23:43! I think that then the people that insist that Christ and the thief would go somewhere that day would stop using that verse to prove their erroneous point.

It is NOT an erroneous interpretation; it is a possible interpretation. I happen to think it is a PLAUSIBLE interpretation because the one you favour has the dying Jesus needlessly remind the thief that he's speaking to him TODAY. One would suppose that there would be no superfluous words in one of Christ's final statements.

[marco]

Who are you saying is in denial? Careful here. Who are you comparing to the abused making excuses? Believers? I doubt the average believer thinks of themselves as abused.

To be fair he's referring to people who accept the horrible things attributed to Jehovah and still stick with him. Some people do not accept Yahweh commits atrocities. The analogy of people persevering with brutality is not inappropriate. It does not apply to you since your strategy is to take adverse reports as "rumours."

The OP is suggesting that God is not the abuser, but people are lying about him in the Bible, and wondering why anyone would believe the Bible calumny waged against YHVH in the Bible, especially those who purport to love Him.

But there are many believers who accept the reports as facts. How does one reconcile belief in a loving God with belief that he murders infants? One suggestion is that people are reluctant to move from an unhappy situation and they love God, whatever is reported of him. There's a nice song from the lovely musical Carousel:

"Oh, what's the use of wond'ring
If he's good or if he's bad?
He's your feller and you love him,
That's all there is to that."

I think that captures the situation perfectly with Yahweh.