Biblical Monsters!

[Freedom_from_Chains]

Found this article on a Deist website so thought I would check it out. And it is correct, when I view the verses they talk about in the King James version of the bible and then compare them to the NIV version the mythological creatures names have been changed. So to a certain degree the Christian religion does update its lies when they just become too unbelievable for even the most ignorant among to believe.

Biblical Monsters!

This page has received a lot of attention from revealed religionists who tell me it is inaccurate. It seems they've looked up the Bible verses found below in their Bibles, but the references to the Bible monsters and fictional creatures are not found. That is because they're not looking in the King James Version of the Bible. More recent versions of "the word of God" have changed these ridiculous creatures to more reasonable creatures, such as oxen, etc.

The fact that the changes were made, proves the Deist position that the Bible, or any proclaimed "holy" book, cannot be the word of God. To take a quote from Thomas Paine that he wrote in his outstanding book on God, religion, and Deism, The Age of Reason: ". . . the idea or belief of a Word of God existing in print, or in writing, or in speech, is inconsistent in itself for reasons already assigned. These reasons, among many others, are the want of a universal language; the mutability of language; the errors to which translations are subject; the possibility of totally suppressing such a word; the probability of altering it, or of fabricating the whole, and imposing it upon the world."

The changes in the Bible that the objections to this page have brought to light, make it clear Thomas Paine was correct in his above quote. Taking a look around us, at the beautiful sun rising or setting, the blue sky and the night stars, we see and experience the real Word of God. We don't need any other. And that's good, because there isn't any other!

(con't) http://www.deism.com/monsters.htm

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. The Paine quote alone is a gem !

I'm off to slay a few dragons myself today.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

4. If you liked that quote

You may like this article by Paine on the same site.

http://www.deism.com/paine_essay01.htm

[ktowntennesseedem]

2. Don't know if it still does it,

haven't done it in a while, and I don't have Microsoft Word on my home PC. But when you type the word "inerrancy" in Word, it used to come back with only one suggested spelling: "ignorance." The spell check feature on this site includes ignorance along with several other suggestions. Still I think ignorance is the perfect correction!

[Freedom_from_Chains]

3. No it doesn't come back with that now. It accepts the word as valid

Christians probably hounded Microsoft into changing it as it was proof of the persecution of Christians.

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. To digress for a moment, the spell check at this site....

keeps insisting that the spelling of my US Senator's last name is "S-C-H-E-M-E-R".

No argument from me.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. the deal with the Bible

is that it was never a book that was set down at one time, with one author. Many of the books of the Old Testament were written down versions of verbal stories and histories. Even the earliest New Testament book (Mark, I believe), was believed to have been written down some 50 years after the events told in it.

Another problem is one of translations. They aren't new; Jesus spoke Aramaic, but many of the early Christian texts were written in Greek. Ask any Semetic language scholar, and they'll tell you that Greek is a language of dichotomy-things are one way or another, they can't be both-which goes with the thinking of the Greeks. Aramaic, on the other hand, can have something be two things at once, much like light can be a particle and a wave as explained by modern physics.

Add to this the fact that certain books that were once part of Hebrew and Christian tradition were left out by various church councils, most notably the one at Niacia, and you see that any notion that the Bible came as a whole directly from God is, to put it mildly, stretching it a bit.

If one wishes to glean a fresh interpretation of Biblical passages, I suggest they check out the books of Neil Douglas-Klotz, a Sufi Murshid and language scholar who has been directly translating the words to English in such books as "Prayers of the Cosmos" and "Desert Wisdom".

[Freedom_from_Chains]

7. I see you have done your homework

That happens when you approach the bible from a critical analysis perspective. You post some great points of which there are literally hundreds.

(begin sarcasm )But on the other side of the coin it really is much easier to just believe. (/sarcasm off)

[yellowdogintexas]

9. right on, my church stands strongly beside/behind? the above

and I have heard many Sunday School lessons which include the above
summary

one of my former ministers often stated that Revelation just barely made it into the "official" text and he personally wished it had been left out.

[classof56]

12. I've been thinking that same thing a lot lately.

Things would sure be a lot less divisive and chaotic in the world right about now if the end-timers didn't so readily accept the interpretations of Revelation and other biblical prophecies on the subject. The determination to "bring about" the rapture and armageddon, and the notion that Bush is the man God called to "bring it on", and the mayhem it's creating...well, I just shake my head in dismay at so many of my fellow Christians. I've done some studying on the subject, and recently told a fundie Texas relative that I no longer believe in the rapture. She really went off on me, ended our conversation sounding very much like she thought I'd lost my salvation. Well, I am going through a "crisis of faith", I'll admit that. But as to her conclusion about the rapture and the state of my soul--I guess we'll have to see. Meanwhile, I view the whole "Left Behind" phenomenon with a very jaundiced eye. And keep hoping God's patience with mankind is truly endless and that his sense of humor is intact!

Tired Old Cynic

[Freedom_from_Chains]

15. I view the whole "Left Behind" phenomenon with a very jaundiced eye

You might want to consider an article I saw some months back that the author of the "Left Behind" series, Tim Lahay(?), due to the success of that series, had accepted a contract to produce some other type of series over the next few years.

So apparently Timmy thinks there is enough future that he will be able to fulfill his contract and make another boatload of money. The fact is these people are hypocritical predators who understand that there is big money in selling fear.

[Tux]

18. He isn't the only one

That part of the Bible will lead to our destruction someday. Nuke the planet!

[Jokinomx]

8. Thanks for the post....

I recently had a discussion with my Brother an Deism.....

We were discussing the thoughts of the Founding Fathers about religion. Many of them were Deists... and after researching the following site..

http://www.deism.org

I have to say that I am also a Deist.

As for your comments about the bible... I couldn't agree with you more. Many words used in ancient Hebrew had several meanings....or didn't have a proper translation in English. Not to mention several books of the bible were actually taken out during the reign of Constantine. The council of Nicea took out any references to reincarnation or any other controversial topic.

With that .... thanks for the post and the new deism website.... I will have to study what they have to say.

:toast:

[conseco]

10. Deists get easily confused by English interpretations of Hebrew

The Bible was originally written in HEBREW. Transcribers took Hebrew words and annotated them to familiar terms in their language. As an example: the HEBREW word "TANNIN" found in the HEBREW version of the Bible was INTERPRETED to mean "dragon" since it best fitted the description of species at that time; remember the Hollywood "dragon" we think of today is not the "dragon" people thought of thousands of years ago, a small lizard like creature, probably very similar to the Kimodo dragon.

I could go on with this but I think I made my point. Deists like to take words out of the Bible without indicating to their reades that the word is nothing more than an interpretation of the HEBREW BIBLE in the context of the time it was transcribed.

A large number of DU's are religious Bible readers. Please keep that in mind.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

11. I have heard

that in Hebrew, to be "in a fish" or "in a big fish" was a slang term for being in some sort of trouble or dillema. When the story of Jonah was translated, they turned the slang term into a whale who swallowed him! I'd like to know if this is correct, as I'd like to use this as an example of how translation can change the meaning of a Biblical passage. Thanks!

[classof56]

14. Not too sure about the slang term you mention,

but my Bible (New International Version) says God provided a big fish that swallowed Jonah. I have always thought that was a one-time thing designed to inspire Jonah to carry out the mission God gave him, which he was running away to avoid doing. The "Jonah was swallowed by a whale" story was probably a natural interpretation of the event, since whales are the biggest thing most of us know about in the water--but then of course whales aren't fish but mammals as we now know. You're right, though. Translation can change the meaning of a Biblical passage, and there's a lot of that going around nowadays!

[classof56]

13. Welcome to DU!

You are correct, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew but I'm pretty sure the New Testament was written in Greek and Aramaic. Your point is a good one, though. Seems like some folks try awfully hard to grab onto words and phrases from the scriptures that are subject to various interpretations and use those to prove none of it is true. I'm about to google "Septuagint" to see if my memory is serving me well about this group of scholars whose mission was to translate old testament writings. It's got to where I keep my Bible next to my computer for ready reference since I've been on DU. Interesting posts here, and challenging ideas and opinions that can help us clarify and validate our own viewpoints and faith.

Glad you're with us!

[Freedom_from_Chains]

17. A large number of DU's are religious Bible readers. Please keep that in mi

I very much keep in the top of my thoughts that there are certainly many in the Democratic Party that are subject to subverting their faculties of reasoning to being subordinate to that of tribalistic mythology and superstitious fears. It is a point that seriously calls into question any possibility of the Democratic Party as having any potential of being an effective resistance to the current theocratic regime that is taking over the county.

But I guess time will tell as to which way we are going to go.

[conseco]

16. Deists also make "mistakes" with Satyrs and Unicorns !

Unicorn
The term “unicorn” is found nine times in the King James Version of the Bible (Num. 23:22; 24:8; Dt. 33:17; Job 39:9-10; Psa. 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; Isa. 34:7). “Unicorn” does not appear at all in the American Standard Version, nor in most other more modern versions. This should be a signal that the “problem” is one of translation, rather than a problem with the original, biblical text.

In ancient mythological literature, the unicorn was a horse-like animal with a prominent horn protruding from the center of its forehead. There is no evidence that this creature is alluded to in the scriptures.

In the Hebrew Old Testament, the word that is found in the texts referenced above is re’em, which is translated “wild ox” in the later versions. Most scholars believe the term refers to a large, fierce ox of the ancient world – a beast that now is extinct.

The translators of the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) rendered re’mes by the Greek term monokeros (“one horn”), on the basis of certain pictographs which were among the ruins of ancient Babylon. The carvings depicted the “wild ox” in profile form, thus seeming to suggest that the creature had but a single horn (see Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, C. Pfeiffer, H. Vos, & J. Rea, Eds., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999, p. 83). Out of this background derived the “one horn” perception.

Biblical evidence, however, indicates otherwise. Note that in Deuteronomy 33:17, the re’em is described as having “horns” (plural), not a single horn. No mythology can be charged to the Bible in connection with the term “unicorn.”

Satyr
In Greek and Roman mythology, the satyr was a half-man/half-beast god, a companion of Bacchus. There is absolutely no relationship between this pagan concept and any passage in the Bible.

In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word sa‘ir is found about fifty-two times. It is related to the term se‘ar (“hair”), which means a “hairy one.” Mostly the word is used of the male goat that was employed as a sin-offering - especially that solemn sin-offering of the day of atonement (Lev. 16).

In two cases, sa‘ir is translated “satyr” in the King James Version (Isa. 13:21; 34:14). In those passages it clearly alludes to wild goats of the sort that lived among the ruins of Babylon and Edom. Twice the term is rendered “demon” (Lev. 17:7; 2 Chron. 11:15 – KJV), where it actually signifies a pagan god that takes the form of a goat (see ESV – 2 Chron. 11:15). Of this latter passage, noted scholar J. Barton Payne wrote:

“Far from being mythological ‘satyrs,’ as claimed by criticism, the sirim appear to have been simply goat idols, used in conjunction with the golden calves” (Wycliffe Bible Commentary, C. Pfeiffer, E. Ferguson, Eds., London: Oliphants, 1969, p. 400).

*****Careful investigation demonstrates that the writers of the Bible have not lowered themselves to the superstitions of paganism.

Critical charges ever destruct upon the shoals of truth!