Do you believe in Satan ?

[Baculus]

As far as I know, many still use the King James Bible was their choice of Bible version. Also, I doubt if much of what the "Dark Bible" discusses has changed from one translation to another.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible1.htm

I am rather curious to see what many here think of the material that the "Dark Bible" discusses, in which God, and even Jesus at times, are shown in a rather poor light when you look at passages that aren't the more glorious and loving passages from the Old and New Testament. I even found Jesus a bit rude at times: for example, when Mary and Joseph were looking for Jesus, who they thought was lost, but was actually on the stairs of the Temple talking with some rabbis, and Jesus basically said, "What I do is none of your business." Or when Jesus's parents were helping to plan a wedding, and Mary came to ask Jesus a question, and he replies, in a bit annoyed fashion, "What do you want with me, woman?" So much for honoring thy parents! :-P

But there are some other passages that also raises my own questions, but this may not be the forum for such questions.

But I do admit that the Old Testament punishment for "wall pissers" is rather odd, or that there IS a punishment for those who "pisseth" on walls.

[gchwood]

Some would say God gave us ten rules, and religion took those ten rules and created thousands.

Whoa there hoss, God gave many more than 10 rules, look at Exodus, the Ten commandments are just the most "glorified" by everyone

[gchwood]

He gave me the wrong sort of brain to understand him so I burn in hell for all eternity

I stick with malevolent as a very favorable adjective for a deity who does stuff lik that. :laugh:

but what is so malevolent about a God who give you a choice?

[Baculus]

By the way, how much of what is represented as Satan is actually in the Old, and New, testament? There was an article earlier that stated that "Satan" ahs actually been mistranslated from Hebrew texts, when the real word being used was "adversary" and not just "Satan."

Is it possible that too much emphasis is placed on Satan?

[ashburnskinsfan]

but what is so malevolent about a God who give you a choice?

I think I'm done running around in circles .... but I used my "god-given" brain, looked long and hard at all the evidence and honestly come to the conclusion that the Christian god described in the bible could not exist.

Something smart enough to engineer the universe and life itself, couldn't be the same being who did the things described in the old testament, and also he wants to burn me in hell for making a very deeply-considered (but apparently incorrect) decision.

If such a being exists, it is satan, and we're screwed anyway no matter what we do. As King Lear said, "As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods; They kill us for their sport.”

[MonkeySkin]

But I do admit that the Old Testament punishment for "wall pissers" is rather odd, or that there IS a punishment for those who "pisseth" on walls.

:rotflmao:

What was the punishment? I need to tell this to a friend of mine, that got drunk and pisseth on my dam futon :laugh:

[Jumbo]

If you get overly religious it can be a device that Satan has created. However it is not about the dogma and the rituals of the religion it is about the relationship with God that is important.

YOu don't ever have to set foot in a church to beleive in God, you just have to beleive

Your thoughts here embody some important and even charitable spiritual concepts imo, other than I don't subscribe to the conclusion than everybody has to believe under penalty of automatically suffering in some way for not believing....just my view of course...

but I better get back to work...

[gchwood]

As far as I know, many still use the King James Bible was their choice of Bible version. Also, I doubt if much of what the "Dark Bible" discusses has changed from one translation to another.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible1.htm

I am rather curious to see what many here think of the material that the "Dark Bible" discusses, in which God, and even Jesus at times, are shown in a rather poor light when you look at passages that aren't the more glorious and loving passages from the Old and New Testament. I even found Jesus a bit rude at times: for example, when Mary and Joseph were looking for Jesus, who they thought was lost, but was actually on the stairs of the Temple talking with some rabbis, and Jesus basically said, "What I do is none of your business." Or when Jesus's parents were helping to plan a wedding, and Mary came to ask Jesus a question, and he replies, in a bit annoyed fashion, "What do you want with me, woman?" So much for honoring thy parents! :-P

But there are some other passages that also raises my own questions, but this may not be the forum for such questions.

But I do admit that the Old Testament punishment for "wall pissers" is rather odd, or that there IS a punishment for those who "pisseth" on walls.

Jesus says, “Woman, what do I have to do with you?” Literally, “Woman, what to you and to me.” This sounds a little rude to us. This is a Semitism which is either a hostile answer or an intentional disengagement. Another way to translate it might be “Why do you involve me?” or “What do you want with me?” By addressing his mother as “Woman” he is distancing himself from her. He uses the same term of address in John 19:26 when he is hanging on the cross and about to leave her. I think in John 19: he is indicating that his earthly existence is over and with it, the mother-son relationship. Why does He say that here? Because, with the Baptism by John, His ministry has begun, and with it His responsibility to the Father and accomplishment of His mission has now taken even more of a priority than before.

I think that the examples you list can be refuted quite easily from your Dark Bible website

[gchwood]

By the way, how much of what is represented as Satan is actually in the Old, and New, testament? There was an article earlier that stated that "Satan" ahs actually been mistranslated from Hebrew texts, when the real word being used was "adversary" and not just "Satan."

Is it possible that too much emphasis is placed on Satan?

Satan isn't really used that much, usually something like angel of darkness instead

[techboy]

By the way, how much of what is represented as Satan is actually in the Old, and New, testament?

Survey of Bible Doctrine: Angels, Satan, Demons By: Sid Litke , Th.M. has a pretty good overview of Satan citing passages from the Old and New Testament. Satan's Part II.

Oddly enough, this article is directly related to the original topic. I'm not sure how that happened.

It's just an outline, so it's a quick read. I'd especially suggest it to Christians to get a quick overview of what the Bible has to say on the topic.

[Baculus]

I think that the examples you list can be refuted quite easily from your Dark Bible website

Thanks for the reply - I still think a lot of it is based upon a loose interpretation, which is always a danger.

Ya, there are a lot of passages and sections which are covered in the Old and New Testament. Those are much better examples to review then what I posted. (Which, btw, I am not sure was covered in the "Dark" Bible or not.) And since the passages are directly lifted from either the Old or New Testament, it would be a matter of refuting the translation itself. I also don't think such matter is so easily "refuted," since some sections shows, to me, a vengeful God, which is already accepted by some.

Bible/DarkBibleContents.htm

[Baculus]

techboy, I still wonder how much has been lost in translation. I have heard, though I am unsure of the accuracy, that the word for "food" and "fish" has been used interchangably from the original translation, though I am not sure if that was from the Greek, Coptic, or Hebrew translation.

This can be really complex stuff.

[techboy]

Well, then, I guess it's a good thing that we have the documents in the original languages.

[Baculus]

Well, then, I guess it's a good thing that we have the documents in the original languages.

Unfortunately we only have some, which is a shame - must has been lost over the years. (And there are some books that aren't necessarily included as part of either Old or New Testaments.) After all, do we really know when there is the first "complete" Bible, with the various collected books in one document, especially since there were many books, which are not included in the Old or New Testament, floating around at that time? I know Emperor Constantine was involved at one junction...

[techboy]

Read the article I posted earlier on the reliability of the Biblical documents. It's a short overview, but it's pretty good. For the New Testament, we don't have the originials, but we have so many copies (in the original Greek, which is why I said we still have the originial language) in so many places, so early, all agreeing with each other, that error in transmission is impossible. Further, we can recreate roughly 90% of the New Testament just from the writings of the early church fathers, so even if ALL of the manuscripts disappeared, we'd still have a pretty good idea of what they said. (There's also a very interesting chart comparing the number of manuscripts we have for the various books in the New Testament versus other works of antiquity that are generally accepted without question by scholars.)

Here's a quote from that article:

In his book, The Bible and Archaeology, Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, stated about the New Testament, "The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."

In short, we have very accurate renditions of the writings of Christ's Disciples and their closest followers, who should be the best sources of information on Christ and the religion He started.

As you will see from that article, the Old Testament's solid too, and is being verified every time there's a new find, such as the dead sea scrolls.

As for when the Bible was codified, it is true that Church Councils in the 4th century codified the New Testament (one Council at the urging of Constantine), but all they did was to affirm the texts that had already been known and used and handed around by the earliest church for hundreds of years before. They just formalized what everybody already knew, largely as a defense against heretics who were teaching things at odds with the doctrines and beliefs established by the earliest Church, which consisted of Christ's Disciples and their first followers, and who, presumably, would know best.

Please note that this is not even getting into the concept of divine inspiration, which is a pretty useless concept to someone who doesn't believe in God. However, I am convinced that there is substantial evidence for Christ's Ressurection, which convinces me He was God. My general belief, therefore, is that if God could create the universe and everything in it, He could make sure that He got the Book right.

[twa]

Your thoughts here embody some important and even charitable spiritual concepts imo, other than I don't subscribe to the conclusion than everybody has to believe under penalty of automatically suffering in some way for not believing....just my view of course...

but I better get back to work...

The Idea that God condemns or is responsible for ANYONES eternal damnation is not a belief of the christian faith.

Our belief is mankind thru his or her actions(sin) condemns themselves,belief in Christ is simply a way of escaping the result of our OWN actions.

Kinda like the which came first though ,the chicken or the egg? :laugh:

God doesn't make us sin,but he allows us to ,and since he created us it must be his fault.

[techboy]

Okay, this is getting old. Time to bring this to a close, and go for the win. I picked this winning technique up in the Stadium.

Ahem.

Oh my goodness, you guys are so arrogant! You think you know so much! Joe Gibbs is WAY smarter than you, so how dare you disagree with him? Joe Gibbs believes in Satan, and the Bible, and God, and therefore, so should you. He's a Hall of Famer! Have any of you non-believers made the Hall of Fame? I didn't think so...

Trust Joe Gibbs.

[Coach Williams]

Okay, this is getting old. Time to bring this to a close, and go for the win. I picked this winning technique up in the Stadium.

Ahem.

Oh my goodness, you guys are so arrogant! You think you know so much! Joe Gibbs is WAY smarter than you, so how dare you disagree with him? Joe Gibbs believes in Satan, and the Bible, and God, and therefore, so should you. He's a Hall of Famer! Have any of you non-believers made the Hall of Fame? I didn't think so...

Trust Joe Gibbs.

I second that bull****

[techboy]

Appeal to Authority is never a fallacy when the authority is Joe Gibbs.

[techboy]

By the way, I don't think I ever publicly answered the question. My answer is yes.

One night, I was hitchhiking down a long and lonesome road, and the devil appeared and demanded I play The Best Song in the World. So I said "okay". Needless to say, the beast was stunned.

[Mickalino]

By the way, I don't think I ever publicly answered the question. My answer is yes.

One night, I was hitchhiking down a long and lonesome road, and the devil appeared and demanded I play The Best Song in the World. So I said "okay". Needless to say, the beast was stunned.

And that song wasn't "The Devil Went Down To Georgia" ??

[techboy]

I don't remember. This song is just a tribute. (This is the music video version).

[IBleedBurgundy&Gold1369225669]

I'm here. Do you believe in me now?

[techboy]

I'm a little disappointed. We've had the obligatory relative/self jokes, but no (that I remember)

Gil Brandt/Jerry Jones/Clint Longley/other member of the Cowboys

Dick Cheney/Karl Rove/George Bush/other Republican/Neocon

Hillary Clinton/Howard Dean/Nancy Pelosi/other Democrat

jokes.

What gives?

[IBleedBurgundy&Gold1369225669]

I'm a little disappointed. We've had the obligatory relative/self jokes, but no (that I remember)

Gil Brandt/Jerry Jones/Clint Longley/other member of the Cowboys

Dick Cheney/Karl Rove/George Bush/other Republican/Neocon

Hillary Clinton/Howard Dean/Nancy Pelosi/other Democrat

jokes.

What gives?

Go pray.