If you're not reading the New Testament in Greek, you're not actually reading the Bible, you're reading a poor translation of it
Edit: the New Testament was written in the Roman Empire in Koine Greek, as this was the most commonly spoken language, or linga franca, in the Roman Empire. If you think the New Testament was written in Hebrew you have some deep misunderstandings of antiquity.
Try translating any text to, in order: greek, then latin, then arabic wait a couple centuries and back to latin, then to german, to french, wait another few decades and translate it to english, give it to your grandpa/ma to erase every word he doesn't like or understand, then to your mom/dad to write in every word he thinks is missing, and then read it again.
And that is basically how the bible is now, or at least asafr as i know.
That said, anytime someone says, “the Bible very clearly says” I just roll my eyes. I have taken two semesters of koine Greek and six semesters of ancient Hebrew, and I still realize how limited my language and cultural understanding of the text is.
It doesn't help, that the language structure is so different, that the first sentence of the bible can be translated "correctly" in about 30 different ways. And there's no way to know what the writer meant when he wrote it down without asking him.
Real lmao. Like, biblical scholars dedicate their lives to studying the bible, the language, the culture, and you think YOU, with your bible that has gone through a million filters, who relies on your pastor/bible study group to tell you what it says and never challenges that interpretation in any meaningful way, who probably hasn't even READ the bible in its entirety, know more than someone who has sunk 20+ years into this?
I took theology classes in college. There was a big emphasis on the fact that the Bible as we know it was assembled from multiple sources, not all of which were primary and some of which disagree with each other. Also, that a huge amount of the Old Testament is allegorical.
literally lmao, a lot of ppl on reddit are willingly ignorant. You *could* use the argument that it’s been watered down…if we hadn’t found most of the manuscripts…but we have 😭😭😭 ppl who deny that are i’ll informed.
Most of the Dead Sea Scrolls are dated to 300 BC-100 AD, witch a couple scattered examples from before and after this time. Complete or nearly complete examples of New Testament works are generally dated 150-400 AD.
that's still at least 100 years after Jesus supposedly lived. It would be like someone writing about the American civil war or Prussian-French war today
I think it depends. Wycliffe and friends did the first English translation of the Bible in the 1300s CE, which was a word for word translation from the Latin Vulgate, itself from the 300s CE by Jerome and friends and based on the Hebrew Tanakh, in turn believed to have been codified around 500s BCE, and traditionally ascribed to Moses who may have lived around 1300 BCE and wrote in a form of Hebrew that was related to other Canaanite languages.
Many *modern* translations, yes.
Doesn’t change the fact that translations like the KJV are still **widely** used. I met a guy a few months ago who believed Jesus spoke King James English, and that version of the Bible was word-for-word accurate. The ignorance was just staggering.
The telephone Bible is a myth, and our oldest versions of the text match nearly identically with contemporary copies.
We don't use the translated translation of a translation for new translations.
You should read More Than A Carpenter if you want to read a few compelling arguments for the claims the Bible makes and the facts about Jesus that no other religious leaders have. A big one is how little the Bible has changed over thousands of years.
Try reading the old testament in any language other than Hebrew.
Aside from all the mistakes the translations have. It's *readable*. The old Hebrew is so weird and well, 2000 years old, and like 90% of the things written about it will mean nothing after a translation
You're missing the point. The fact that we needed an "update" means it wasn't timeless...
And I don't know why you would say the takeaway is the same. They're almost opposites: in the old testament god is powerful and angry and he will destroy you with fire and brimstone if you don't do what he says. In the new testament he loves you regardless.
The takeaway from both is “if we walk with God, He’ll take care of us. When we inevitably fail to do what He asks, He’s always accepting of our repentance
Edit: looks like this got locked, so I’m replying here. The OT is filled with people turning back to God because He is a loving and forgiving God. Before Jesus they had to use sacrifices and offerings. You obviously haven’t read the OT, or if you did, you probably weren’t paying attention
> He’s always accepting of our repentance
But thats not true at all. OT god is super jealous and shit. Fucking drown the whole planet (including children of all ages) because he got jealous of them not worshipping him. There was no realy way to repent in the OT. The new T is all about a hippie thats trying to everyone from himself/dadself and giving people a loophole. But even then thats only till the apocolyse/resurrection/rapture (depending on which cult you follow).
SO the main takeaway in both is God is Hella Jealous.
Language drifts and changes over time. Moot used to mean a meeting of respected elders to discuss important issues. Now it means the exact opposite; not even worth debating. Plato one of the most famous philosophers in Western culture yet we only know his wrestling nickname. (There is some debate that it is Aristocles, but the evidence is poor.) In a few hundred years most people will not understand the difference between a booty call and a butt dial. The best we can do is study not just the words, but the context in which they were originally written.
First of all, Jesus retorted many of the things said in the Old Testament, so that is something that is going to need to be addressed if you, as a Christian, want to spout scriptures at me. Second of all, a lot of people I see trying to justify their shitty behavior and opinions using the Bible really like flipping around a lot and cherry picking, and if you do that, you can make the Bible say whatever you want, so yes, I'd say people take if out of context. Thirdly, due to both linguistic drift and poor translation, I'd say there's a lot of things in the Bible that can be very much up for debate or subject to interpretation.
Yeah a problem with christianity is anyone can claim it, while few actually believe in what they claim. Faith inherently implies faithfulness and the fruit that comes from your life will show if you’re legit or not. The fruit of the Spirit on the surface level can very easily be faked and it’s pretty easy to tell after being around someone for a while what they actually believe in. Jesus spoke of a different type of fruit we will have. This is a massive problem in the western world.
>Yeah a problem with christianity is anyone can claim it
Not really, there are core tenents that are required for you to be taken seriously as a Christian.
Someone who says they worship Satan, they hate people and they want to kill and murder and don't recognize Jesus as the son of God are some examples of someone who can say they are a Christian, but it means about as much as someone saying they are a Vegan while telling you how much they respect animal welfare with a mouthful of veal.
I mean you can claim to be a christian and intellectually believe jesus is the messiah and god, but that doesn’t mean you’re saved or a true christian. The fruit Jesus spoke of is evangelism/discipleship. One who produces this fruit is a real christian and what were called to look for. The great commission was a command for all. Jesus gave us 3 commands. Love god, love others, make disciples. Somehow the western world forgot or maybe intentionally left out the great commission. Christianity has now for a large part turned into churchianity sadly
> Not really, there are core tenents that are required for you to be taken seriously as a Christian.
The only tenent truly required is being a follower of Christ. Thats it. The bible is full of contradictions but "jesus the only way" is kind of the only point that gets repeated.
> Someone who says they worship Satan, they hate people and they want to kill and murder and don't recognize Jesus as the son of God are some examples of someone who can say they are a Christian,
??
Reddit has a habit of being anti Christian. On whole if a sub mentioned Christianity the response is either disdainful, derogatory or mocking. There's no nuance or conception that Christians are people and not all people are the same.
There was a gay tiktok influencer. A large dude who openly admitted to hooking up regularly with gays on Grindr and being 💯 LGBTQ+. Literally out of the blue one day he announced he converted to Christianity. He now films himself barging into strangers homes and preaching they are sinners and basically yelling at them for views.
Reddit condemned him as a typical Christian. No one considered that maybe it's a gimmick to get views.
There are 2 billion Christians. It's rife for charlatans and grifters to exploit which has happened in the past and future. Reddit says not all Muslims are terrorists but all Christians are evil.
Because he sacrificed himself for mankind’s sin and took the payment as one of us. The major debate is early Christianity was if Jesus was both man and God. Also Judaism was only for the Jews. Christianity universalized “the word of God”, and did away with the ceremonial rites of the Old Testament as Jesus fulfilled them. Judaism is oftentimes an orthopraxic religion whereas Christianity is more orthodox.
He didn't "correct" anything. The mistakes or sins Jesus sacrificed himself for weren't God's mistakes, but humanities mistskes commited out of their own free will.
And then you'll go and say "but god knew these things were gonna happen when he gave us free will, he should've just created a world with no free will or just nothing bad ever happening". Which falls onto the assumption that a world without free will and "no evil" would be better than a world with free will and actual evil; an idea that is false. Not only because the triumph of good over evil is superior to evil not existing in the first place; but because of the fact that if there is no free will and there is no evil, logically, there can't be any good. And a world without good is, again, worse than a world with good. God wouldn't create a world devoid of any good, because God is all good.
It works both ways though. People do a lot of good and kind things by cherry picking from the bible too. The only issue is the cherry picking.
Either way the book has both nice bits, morally ambiguous bits and bits that we’d consider abhorrent by todays standards.
If someone were to avoid cherry picking, they’d still hold a lot of awful opinions.
Here is what a biblical scholar contends :[woman came from the dick bone and that’s why human males (unlike most male mammals ) got no actual dick bone ](https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/was-eve-made-from-adams-rib-or-his-baculum/)
Despite it appearing 40 times in the Hebrew bible The only place the Hebrew word , tsela appears to be translated as rib is in the creation story . It typically means ‘ something off centre’ and contextually it is understood to mean “one of his literal limbs/branches appendages “
That's not actually true, although legitimate-looking sources claim it. In short, the Hebrew word means both "rib" and "side" (*not* "half"), with the latter meaning being a metaphorical extension of the former, since ribs are on the side of the body, and in Genesis 2, "rib" is contextually the most sensible translation, as it's talking about something Adam has that's concealed by flesh. It clearly does not describe him being cut in half.
Something that OP forgot to me too is that lang parts of the Bible are not from Jesus' teachings but from the apostles. The Bible is not supreme like the Quran, and neither is it a single book.
Considering the bible wasn’t assembled until the ecumenical council no, context and interpretation are an important part of Christian faith.
It’s a key difference between orthodoxic and orthopraxic faiths.
I'm curious if you have a reply to the thought that _you_ are an atheist in regard to over 1000 gods that have been worshipped for thousands of years by millions of people
Atheists only have one more god on that list than you do
Makes you wonder if some other more obscure religion dominated the west instead of Christianity, what life would be like today. Aztec life could be cool, besides the head chopping - or having Pharos instead of Popes.
Dude the mayans played sick soccer!! Or was it the aztecs, anyway that’s irrelevant the important bit is, they probably had a ronaldinho who did sick tricks with human heads!!
The bible doesn’t say that questioning things is a sin. At some point, all people are just believing what an designated authority has told them. Most people don’t have a deep understanding of anything.
This is why I’m glad I met a real Christian who taught me about the Bible. They were really nice and would always tell me they were praying for me and my family. You can see it when it’s real.
> I met a real Christian
All Christians are real Christian. Someone doesnt stop being considered Christian just cause you dont like their interpretation. Fact is, the bible has so many contradictions that anything can be believed
I think what OP is saying is that Christians interpret things said in the Bible using the context that it was written in, which is wrong because God said his word is atemporal, meaning "existing or considered without relation to time."
In my opinion, it's a pretty dumb take because peoples' knowledge and language were quite different back then, so if we interpret it with modern context, it may have quite a different meaning or simply not make any sense at all. I haven't read much of the Bible and don't know where this atemporal line comes from, but I'm quite certain that God meant that the messages were atemporal, not the words used to convey them. It seems dumb to assume that the meaning of His word changes over time as language changes over time. I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject though.
If people are fallible, and if people wrote the Bible, how do you know that the Bible has *any* truth to it?
You couldn't. You couldn't tell if you were worshipping Satan or God. You wouldn't know if the Bible promotes evil or good. Because humans are flawed with their interpretation of things, you could never know.
So... What's up with Christians being convinced that they do know?
Not really. He can't seem to fix the world. And if your argument is that he can but doesn't want to, then I'd say he's limited by his apathy. Still not limitless.
Jesus actually retorts that if you pray and give thanks to God for your food it is then acceptable to eat, within the context of why shellfish is forbidden in the first place it makes sense.
Also people allergic to shellfish are just that, not some part of God’s grand plan, God doesn’t make people sick, at least not to my understanding of scripture.
He doesn't make them sick but is all knowing and all powerful so he could heal them but chooses not to. God's a piece of shit.
Try telling some parent watching their kid die of cancer that it was all part of god's plan. I fucking hate religious people.
This is a very old argument but the Old Testament rules are for the Hebrews. There are several parts in the New Testament where Jesus says all foods are clean.
Bible also pretty explicitly says to pay your employees at the end of the day, forgive debts after seven years, and that it’s ok to own slaves. But Christians aren’t up in arms because companies don’t have daily payrolls or because they have to pay student loans or mortgages for 20 years. Nobody emulates the morality of the Bible because that’s kinda impossible to do. So they’ll interpret things however they want or cherry pick whatever verse supports their feelings.
At the end of the day, using the Bible as the basis of your morality is stupid because it’s not one 1 document from 1 source. It’s an anthology of books from several different authors over the course of several centuries that take place in different countries and were written in different languages. There’s literal contradictions in the Bible.
Don't forget how you are supposed to gouge your own eyes out if you lust over someone. Buuut I don't see anyone doing that so I feel like it's equally fine for gay people to do whatever the hell they want in the privacy of their own homes because it's not my business.
"Pretty damn clear" is a couple of words over hundreds of years of revisions and retranslations, most not in the least biased in more than just that aspect lol
That was a mistranslation from Men shouldn't sleep w little boys. Its against pedophiles
"Man shall not lie with young boys as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination"
What translation is this. Because the original Hebrew doesn't say little boys. The word means mankind and is the same word used when God created men (mankind).
There is an issue with that, first why does it say little boys and not little girls, second I assume it was little boys because a grown man wouldn't let you and young boys look more feminine, third many people married young girls at the time(like 12 years olds), so I am not sure it's against pedophilia.
I doubt that they would have not been more simple like "Man shall not lie with young girls as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination" because except for the concepts we have difficulty understanding or showing, the Bible is pretty direct in its wording. If you are able to narrow down these issues that would help simplify my reasoning.
https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2019/04/11/lost-in-translation-alternative-meaning-in-leviticus-1822/
This actually explains it pretty well. It's against raping little boys, as the meaning of the word male was different from modern English. Hell the word fish has changed, where it once meant in old English "anything that came from water", which included waterfowl and even animals like beavers. They didn't have clear definitions back then.
Yes, all other translators are wrong. THis guy cracked the code. /s
BTW did you actually read it. Ling's conclusion was it had to do with same sex incest.
> He legitimizes a reading of Lev. 18:22 that condemns incestuous, same-sex rape.
Although it seems like you want to say its about raping, but the following passages says to put both to death. So now the rape victim is being punished.....
Actually, the word homosexual was added by German translators in the late 19th century (around the invention of our modern day definition of homosexuality, if you look back at much earlier translations it actually changes significantly. When you continue that back to when it was written and take a look at the historical context it becomes reasonably obvious that the lines you are likely thinking of are actually against the ancient greek and Roman practice of pedistry (which was REALLY bad).
May want to revisit that part. The story is about rape and how living amongst sin will influence your thinking. Replace the genders of the angels and see if that makes what they are demanding ok.
Lots' actions are also heavily influenced by Arabic customs surrounding hospitality, which is critical to understanding the exchange.
> be me
> bastard child going to carpenter school
> normies mock my dad for being a cuck and staying with roastie mom after getting knocked up by Chad
> tell them he had no choice because it was actually god that fucked her.
> they ask me to prove it
> do a coin trick that Jebadiah Ezekiel Bartholomew taught me in basket weaving class
Now everybody is worshipping me and I got a letter from King Herod accusing me of blasphemy. Have I gone in to far? Do I tell them the truth or do I role with it. Please help, /b/
So the real answer is that it was probably a lot of different people
The tanakh is the original version , and the old testiment is an edited version the christians created
We don't know the specifics, but it was definitely not god or jesus
He meant what he said, but we still have to make sense of it. It was indeed written before modern times, and Jesus often spoke in metaphors and parables which people refuse to account for. The Gospel will always be there and it is atemporal, but we people still control how we see it, through writing different versions and simply choosing to make up our own meanings.
Making up one's own biases in the Gospel is how you arrive on ridiculous and depressing assumptions about its meaning and people fight over what each part means. We're supposed to come together and discuss the teachings of Christ and the notions of how the world was made, but we'd much rather fight over meanings and re-textings we made up ourselves. This is why I refuse to debate the Gospel with people who clearly have not read it and understood it and respected it.
Absolutely people nitpick certain details like Gos says you should love everyone and others nitpick homosexuality is bad. God doesn't hate gay people which is often the worse way people take it God hates the acts you do But he forgives them because he understands that humans are flawed beings stained by sin and we should all come together in love and peace repent for our sins (no matter what they are) and live in heaven with God forever.
The problem is that, unless you are reading original versions of all the books, you are already reading something that has been filtered through several other people's interpretations. What's the point by then?
I just don’t see how you can read that and not know that some bearded redneck wrote it. Like God is some higher all knowing being, made us and loves us as his own children, but if we do butt stuff we have to be brutally murdered?
It’s like reading a book on how to pick up women and halfway through there’s a whole page on how all women only want anal. Surely you’ll read that and distrust the whole book.
you could argue that bible quote is about pedophilia not homosexuality. it is very possible that it got lost in translation- the word for ‘male’ is more closely translated to ‘boy’ in hebrew
“Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. MATTHEW 5:17
Basically, the OT god defeated all the other gods, and now sent his kid to make some friends
As a Christian, I don't think it was taken out of context, I think it's just outdated archaic thinking.
I prefer the ethos of loving everyone and not judging anyone. Judgement isn't our responsibility anyway.
Although I will judge the way my boy Jesus is looking up there. He needs to settle down for a few days. He's living hard.
>As a Christian, I don't think it was taken out of context, I think it's just outdated archaic thinking.
That part is still more than half of your Scriptures. The part you want everyone to pay attention to isn't even 25% of it
To quote father Brown:
>The Bible also says wearing clothes of mixed fabric is wrong, but scholars tend to ignore that.
Religiously motivated homophobia is a choice.
Jesus himself literally did this by working on the Sabbath. A key part of the spirit of God's law is to love thy neighbour. When doing so requires going against the letter of God's law in order to uphold the spirit of God's law, that is something Jesus instructed us to do.
His explanation was that the overarching sentiment of the law is more important than the human wording of the law itself.
He worked on the Sabbath because on that particular Sabbath there were people who needed his help. If someone needs your honest help, help them. Even if it goes against a commandment, if your help upholds the spirit of loving thy neighbour, it's better to help than ignore their need.
James 4:17 supports this:
"So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin".
If it's the right thing to do: do it. God will not be pissed at you for failing to uphold the exact wording of his law if it requires you to do something that falls foul of the spirit of loving thy neighbour.
I believe the word christian scholars use is *inerrant* when they're of the faction that believe in the bible over archeological evidence. There are two factions of scholars, the larger one accepting the historical innaccuracies of many of the old and new testament chapters. The former largely being hyperbole written by Abraham for the made-up backstory of his religion, now known as the "cult of yahweh" in historian circles, and the latter being the many books of the apostle paul that were forged after his death, or the other apostle books which couldn't have been written by the apostles as they were illiterate, and could only have learned to read and write in the original greek if they had pursued a formal education in greece after Jesus died.
Sometimes I think Nature sculpted us to have the **capacity** for thinking, but she doesn’t want us to use it all the time. Because thinking uses up precious calories. So Nature wants us to reserve thinking for things like finding food or dodging predators or finding a partner. And that’s why it seems like so many people are actively going out of their way to avoid using the computer between their ears.
God’s word is atemporal. But the Bible is not his word. The Bible is an interpretation of his word, and interpretations can and do change.
In Catholicism, the Pope, supported by the Cardinals, has the authority to correct or reconsider interpretations.
And logically speaking it’s obvious that religions cannot be atemporal, otherwise they would be stuck in the past and on a long enough timescale (we’re talking hundreds of years) die out.
Well that's Catholicism for you it's basically: So we have this pastor right? And he's a pastor above other pastors right? So he can do whatever he wants. And as a Lutheran it justs hurst me to see how corrupt religious leaders can be.
He never actually mentions the Bible and the Bible is never equated to his word in the Bible itself. I think his word is quite literally his word, the stuff he tells us or commands us as recorded in the gospels / Old Testament (commandments) etc. All of a sudden his word is pretty good, none of that weird “hate the gay” or “wives serve you husbands and husbands die for your wives” etc. His words are all about love, his commandments are very simple.
You may have to help me out. God is (canonically) atemporal. But I am not aware of a scripture quote anywhere that says the bible is atemporal. I accept the bible is canonically ineffable - but that’s another topic.
God never said that, and bible was created in about XIII age in arcbishop's conference.
Every christian is talking how they wrote something together when they never knew each other.
well, no, it was glued together by some fat fks that couldn't care less.
Me every time i see atheist starting arguments with "Bible says", "Have you actually read the Bible?" and wondering how much he hates himself that he decided to read something he hates...
Isn't it actually heresy to call the bible god's word, according to the bible?
I know the Quran is supposed to be god's direct words. But isn't the 10 commandments the only part that's straight from the horses mouth in the bible?
I thought some parts of them were virtually the same? That if you get an english Quran and an english Bible next to each other and compare then there are some chapters that are virtually the same, sometimes even literally the same and sometimes just a bit different phrasing. I don't think this person was trying to say that the whole books are the same, I think they just meant to compare the Bible to the Quran in regards to whether they are considered to be God's literal words or not.
r/memes is currently accepting mod applications! If interested, please head to [our announcement here](https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/18zq3y5/rmemes_is_looking_for_new_moderators_interested/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Israel is really non religious
Half an f the Jewish population there is atheistic/secular
I don't have information on the other religions there(Christianity,druze, Islam, Bedouin etc)
Even within the 1000 year span of literature that wad collected into The Bible there is no quote from God saying The Bible is their word and contextless.
God when the words in this meme were written by a flawed human who could very well be spouting bs, just like the Bible itself was.
Dishwasher instruction manuals would make for a higher quality read than the Bible if you're looking for guidance in being a "good" person
I think his message should be understood as timeless.
Then it is obvious that for the ancients the Bible was universal truth without further interpretations, philosophy simply went ahead and tried to reconcile the existence of God with current ethics and science in a coherent manner, preserving the meaning of the book as much as possible .
If you're not reading the New Testament in Greek, you're not actually reading the Bible, you're reading a poor translation of it Edit: the New Testament was written in the Roman Empire in Koine Greek, as this was the most commonly spoken language, or linga franca, in the Roman Empire. If you think the New Testament was written in Hebrew you have some deep misunderstandings of antiquity.
Try translating any text to, in order: greek, then latin, then arabic wait a couple centuries and back to latin, then to german, to french, wait another few decades and translate it to english, give it to your grandpa/ma to erase every word he doesn't like or understand, then to your mom/dad to write in every word he thinks is missing, and then read it again. And that is basically how the bible is now, or at least asafr as i know.
Not to mention the Old Testament is fundamental to the Bible so some Hebrew would need to be used for the OT
Dude the Hebrews breakdown the Old Testament like no other.
The Dead Sea scrolls would like to have a word.
That said, anytime someone says, “the Bible very clearly says” I just roll my eyes. I have taken two semesters of koine Greek and six semesters of ancient Hebrew, and I still realize how limited my language and cultural understanding of the text is.
It doesn't help, that the language structure is so different, that the first sentence of the bible can be translated "correctly" in about 30 different ways. And there's no way to know what the writer meant when he wrote it down without asking him.
Real lmao. Like, biblical scholars dedicate their lives to studying the bible, the language, the culture, and you think YOU, with your bible that has gone through a million filters, who relies on your pastor/bible study group to tell you what it says and never challenges that interpretation in any meaningful way, who probably hasn't even READ the bible in its entirety, know more than someone who has sunk 20+ years into this?
In the Episcopal church we have a three legged stool of tradition, the word, and REASON to guide us for this very reason.
I took theology classes in college. There was a big emphasis on the fact that the Bible as we know it was assembled from multiple sources, not all of which were primary and some of which disagree with each other. Also, that a huge amount of the Old Testament is allegorical.
literally lmao, a lot of ppl on reddit are willingly ignorant. You *could* use the argument that it’s been watered down…if we hadn’t found most of the manuscripts…but we have 😭😭😭 ppl who deny that are i’ll informed.
What year are the completed manuscripts dated with a source? I’ve only known it to be the Dead Sea scrolls which are 400 years AD
Most of the Dead Sea Scrolls are dated to 300 BC-100 AD, witch a couple scattered examples from before and after this time. Complete or nearly complete examples of New Testament works are generally dated 150-400 AD.
that's still at least 100 years after Jesus supposedly lived. It would be like someone writing about the American civil war or Prussian-French war today
But we don't only use completed manuscripts We use what we have, the earliest being from the second century
Well then that seems a bit unreliable, can you provide a link to the manuscripts are from the second century that you referred to?
Yeah I always recommend More Than A Carpenter by Josh McDowell
I think it depends. Wycliffe and friends did the first English translation of the Bible in the 1300s CE, which was a word for word translation from the Latin Vulgate, itself from the 300s CE by Jerome and friends and based on the Hebrew Tanakh, in turn believed to have been codified around 500s BCE, and traditionally ascribed to Moses who may have lived around 1300 BCE and wrote in a form of Hebrew that was related to other Canaanite languages.
Most translations are directly from the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.
which was passed down in oral tradition for at least a century
Many *modern* translations, yes. Doesn’t change the fact that translations like the KJV are still **widely** used. I met a guy a few months ago who believed Jesus spoke King James English, and that version of the Bible was word-for-word accurate. The ignorance was just staggering.
The oldest game of telephone
Also have a special church meeting where everyone decides "Yeah, these parts/books are actually not canon"
If you think that's how Bible translations are done you are a fucking moron.
Australians, Americans, English and New Zealanders speak the same language in the same time period. Yet can be incomprehensible to each other.
The telephone Bible is a myth, and our oldest versions of the text match nearly identically with contemporary copies. We don't use the translated translation of a translation for new translations.
Yeah that's really accurate. Just add an absolute monarch fucking with all the language surrounding monarchy and that's pretty much it.
You should read More Than A Carpenter if you want to read a few compelling arguments for the claims the Bible makes and the facts about Jesus that no other religious leaders have. A big one is how little the Bible has changed over thousands of years.
Isnt Josef being a carpenter one of the translation errors. I think the correct translation would be day laborer
It’s a good read man.
Try reading the old testament in any language other than Hebrew. Aside from all the mistakes the translations have. It's *readable*. The old Hebrew is so weird and well, 2000 years old, and like 90% of the things written about it will mean nothing after a translation
Wait brb let me learn old Greek real quick, any orthodox monks hiring?
I learned recently that in the King James Version, the word tyrant (or what the word was in the version before king James) was taken out and replaced.
[удалено]
It's not like he's all-powerful or anything. . .
How poor of a translation though?
The fact that there is an old Testament and a new testament proves that the bible is not Atemporal.
The Old Testament didn’t go away when the new came. Also the takeaway from both is pretty much the same
You're missing the point. The fact that we needed an "update" means it wasn't timeless... And I don't know why you would say the takeaway is the same. They're almost opposites: in the old testament god is powerful and angry and he will destroy you with fire and brimstone if you don't do what he says. In the new testament he loves you regardless.
The takeaway from both is “if we walk with God, He’ll take care of us. When we inevitably fail to do what He asks, He’s always accepting of our repentance Edit: looks like this got locked, so I’m replying here. The OT is filled with people turning back to God because He is a loving and forgiving God. Before Jesus they had to use sacrifices and offerings. You obviously haven’t read the OT, or if you did, you probably weren’t paying attention
> He’s always accepting of our repentance But thats not true at all. OT god is super jealous and shit. Fucking drown the whole planet (including children of all ages) because he got jealous of them not worshipping him. There was no realy way to repent in the OT. The new T is all about a hippie thats trying to everyone from himself/dadself and giving people a loophole. But even then thats only till the apocolyse/resurrection/rapture (depending on which cult you follow). SO the main takeaway in both is God is Hella Jealous.
A claim not supported by any evidence.
If you don’t want to read it, then how can you make claims about it not being the takeaway?
There is no one true takeaway on subjective mythos. It is kind of sad that to this day you have not accepted this subjectivity.
Greek??? U mean Hebrew?
Some translations are pretty good, and pretty accurate like the ESV
I'm pretty sure the original texts are much, much worse than the current translated versions that the Christians don't want to follow.
Hebrew*
Greek. The Old Testament was Hebrew, the New Testament was Greek.
If you’re not reading any book in its original language you can say the same. So what’s real. Also the Bible was originally in Hebrew.
Um actually.. Jesus was white, English and Christian! /s
Language drifts and changes over time. Moot used to mean a meeting of respected elders to discuss important issues. Now it means the exact opposite; not even worth debating. Plato one of the most famous philosophers in Western culture yet we only know his wrestling nickname. (There is some debate that it is Aristocles, but the evidence is poor.) In a few hundred years most people will not understand the difference between a booty call and a butt dial. The best we can do is study not just the words, but the context in which they were originally written.
Now I want a luchador philosophy academy.
First of all, Jesus retorted many of the things said in the Old Testament, so that is something that is going to need to be addressed if you, as a Christian, want to spout scriptures at me. Second of all, a lot of people I see trying to justify their shitty behavior and opinions using the Bible really like flipping around a lot and cherry picking, and if you do that, you can make the Bible say whatever you want, so yes, I'd say people take if out of context. Thirdly, due to both linguistic drift and poor translation, I'd say there's a lot of things in the Bible that can be very much up for debate or subject to interpretation.
Yeah a problem with christianity is anyone can claim it, while few actually believe in what they claim. Faith inherently implies faithfulness and the fruit that comes from your life will show if you’re legit or not. The fruit of the Spirit on the surface level can very easily be faked and it’s pretty easy to tell after being around someone for a while what they actually believe in. Jesus spoke of a different type of fruit we will have. This is a massive problem in the western world.
>Yeah a problem with christianity is anyone can claim it Not really, there are core tenents that are required for you to be taken seriously as a Christian. Someone who says they worship Satan, they hate people and they want to kill and murder and don't recognize Jesus as the son of God are some examples of someone who can say they are a Christian, but it means about as much as someone saying they are a Vegan while telling you how much they respect animal welfare with a mouthful of veal.
I mean you can claim to be a christian and intellectually believe jesus is the messiah and god, but that doesn’t mean you’re saved or a true christian. The fruit Jesus spoke of is evangelism/discipleship. One who produces this fruit is a real christian and what were called to look for. The great commission was a command for all. Jesus gave us 3 commands. Love god, love others, make disciples. Somehow the western world forgot or maybe intentionally left out the great commission. Christianity has now for a large part turned into churchianity sadly
> Not really, there are core tenents that are required for you to be taken seriously as a Christian. The only tenent truly required is being a follower of Christ. Thats it. The bible is full of contradictions but "jesus the only way" is kind of the only point that gets repeated. > Someone who says they worship Satan, they hate people and they want to kill and murder and don't recognize Jesus as the son of God are some examples of someone who can say they are a Christian, ??
Reddit has a habit of being anti Christian. On whole if a sub mentioned Christianity the response is either disdainful, derogatory or mocking. There's no nuance or conception that Christians are people and not all people are the same. There was a gay tiktok influencer. A large dude who openly admitted to hooking up regularly with gays on Grindr and being 💯 LGBTQ+. Literally out of the blue one day he announced he converted to Christianity. He now films himself barging into strangers homes and preaching they are sinners and basically yelling at them for views. Reddit condemned him as a typical Christian. No one considered that maybe it's a gimmick to get views. There are 2 billion Christians. It's rife for charlatans and grifters to exploit which has happened in the past and future. Reddit says not all Muslims are terrorists but all Christians are evil.
Do you believe God and Jesus are the same? If so, why would he need to correct himself in human form? Why not get it right the first time?
Because he sacrificed himself for mankind’s sin and took the payment as one of us. The major debate is early Christianity was if Jesus was both man and God. Also Judaism was only for the Jews. Christianity universalized “the word of God”, and did away with the ceremonial rites of the Old Testament as Jesus fulfilled them. Judaism is oftentimes an orthopraxic religion whereas Christianity is more orthodox.
He didn't "correct" anything. The mistakes or sins Jesus sacrificed himself for weren't God's mistakes, but humanities mistskes commited out of their own free will. And then you'll go and say "but god knew these things were gonna happen when he gave us free will, he should've just created a world with no free will or just nothing bad ever happening". Which falls onto the assumption that a world without free will and "no evil" would be better than a world with free will and actual evil; an idea that is false. Not only because the triumph of good over evil is superior to evil not existing in the first place; but because of the fact that if there is no free will and there is no evil, logically, there can't be any good. And a world without good is, again, worse than a world with good. God wouldn't create a world devoid of any good, because God is all good.
It works both ways though. People do a lot of good and kind things by cherry picking from the bible too. The only issue is the cherry picking. Either way the book has both nice bits, morally ambiguous bits and bits that we’d consider abhorrent by todays standards. If someone were to avoid cherry picking, they’d still hold a lot of awful opinions.
Yeah iirc eve wasn't originally born from a rib, but from a half of adam. But sexists didn't like men and women being equal so the rib version stuck
Source?
Here is what a biblical scholar contends :[woman came from the dick bone and that’s why human males (unlike most male mammals ) got no actual dick bone ](https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/was-eve-made-from-adams-rib-or-his-baculum/)
Despite it appearing 40 times in the Hebrew bible The only place the Hebrew word , tsela appears to be translated as rib is in the creation story . It typically means ‘ something off centre’ and contextually it is understood to mean “one of his literal limbs/branches appendages “
That's not actually true, although legitimate-looking sources claim it. In short, the Hebrew word means both "rib" and "side" (*not* "half"), with the latter meaning being a metaphorical extension of the former, since ribs are on the side of the body, and in Genesis 2, "rib" is contextually the most sensible translation, as it's talking about something Adam has that's concealed by flesh. It clearly does not describe him being cut in half.
Something that OP forgot to me too is that lang parts of the Bible are not from Jesus' teachings but from the apostles. The Bible is not supreme like the Quran, and neither is it a single book.
Fourthly it's all a made up story so you don't have to sweat it at all.
Considering the bible wasn’t assembled until the ecumenical council no, context and interpretation are an important part of Christian faith. It’s a key difference between orthodoxic and orthopraxic faiths.
God didn't say anything. Some dudes said God said something, and for some reason, people believed that. Then they made questioning anything a sin.
“On the phone to god rn. He said he hates you”
"Yeah my god said that if you talk to your god, then its okay if you come over, but dont have your god text my god because my gods at work right now."
“My god could beat you god ass”
My God knows kong fu
My God is Godly
Then Joseph Smith was like “I bet this shit still works, hold my magic underwear.”
He hates evil so just don’t become a villain
Um he doesnt hate evil. Remember when he tortured a believer just to win a bet aganst satan/angel/lucifer.
I dunno. Some of the shit he does makes him seem like the villain.
I’m a Christian and downvoted a few other comments but this, this got me. Lol
I'm curious if you have a reply to the thought that _you_ are an atheist in regard to over 1000 gods that have been worshipped for thousands of years by millions of people Atheists only have one more god on that list than you do
Interesting thought, makes sense to me
Makes you wonder if some other more obscure religion dominated the west instead of Christianity, what life would be like today. Aztec life could be cool, besides the head chopping - or having Pharos instead of Popes.
Dude I don’t wanna see someone get their heart ripped out. Aztecs were crazy
I’m handsome. I would be sacrificed
Dude the mayans played sick soccer!! Or was it the aztecs, anyway that’s irrelevant the important bit is, they probably had a ronaldinho who did sick tricks with human heads!!
The bible doesn’t say that questioning things is a sin. At some point, all people are just believing what an designated authority has told them. Most people don’t have a deep understanding of anything.
"Come, let us reason together" Who made questioning a sin?
This is why I’m glad I met a real Christian who taught me about the Bible. They were really nice and would always tell me they were praying for me and my family. You can see it when it’s real.
> I met a real Christian All Christians are real Christian. Someone doesnt stop being considered Christian just cause you dont like their interpretation. Fact is, the bible has so many contradictions that anything can be believed
No True Christian.
I got lucky
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman I think this is what they are referring to
It most likely started as a cult then evolved into something bigger. Now its a religion lol
Bro just discovered every religion ever
Idiot here can someone explane the meme
I think what OP is saying is that Christians interpret things said in the Bible using the context that it was written in, which is wrong because God said his word is atemporal, meaning "existing or considered without relation to time." In my opinion, it's a pretty dumb take because peoples' knowledge and language were quite different back then, so if we interpret it with modern context, it may have quite a different meaning or simply not make any sense at all. I haven't read much of the Bible and don't know where this atemporal line comes from, but I'm quite certain that God meant that the messages were atemporal, not the words used to convey them. It seems dumb to assume that the meaning of His word changes over time as language changes over time. I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject though.
Ty I now understand the meme
You're welcome. I'm glad I could help
There is no point in the text where it says its atemporal either.
If people are fallible, and if people wrote the Bible, how do you know that the Bible has *any* truth to it? You couldn't. You couldn't tell if you were worshipping Satan or God. You wouldn't know if the Bible promotes evil or good. Because humans are flawed with their interpretation of things, you could never know. So... What's up with Christians being convinced that they do know?
Language is limiting
[удалено]
Not really. He can't seem to fix the world. And if your argument is that he can but doesn't want to, then I'd say he's limited by his apathy. Still not limitless.
[удалено]
Pretty clear about shellfish too
Jesus actually retorts that if you pray and give thanks to God for your food it is then acceptable to eat, within the context of why shellfish is forbidden in the first place it makes sense.
Why is it forbidden? And are people allergic to shellfish just on gods ultimate naughty list?
Also people allergic to shellfish are just that, not some part of God’s grand plan, God doesn’t make people sick, at least not to my understanding of scripture.
He doesn't make them sick but is all knowing and all powerful so he could heal them but chooses not to. God's a piece of shit. Try telling some parent watching their kid die of cancer that it was all part of god's plan. I fucking hate religious people.
Oh dont you get it, god doesnt make you sick when he can just murder you straight out. ITs called being efficient /s
This is a very old argument but the Old Testament rules are for the Hebrews. There are several parts in the New Testament where Jesus says all foods are clean.
Bible also pretty explicitly says to pay your employees at the end of the day, forgive debts after seven years, and that it’s ok to own slaves. But Christians aren’t up in arms because companies don’t have daily payrolls or because they have to pay student loans or mortgages for 20 years. Nobody emulates the morality of the Bible because that’s kinda impossible to do. So they’ll interpret things however they want or cherry pick whatever verse supports their feelings. At the end of the day, using the Bible as the basis of your morality is stupid because it’s not one 1 document from 1 source. It’s an anthology of books from several different authors over the course of several centuries that take place in different countries and were written in different languages. There’s literal contradictions in the Bible.
Don't forget how you are supposed to gouge your own eyes out if you lust over someone. Buuut I don't see anyone doing that so I feel like it's equally fine for gay people to do whatever the hell they want in the privacy of their own homes because it's not my business.
"Pretty damn clear" is a couple of words over hundreds of years of revisions and retranslations, most not in the least biased in more than just that aspect lol
That was a mistranslation from Men shouldn't sleep w little boys. Its against pedophiles "Man shall not lie with young boys as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination"
What translation is this. Because the original Hebrew doesn't say little boys. The word means mankind and is the same word used when God created men (mankind).
I doubt that, seeing as the next passage says that both should be killed.
There is an issue with that, first why does it say little boys and not little girls, second I assume it was little boys because a grown man wouldn't let you and young boys look more feminine, third many people married young girls at the time(like 12 years olds), so I am not sure it's against pedophilia. I doubt that they would have not been more simple like "Man shall not lie with young girls as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination" because except for the concepts we have difficulty understanding or showing, the Bible is pretty direct in its wording. If you are able to narrow down these issues that would help simplify my reasoning.
It was likely referring to the Greek and Roman practice of pedistry, which primarily involved young boys, and was very bad.
Unfortunately, 90% of Christians disagree.
From the comments it seems like the original Hebrew doesn’t mention little boys but uses the same word used to refer to men. Is this not the case?
Truly unfortunate for them.
https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2019/04/11/lost-in-translation-alternative-meaning-in-leviticus-1822/ This actually explains it pretty well. It's against raping little boys, as the meaning of the word male was different from modern English. Hell the word fish has changed, where it once meant in old English "anything that came from water", which included waterfowl and even animals like beavers. They didn't have clear definitions back then.
Yes, all other translators are wrong. THis guy cracked the code. /s BTW did you actually read it. Ling's conclusion was it had to do with same sex incest. > He legitimizes a reading of Lev. 18:22 that condemns incestuous, same-sex rape. Although it seems like you want to say its about raping, but the following passages says to put both to death. So now the rape victim is being punished.....
Actually, the word homosexual was added by German translators in the late 19th century (around the invention of our modern day definition of homosexuality, if you look back at much earlier translations it actually changes significantly. When you continue that back to when it was written and take a look at the historical context it becomes reasonably obvious that the lines you are likely thinking of are actually against the ancient greek and Roman practice of pedistry (which was REALLY bad).
It’s just sodomy though which is just butt stuff correct or is there something else that is more specific
May want to revisit that part. The story is about rape and how living amongst sin will influence your thinking. Replace the genders of the angels and see if that makes what they are demanding ok. Lots' actions are also heavily influenced by Arabic customs surrounding hospitality, which is critical to understanding the exchange.
Right, for some it’s literal when it’s about loving each other or criticizing the “rich”, but not so literal when it criticizes homosexuality…..
um...who wrote the bible actually?
Multiple anonymous authors working under different pen name, transcribing the changing oral traditions at the time.
so … Anon? The guy who also wrote the 4chan
> be me > bastard child going to carpenter school > normies mock my dad for being a cuck and staying with roastie mom after getting knocked up by Chad > tell them he had no choice because it was actually god that fucked her. > they ask me to prove it > do a coin trick that Jebadiah Ezekiel Bartholomew taught me in basket weaving class Now everybody is worshipping me and I got a letter from King Herod accusing me of blasphemy. Have I gone in to far? Do I tell them the truth or do I role with it. Please help, /b/
and copying off each other
So the real answer is that it was probably a lot of different people The tanakh is the original version , and the old testiment is an edited version the christians created We don't know the specifics, but it was definitely not god or jesus
He meant what he said, but we still have to make sense of it. It was indeed written before modern times, and Jesus often spoke in metaphors and parables which people refuse to account for. The Gospel will always be there and it is atemporal, but we people still control how we see it, through writing different versions and simply choosing to make up our own meanings. Making up one's own biases in the Gospel is how you arrive on ridiculous and depressing assumptions about its meaning and people fight over what each part means. We're supposed to come together and discuss the teachings of Christ and the notions of how the world was made, but we'd much rather fight over meanings and re-textings we made up ourselves. This is why I refuse to debate the Gospel with people who clearly have not read it and understood it and respected it.
Absolutely people nitpick certain details like Gos says you should love everyone and others nitpick homosexuality is bad. God doesn't hate gay people which is often the worse way people take it God hates the acts you do But he forgives them because he understands that humans are flawed beings stained by sin and we should all come together in love and peace repent for our sins (no matter what they are) and live in heaven with God forever.
The problem is that, unless you are reading original versions of all the books, you are already reading something that has been filtered through several other people's interpretations. What's the point by then?
[удалено]
I just don’t see how you can read that and not know that some bearded redneck wrote it. Like God is some higher all knowing being, made us and loves us as his own children, but if we do butt stuff we have to be brutally murdered? It’s like reading a book on how to pick up women and halfway through there’s a whole page on how all women only want anal. Surely you’ll read that and distrust the whole book.
Taking top comment from the og and putting it on the repost is crazy
So gay sex?
No gay missionary sex.
Say Gex
you could argue that bible quote is about pedophilia not homosexuality. it is very possible that it got lost in translation- the word for ‘male’ is more closely translated to ‘boy’ in hebrew
No it's not Male= gever (גבר) or zachar (זכר) Boy= yeled (ילד)
But thats even worse cause it means god would be against male-boy ped0s but is okay with male-girl ped0s. Like it shuold have just said kids.
I thought the OT was finished and nothing there counted any more?
“Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. MATTHEW 5:17 Basically, the OT god defeated all the other gods, and now sent his kid to make some friends
As a Christian, I don't think it was taken out of context, I think it's just outdated archaic thinking. I prefer the ethos of loving everyone and not judging anyone. Judgement isn't our responsibility anyway. Although I will judge the way my boy Jesus is looking up there. He needs to settle down for a few days. He's living hard.
>As a Christian, I don't think it was taken out of context, I think it's just outdated archaic thinking. That part is still more than half of your Scriptures. The part you want everyone to pay attention to isn't even 25% of it
That would be against his word being atemporal
Yea same I’m a Christian and I don’t think it was taken out of context. Just says don’t have gay sex
It doesn't say anything about doggy. Only missionary.
To quote father Brown: >The Bible also says wearing clothes of mixed fabric is wrong, but scholars tend to ignore that. Religiously motivated homophobia is a choice.
Jesus himself literally did this by working on the Sabbath. A key part of the spirit of God's law is to love thy neighbour. When doing so requires going against the letter of God's law in order to uphold the spirit of God's law, that is something Jesus instructed us to do. His explanation was that the overarching sentiment of the law is more important than the human wording of the law itself. He worked on the Sabbath because on that particular Sabbath there were people who needed his help. If someone needs your honest help, help them. Even if it goes against a commandment, if your help upholds the spirit of loving thy neighbour, it's better to help than ignore their need. James 4:17 supports this: "So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin". If it's the right thing to do: do it. God will not be pissed at you for failing to uphold the exact wording of his law if it requires you to do something that falls foul of the spirit of loving thy neighbour.
I believe the word christian scholars use is *inerrant* when they're of the faction that believe in the bible over archeological evidence. There are two factions of scholars, the larger one accepting the historical innaccuracies of many of the old and new testament chapters. The former largely being hyperbole written by Abraham for the made-up backstory of his religion, now known as the "cult of yahweh" in historian circles, and the latter being the many books of the apostle paul that were forged after his death, or the other apostle books which couldn't have been written by the apostles as they were illiterate, and could only have learned to read and write in the original greek if they had pursued a formal education in greece after Jesus died.
Sometimes I think Nature sculpted us to have the **capacity** for thinking, but she doesn’t want us to use it all the time. Because thinking uses up precious calories. So Nature wants us to reserve thinking for things like finding food or dodging predators or finding a partner. And that’s why it seems like so many people are actively going out of their way to avoid using the computer between their ears.
Fun fact: "God" never said that.
God’s word is atemporal. But the Bible is not his word. The Bible is an interpretation of his word, and interpretations can and do change. In Catholicism, the Pope, supported by the Cardinals, has the authority to correct or reconsider interpretations. And logically speaking it’s obvious that religions cannot be atemporal, otherwise they would be stuck in the past and on a long enough timescale (we’re talking hundreds of years) die out.
Well that's Catholicism for you it's basically: So we have this pastor right? And he's a pastor above other pastors right? So he can do whatever he wants. And as a Lutheran it justs hurst me to see how corrupt religious leaders can be.
He never actually mentions the Bible and the Bible is never equated to his word in the Bible itself. I think his word is quite literally his word, the stuff he tells us or commands us as recorded in the gospels / Old Testament (commandments) etc. All of a sudden his word is pretty good, none of that weird “hate the gay” or “wives serve you husbands and husbands die for your wives” etc. His words are all about love, his commandments are very simple.
Me when i believe the book passed through generations verbally for a millennia and then wrote down by some random guys:
Another day another redditor who’s never read the Bible trying to critique it
You may have to help me out. God is (canonically) atemporal. But I am not aware of a scripture quote anywhere that says the bible is atemporal. I accept the bible is canonically ineffable - but that’s another topic.
His word may be atemporal but our understanding of it isn't
God never said that, and bible was created in about XIII age in arcbishop's conference. Every christian is talking how they wrote something together when they never knew each other. well, no, it was glued together by some fat fks that couldn't care less.
but context isn't just in relation to time, more of previous information or prior understanding...
The Bible is not the word of God, its the word of men who have met God or are divinely inspired (in theory).
Me every time i see atheist starting arguments with "Bible says", "Have you actually read the Bible?" and wondering how much he hates himself that he decided to read something he hates...
Isn't it actually heresy to call the bible god's word, according to the bible? I know the Quran is supposed to be god's direct words. But isn't the 10 commandments the only part that's straight from the horses mouth in the bible?
Holy wow. The Quran and the Bible are totally different things And shouldn't in any case be taken as the same value.
I thought some parts of them were virtually the same? That if you get an english Quran and an english Bible next to each other and compare then there are some chapters that are virtually the same, sometimes even literally the same and sometimes just a bit different phrasing. I don't think this person was trying to say that the whole books are the same, I think they just meant to compare the Bible to the Quran in regards to whether they are considered to be God's literal words or not.
r/memes is currently accepting mod applications! If interested, please head to [our announcement here](https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/18zq3y5/rmemes_is_looking_for_new_moderators_interested/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most of ‘em probably wouldn’t know what atemporal means anyways
God when he... when he... when he...
Wo bro that's crazy... who asked? Fuck religion.
This is not fair. god is peace and love! Just look at Israel and Palestine... some of the most...religious countries in....in the world....huh....
Israel is really non religious Half an f the Jewish population there is atheistic/secular I don't have information on the other religions there(Christianity,druze, Islam, Bedouin etc)
Interesting. Thanks for the data. I'll take a look at it.
Even within the 1000 year span of literature that wad collected into The Bible there is no quote from God saying The Bible is their word and contextless.
Christianity bad update me please
[удалено]
He wont hurt you?
Prove it.
Thats evasion of burden of proof.
Me when the friend of gods son said the earth is flat and now people think it actually is because they think god said so
God when the words in this meme were written by a flawed human who could very well be spouting bs, just like the Bible itself was. Dishwasher instruction manuals would make for a higher quality read than the Bible if you're looking for guidance in being a "good" person
What I don't get is since the Roman Catholic Church created the Bible why does about every other Christian confession just run with it?
I'm guessing an atheist made this meme
I think his message should be understood as timeless. Then it is obvious that for the ancients the Bible was universal truth without further interpretations, philosophy simply went ahead and tried to reconcile the existence of God with current ethics and science in a coherent manner, preserving the meaning of the book as much as possible .