To everyone of every religion. What do you think of The Bible ?

GeraldtheGnome: When it comes to religion there are more people that are religious that are not Christians and that are not religious than there are people who are Christians worldwide. There are more people that are religious than those who aren't. There are more people that are religious that are Christians than those who are of any particular religion and there are more Catholics than there are any other Christians. Most Catholics use Spanish and most that use Spanish are in Mexico. Most of the Mexican population is in Mexico City and The Greater Mexico City area. So below are the words from one version of The Bible in Spanish and in English in a word for word manner.

'El Libro de Génesis capítulo uno, versículo uno. En el principio Élöhîm creó el cielo y la tierra.

Versículo dos. Y la tierra estaba desordenada y vacía; y las tinieblas [estaban] sobre la faz del abismo. Y el Espíritu de Élöhîm se movía sobre la faz de las aguas.

Verso tres. Y Elöhîm dijo: Sea la luz: y fue la luz.

The Book of Genesis chapter one, verse one. In the beginning Élöhîm created the heaven and the earth.

Verse two. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Élöhîm moved upon the face of the waters.

Verse three. And Élöhîm said, Let there be light: and there was light.'

It is from The Holy Name King James Version of The Bible. The original is available at the website mentioned below.

http://www.qbible.com/hebrew-old-testament/genesis/1.html

Now the thing is I want you to tell me what religion you are and if you agree with everything in the verses I put on here or with the original. If you don't agree with any verse then tell me why. I only want religious people to tell me. I will basically make a similar forum for those that aren't religious to respond to the same thing as well.

Winterson: Christianity is the largest religion in the world, perhaps surprisingly, given that it is shrinking in its traditional heartland while Islam is growing rapidly in many places. But Christianity is still holding its lead globally because it is growing just about everywhere other than Europe and North America.

Is there some point to your referencing Genesis in Spanish? What's wrong with Spanish? The Bible is translated constantly into every language on earth. Spanish is inevitably included. Whatever language they read it in, Christians and every other interested person who reads the Bible are all reading the same book.

GeraldtheGnome: Alright, your first sentence was a statement of the obvious, it though was correct and yes I agree, I still don’t know what it had to do with anything here though. Christianity is still the top one, I’m not a fan of the word growing being the go to word there. The claim that Christianity is on the increase worldwide with the exception of North America and Europe can only be worked out by the statistics that are available rather than on a gut feeling. Once again I don’t know how, no matter if it is true or false, that has anything to do with anything on here.

I find it odd that no spaces were made, so be it though. Anyway the whole idea here is just to use the website with the variation of Elohim and to use Spanish, English and so on, including some examples of early versions of English and that of what came before it. No one reading a Bible right now is reading the same book as everyone else who is currently reading one, the fact that there is more than one version is proof of that.

DontNeedChrist:

Which bible?

Winterson: So, Gerald, why do you want people to tell you what they think of the opening verses of the Bible? If it is their Scripture, they will simply tell you that they believe those verses.

GeraldtheGnome: The thing with the question marks again, so be it. It’s just scriptures, not Scripture, it wasn’t like written on one bit of writing material after all. You’re simply focusing on the Christian perspective on the first book. You also left out the word about, we all make mistakes so this is not me pretending that I am perfect. Anyway you are coming from the Christian perspective and it likes like you are implying that every Christian agrees with what you believes it means. I can’t tell if that guess of mine is true because you were too vague there. Do you think that everything about each verse that I showed is believed by every Christian to mean the same thing as you believe it means ? So what do you believe it means ? I can’t believe that I had to ask this questions since I thought it was clear that I wanted to know what the individual personally believes no matter what religion and denomination that person is a part of.

To DontNeedChrist. Lately you have made your forum solely about religion, it has no religious bias in it, it’s the only one lately that I have seen like that by anyone I have seen on this forum, I thank you for that. It is the way all religious forums should be, especially by religious people. Which Bible ? That’s a very good question, there are many versions of them. The version I have used on here is The King James Holy Name Bible. It’s good yo have you here because you are able to show what differences there are in any Bible to that of the book that you yourself do use. I’m not one of those idiots who names it The Hebrew Bible or The Jewish Bible.

DontNeedChrist:

The "Jewish Bible" is referred to as the Hebrew Scriptures. Torah, Tanach or Chumash. Guess I'm one of those idiots.

GeraldtheGnome: There was no ‘Bible’ before Christianity is what I’m getting at and for a while there was also no Christian that use Bible as a name for the book. I refer to your book by any name except that to differentiate it from Christianity and Judaism even though the latter originated by translations of the book that you are for. Is Tanakh alright or was that just a spelling error by some that should have used Tanakh instead ?

Anyway just leaving The New Testament out of things for a moment what differences are there with what Christians have in their book compared to yours ?

DontNeedChrist:

"There was no ‘Bible’ before Christianity is what I’m getting at..."

Ahem, that is patently false. The Hebrew Scriptures (the Tanach, Tanakh either one) existed centuries before the christian "new testament" came along and was tacked onto it, mistranslated it, reordered the books and renamed it the "old testament."

GeraldtheGnome: No. Prove that one book in the religious sense had the name Bible, with the letters B, i, b, l and e. Technically a book doesn’t exist, however your book, well not specifically your own personal book, The Tanach was around before any Christian book with the spelled out as I have mentioned on here. Please avoid repeating my own words, I don’t do that to anyone after all. There were some other things I didn’t like there too, I will however ignore them. So do you think that only The Testament had all that you claim within it wrong or does that apply to the way all of ‘The Bible’ in the Christian sense is presented ?

GeraldtheGnome: It wasn’t false, if you believe otherwise then keep that belief to yourself since I will delete anything further by you with your claim that I came out with something that is false. I asked what if there any differences with every section of a Christian Bible to what your own book has. If you don’t want to then that is fine, I don’t need an unprovoked fight started by you. I stated why your claim of what I mentioned is false and you went berserk over it and then falsely accused me of things. If you don’t wish to cease repeating the words of others then leave out my words at the very least and since you don’t want to continue on with all differences of the two books, which is fine, you have no further reason to be here, something of which I will enforce. It’s extremely simple, it’s very easy to understand.

edmund_carey: Gerald is a bit odd. He thinks that because the word "Bible" didn't exist, the book cannot have. If the Hebrew Scriptures, whatever they were called, did not exist in the early first century, what was Jesus referring to?

GeraldtheGnome: I am very odd and I like that I am very odd. I also never refer to anything other than life forms and viruses when it comes to existence. So your mind reading skills failed when it came to what you thought is true about me. Christian manuscripts and books prior to any book by the English name Bible were around before the book with the spelling of B, i, b, l and e was around. Hebrew scriptures, rather than Scriptures, were around in the first century, The Iron Age. The name Jesus however does not go that far back, nor does any known name similar to that. Unless someone finds out otherwise then even a name similar to Jesus was not even possibly used that far back. The reality is that Jesus Christ never existed and he still doesn’t exist.

I still don’t know why you used quotation marks for no good reason.

edmund_carey: I think it's about time you proved that Jesus never existed, Gerald. Learned scholars who read Hebrew, Greek, Chaldean, Syriac and Coptic have never been able to do that. Maybe you can do it. In fact you must be able to, since you always announce the fact so imperiously. You can't possibly be that certain without having a head full of solid reasons.

Try to keep in mind that when the name "Jesus", in that form, dates from, has nothing whatever to do with the historical existence of the central figure in Christianity. If that person existed (which by far most scholars of the subject think he did) then his name was "Yeshua".

The Greek speaking authors of the New Testament made that "Iesous" as the closest Greek equivalent, and that became "Jesus" when the same text was translated into Latin. Modern Italian makes it "Gesù", but it's the same name, repeatedly re-spelled by the many languages in which writing about him has occurred. That's all.

I look forward to your settling this matter once and for all. Then everyone who reads you can rest assured that Jesus Christ is a creation of the imagination only.

WeHere: Grew up reading and believing the Bible. For my 10th Christmas I received a while Bible with the words of Jesus in red. Still have it. But then I started studying the Bible's history. I discovered the Aprocrypha (books excluded from current editions) and the history, including Flavian influences and the way the Bible and religion in general have been weaponized for political purposes and control of the masses. Then there's the irony of the T for Tamuz stamped on the Bible cover, and the silly believers adore that implement of torture as an adored symbol. The whole idea of using a cross, that cruel implement of torture, as a symbol of religious adoration is some pretty impressive mind fuckery. And I didn't even get into the cannabalism symbology.

edmund_carey: Sorry to hear about your disillusionment WeHere, but I think most of it is uncalled for. The Apocrypha are not "excluded" from "current editions" of the Bible. They were never in any recognized Bible at all. They are not regarded as part of inspired Scripture, however historically interesting they may be.

I'm afraid I don't know what a "Flavian" influence is. It sounds like some sort of misapprehension.

There is no "T" standing for Tammuz or anything else on the cover of a Bible, as your next remark makes plain. The symbol there is a cross, not a "T". The cross is used as a symbol of salvation through Christ because he died on one. Christians believe that using an instrument of execution as a symbol celebrates the transformation of the worst that humanity can do to the best that God can. God turns a human instrument of torture into a divine one of blessing and love.

It is easy to slip into seeing the central act of worship in Christianity as cannabalism. Critics of the Christian faith were doing that back in its first centuries. But Christians believe that the symbolism of that, which did exist in pagan cults of the time, was a reaching out by the human imagination toward the central mystery of Christianity - the bestowal of grace, won for humanity by the death of Christ, which became central to right relationship with God after the coming of the new Covenant. Cannabalism is eating what is human. Christians consume what is Divine.

GeraldtheGnome: Back in the third century, the time of The Iron Age, Biblio (if the translation and transliteration is correct) just meant the word book and ta biblia (if the translation and the transliteration is correct0 just meant 'the books' , I cannot see any reason why sometimes quotation marks have been used for no reason on this forum or anywhere else, but it has, so be it. So yes, the name Bible is a variation that derives from Koine Greek (if the translation and transliteration is true), but no one literally used The Bible or anything exactly like it back then, just vaguely like it. That however has nothing to do with Hebrew or Aramaic, I will get to that at some other time. Jesus was not referring to anything in the first century because he did not exist, there was no Jesus anywhere at that time and that particular Jesus does not exist now either. There's another thing, some like question marks and exclamation marks next to the word without a space, I don't though.

I actually don't need to prove that Jesus never existed, however it is best for those that claim that he does exist explain/prove how something who is supposed to have existed over 2,000 years ago, with evidence that shows what I have overlooked. Even though I don't need to prove that he does not exist and that he never existed, because the burden of proof is on those who claim the opposite of what I am for, I still will give my reasons as to why he does not exist and why he never existed. For a start you are using the name Jesus, now it originates from Koine Greek or so it is most likely true for a start, so the letters J, e, s, u and s were not used back then, even with all the names for that claimed to exist one during the time between when the name was written in Koine Greek as Iessous or a variation of it or whatever the hell the name really (since it's possible that everyone is wrong about it right now) and between when the name Jesus was first used there were names similar to the two of them. The possibly true name in Koine Greek and every name since the Koine Greek writing of what later became the earliest parts of The New Testament are nothing like any name in any form of past or present Hebrew and it is nothing like Aramaic either. So the Jesus that was claimed to exist Jesus was not named Jesus or anything similar to it or to the Koine Greek name.

Everything before the time of The Dead Sea Scrolls never had anything about a Jesus in any direct or indirect way, nor did any of it include anything about a virgin becoming magically pregnant by a god that in reality is a dreamt up god. The Dead Sea Scrolls itself does not include any of that stuff either. The virgin Mary of the Christian story, with the supernatural pregnancy, did not exist. So either the names Jesus and Iessous (and variations of it), as well as every name since the first Koine Greek versions were written (with maybe an exception to any Hebrew writing and to anything similar to it just simply have the wrong and very different name to any Hebrew and Aramaic name for the one who is claimed to have existed or they are very different names than any Hebrew and Aramaic names falsely claimed to originate from a story about one who never existed. So he either existed by a name that is nothing like that of Jesus Iessous/Iesous and so on yet under a Hebrew or Aramaic name or he just never existed and those that used Koine Greek were the first ones to make up a story about a made up Iessous or whatever name is really shown in Koine Greek if the translation and transliteration of it is wrong, which by the way is possible. So if any claimed chosen one did live and died then he was not born by supernatural means or by artificial insemination. That means that the father and the mother of him, if he did exist, had sex in the usual manner that women become pregnant now, if he was born at all due to any pregnancy. The rising from the dead nonsense should also be disregarded. There is no way that anyone can prove that there is an afterlife and that anyone has ever been resurrected.

The Scholars were never able to prove that it is based on life person, nor did they ever even try to, except for a minority of them, that's because each of them, including most that were not religious, used religious bias and confirmation bias. Most of the scholars were into Judaism and Christianity. The it must be true because I believe that it was true and because I was told that it is true way of thinking was used by them. It is better to use standard words than that of some of the words that you have used. better suited words than what you have used just doesn't come off as someone who is trying to impress others and thinks that only smart people use rarely used words for no good reason whatsoever, the use of rarely used words is not an indicator that someone is smart just because that person used the word. It was a dumb decision of yours and you dumbed things down because of it. The imaginary god who is supposed to be a son of one, which unknowingly is what Christians imply, unless there are Arians still around, is just more about the claimed exploits of the gods and goddesses which is what The Bible is really about. The imaginary gods and goddesses that is, that's what each god and goddess in the book really is after all. Yes, so Yeshua, Y'shua, Yehoshua and similar names to that are what I am going to centre in on in order to show if the one to whom you erroneously refer to as Jesus did or did not exist in The Iron Age during the first century.

Try to keep in mind that when the name "Jesus", in that form, dates from, has nothing whatever to do with the historical existence of the central figure in Christianity. If that person existed (which by far most scholars of the subject think he did) then his name was "Yeshua".

For now I will look at the stuff written by the Koine Greek authors. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are books of The New Testament as we both know, these days they are placed in that order as well. So I will first look at the earliest known version of the first verse of The Book of Matthew (as it is named in English). Papyrus one. Witten in Koine Greek in the third century, at least it is from The Iron Age, I'll give you that. It was written at Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, most have it that it was written in 250 AD, some have it written as early as 200 AD and others have that it was written in 300 AD. Either way it's not in The Middle East even, it's in Africa. It's also known as Oxyrhynchus two. Now out of those that are probably right about the translation and transliteration, to some degree, there still dispute about the names associated with those in the genealogy of Christ. For me though I have seen no problem with the names there unless the entire translation and transliteration of The Book of Matthew, chapter one is completely wrong, that's very possible. Either way no one will ever know for sure what the go is with it, no one even knows now. Going off what is most likely right is that verse one when translated into common Modern English has 'The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham' as the first verse. Now if any of them existed or not or possibly existed is not what I will mention here for now.

GeraldtheGnome: The next part I am interested in there in that chapter is verse 23. It has in the standard Modern English interpretation, "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall give birth to a son. They shall call his name Immanuel", which is being interpreted as, "God with us.'

I would word all of that differently, for a start we all know that no one can be the son of more than one father, so the claim in the chapter is that he is the descendant of this person and of that person, not the literal son of each of them. Immanuel versus Jesus/Iesous versus Yehoshua/Yeshua/Y'shua. Can you tell that from the prophecy that it was never meant to be about the one who you claim still does exist ? Also the Koine Greek interpretation mistakenly had virgin instead of young woman as was shown prior to then. Already your Jesus did exist claim looks like it might be wrong by that. Your claim that he does exist is wrong by the way.

Now for who was the author. Well form the manuscript there is no name of the author there and the verses are not numbered. So if the author is known then his name must be on an earlier manuscript that shows that. So far there's no author name, no verse numbers, no chapter numbers and there are problems with the name. Not only that though, if the author is supposed to be one that had anything to do with the claimed chosen one then both of them had to have lived at the same time at the same rough location and had something to do with each other. Well none of that has been shown with this document, you are in luck though since there is stuff about the one we refer to as 'Matthew' from before this time period. Oh, I hope for your sake that it's from the first century otherwise it's all going to look a bit dodgy.

Here's evidence that proves that you cannot see the name of the author or the verse numbers or even the chapter number on the manuscript. If you can translate all of that Koine Greek properly just by looking at it then you are doing better than I have.

http://www.earlynewtestament.com