PROOF OF BIBLE ERRANCY

[◊ Weezer ◊]

If you want a reference to show errancy in the Old Teatament, look at the book, THE BOOK THAT WILL FOREVER CHANGE OUR IDEAS ABOUT THE BIBLE  by Mauro Biglino.  It also has some explanations for some passages that apologists have a hard time explaining.  He also wrote THE NAKED BIBLE  which is evidently similar information.  The books also explain where the idea of a vengeful, narcissistic god came from.  $9.99 Amazon ebook.  Although I don't buy into the theory of where the influence came from, the books give a whole new take on the bible.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

It is interesting how different some of todays Old Testament reads, compared to the original Hebrew.

[☆ pantheory ☆]

On 1/22/2023 at 10:54 PM, Weezer said:

If you want a reference to show errancy in the Old Teatament, look at the book, THE BOOK THAT WILL FOREVER CHANGE OUR IDEAS ABOUT THE BIBLE  by Mauro Biglino.  It also has some explanations for some passages that apologists have a hard time explaining.  He also wrote THE NAKED BIBLE  which is evidently similar information.  The books also explain where the idea of a vengeful, narcissistic god came from.  $9.99 Amazon ebook.  Although I don't buy into the theory of where the influence came from, the books give a whole new take on the bible.

 

If one wants to point out the stupidity and Proof of errancy in the Bible one should also point to the New Testament and the fantasy story and prophesy of Revelation: what a ridiculous storybook pile of crap

[mwc]

     From what I know Mauro Biglino promotes ancient aliens theories.  I would take what he says with a grain of salt.  Unless you're interested in things like his take that "Adam" was anesthetized, had cells harvested and cloned to produce "Eve."  Then feel free to eat a whole heaping spoonful.

 

          mwc

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Biglino's translation skills with the early writings is what I am recommending. His explanation of biblical writings seems spot on to me.  He is good enough for the Vatican to hire him.  And then fire him when his translations did not support a single god and other christian beliefs.  Yes, I take the other stuff with a grain of salt, but as discussed before, do not automatically reject all the possibilities.   

 

It definitely looks like there were many "gods" (and angels) in the bible, and that they were very human like.  And it seems to be lifted from Sumerian writings which do not seem to be attempts to develope a religion.  They seemed to simply be describing what had been observed.  Do you have a better suggestion as to where those gods and angels came from??

[◊ Weezer ◊]

1 hour ago, Weezer said:

 

 They (Sumerians) seemed to simply be describing what had been observed.

 

Hebrew writers seem to have taken Sumerian writings, modified them, and made a one god religion of fear out of them. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 10/28/2023 at 4:12 AM, Wertbag said:

 

  Of this subjects that I've heard discussed, which are you convinced are true and which do you think may be overstepping what we can know for sure? 

 

 Is truth always 100% true??  And how much can we know things for sure??  Don't we often have to go with what is most plausable??  I believe your observations are great!  Don't worry about overstepping anything.

[mwc]

6 hours ago, Weezer said:

Biglino's translation skills with the early writings is what I am recommending. His explanation of biblical writings seems spot on to me.  He is good enough for the Vatican to hire him.  And then fire him when his translations did not support a single god and other christian beliefs.  Yes, I take the other stuff with a grain of salt, but as discussed before, do not automatically reject all the possibilities.   

     I don't know his resume other than what he mentions in his book and he doesn't mention working for the Vatican there:

 

"This contradiction, however, is one of the reasons that led me to begin independent research, after working for many years as a Bible translator for a major Catholic publisher whose books are recognized in Vatican academic circles."

 

     I also checked his biography on his web site and Wikipedia and it's not mention there either.  At this point I feel he wasn't directly employed by the Vatican but perhaps I missed that specific information in my search?

 

     I've kept searching and found an interview he did an he had this to say:

 

"Ten or so years ago, when I started voicing my doubts about the correctness of translating the term “Elohim” with “God,” Edizioni San Paolo’s bosses began to worry about my heterodox ideas, and our collaboration came to a halt after seventeen books were published together. What made them so mad? The extraterrestrial hypothesis, to be fair, was not the main problem, as the Catholic Church does admit the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence. Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, ex-Vatican’s chief astronomer, avers that there is no conflict between believing in God and the possibility of “extraterrestrial brothers,” perhaps more evolved than humans.2

 

The main problem was my methodology and its profound implications. To be clear, I propose a literal interpretation that allows me, and all those who adhere to it, to read the Bible, and particularly the Old Testament, from the advantage point of distancing myself from the theological filters that have buried the “sacred text” for thousands of years, making it unreachable and unusable."

 

     So I'm going to say he did not work for the Vatican.  I'm also going to say, at this point since I've only glanced at the book, is a literal interpretation is not necessarily better.  I'm actually trying to learn Italian and word-for-word literal translations can be a mess.  You need to "fix" things when translating if you want them to make sense.

 

     I'll give you a quick example.  The word "ciao."  It's informal.  It means both "hello" and "goodbye" but originally meant something like "I am your slave."  But, if you look it up, it was used more idiomatically, so it really more meant "I am at your service."  So literally translate it and have it make a lot of sense without "fixing" it.  A literal translation may lead to more confusion than an interpretive one.  It might cause people to think people were enslaved to others when they were not.  The original meaning is lost and a new meaning is created simply by being literal and thinking you're recovering the original.

 

     From the interview I saw him speaking to the term "ruach" often translated "spirit."  Several times people were moved about using so he leaves it alone so one can draw their own conclusions.  It now sounds like a flying transport of some sort.  But in Genesis 3:8 the literal translation is "And they heard the sound of Yahveh God walking in the garden in the wind [ruach] of the day." (vayyishmeʿu et-kol Yahveh elohim mithallekh bagan leruach ha-yom)  Just like that the illusion of some sort of an advanced flying transport is shattered.  No matter how you slice it "walking in the garden in the [ruach] of the day" makes no sense as a flying transport.

 

6 hours ago, Weezer said:

It definitely looks like there were many "gods" (and angels) in the bible, and that they were very human like.  And it seems to be lifted from Sumerian writings which do not seem to be attempts to develope a religion.  They seemed to simply be describing what had been observed.  Do you have a better suggestion as to where those gods and angels came from??

     Xenophanes said:

 

But mortals suppose that gods are born,
wear their own clothes and have a voice and body. (frag. 14)
Ethiopians say that their gods are snub-nosed and black;
Thracians that theirs are blue-eyed and red-haired. (frag. 16)
But if horses or oxen or lions had hands
or could draw with their hands and accomplish such works as men,
horses would draw the figures of the gods as similar to horses, and the oxen as similar to oxen,
and they would make the bodies
of the sort which each of them had. (frag. 15)

 

     Seems this might be a likely place to look for gods, angels and even human-like ancient aliens.

 

          mwc

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

11 hours ago, mwc said:

 

"Ten or so years ago, when I started voicing my doubts about the correctness of translating the term “Elohim” with “God,” Edizioni San Paolo’s bosses began to worry about my heterodox ideas, and our collaboration came to a halt after seventeen books were published together.

 

This coincides with what I found.  Althought this doesn't mention the Vatican specifically, it seems to indicate that he was part of a team that was doing translations, and someone didn't like his results.  I guess I made an assumption that didn't pan out.  

[◊ Weezer ◊]

11 hours ago, mwc said:

 

But mortals suppose that gods are born,
wear their own clothes and have a voice and body. (frag. 14)
Ethiopians say that their gods are snub-nosed and black;
Thracians that theirs are blue-eyed and red-haired. (frag. 16)
But if horses or oxen or lions had hands
or could draw with their hands and accomplish such works as men,
horses would draw the figures of the gods as similar to horses, and the oxen as similar to oxen,
and they would make the bodies
of the sort which each of them had. (frag. 15)

 

 

You are comparing apples to oranges.  The Sumerian writings are voluminous and have NO indication they were trying to invent "gods".  These writings about the gods are mixed in with everyday, matter of fact, record keeping.  

[◊ Weezer ◊]

11 hours ago, mwc said:

 

     Seems this might be a likely place to look for gods, angels and even human-like ancient aliens.

 

          mwc

 

Is that where you found your god of snarkyness??

[mwc]

3 hours ago, Weezer said:

 

You are comparing apples to oranges.  The Sumerian writings are voluminous and have NO indication they were trying to invent "gods".  These writings about the gods are mixed in with everyday, matter of fact, record keeping.  

     Why are you insisting that the writings have an indication of trying to invent gods?  Who says the authors were trying to invent anything?

 

     Is there reason to assume the gods were novel at the time of writing?  That the gods, and stories of these gods, did not exist in the culture prior to these stories thus requiring their invention?  That the authors weren't following a typical literary tradition?  That is they wrote the stories either as they had been received by those authors or wrote those stories after the fashion of the day which, to you, appears as matter of fact record keeping?

 

          mwc

 

[mwc]

3 hours ago, Weezer said:

Is that where you found your god of snarkyness??

     It's not snarky.  It's an actual response to the Biglino's theory.  The introduction of his book is about cargo cults, he then speaks to how this will become important with regard to his alien theory, and when I skimmed through the book and his interview it was quite clear he merged the ideas into alien cargo cults.

 

     So, considering there is currently no supporting evidence for alien cargo cults it's not unreasonable to say they are an anthropomorphic creation of humans.

 

          mwc

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

5 hours ago, mwc said:

   

 Why are you insisting that the writings have an indication of trying to invent gods?  Who says the authors were trying to invent anything?

 

I am NOT saying that!  You implied that with your quote below.

 

20 hours ago, mwc said:

 

     Xenophanes said:

 

But mortals suppose that gods are born,
wear their own clothes and have a voice and body. (frag. 14)
Ethiopians say that their gods are snub-nosed and black;
Thracians that theirs are blue-eyed and red-haired. (frag. 16)
But if horses or oxen or lions had hands
or could draw with their hands and accomplish such works as men,
horses would draw the figures of the gods as similar to horses, and the oxen as similar to oxen,
and they would make the bodies
of the sort which each of them had. (frag. 15)

 

     Seems this might be a likely place to look for gods, angels and even human-like ancient aliens.

 

          mwc

 

 

Why dont you study the Sumerian writings yourself, and then come back with a response?

 

And even if Biglino is totally in left field regarding the ET stuff, does not mean he is not a good translator.  His translations are what I am focusing on.  But you can't seem to turn loose of the ET stuff.  Seems like we did this once before.  I have made my case, you have made yours, so why don't we just drop it?

 

And if you want to take this any further, take it to PM so we don't hijack this thread.  

[mwc]

34 minutes ago, Weezer said:

I am NOT saying that!  You implied that with your quote below.

     Then I'm confused.  You said that there was no indication they were inventing gods.  I asked why the insistence on why they must include such an indication?

 

     From what I can gather here it would seem that you're telling me that since there's no indication the authors were inventing these gods that they must simply be reporting actual events.  Essentially a sort of dichotomy: invention or actual reporting.  Maybe I'm wrong here?  But that's how it appears to me.  So, now, I was asking why, minus signs of invention, that it had to be actual reporting as opposed to something else.  I tossed out ideas like they were simply writing in the style of the time, after the manner they were taught, or passing along the previously invented stories as they received them.

 

34 minutes ago, Weezer said:

 

Why dont you study the Sumerian writings yourself, and then come back with a response?

     Be more specific.  I have read through the Sumerian writings.  I've also read through the later Babylonian variants.  Simply waiving me away with "Go educate yourself" is not helpful.

 

34 minutes ago, Weezer said:

And even if Biglino is totally in left field regarding the ET stuff, does not mean he is not a good translator.  His translations are what I am focusing on.  But you can't seem to turn loose of the ET stuff.  Seems like we did this once before.  I have made my case, you have made yours, so why don't we just drop it?

     I can't turn loose of the ET stuff because it was in the introduction of the book that you recommended.  As I'm looking through the book it's pervasive throughout.  I wouldn't know where to begin to look for the bits and pieces of the very few translations that would help me reconstruct a trustworthy history of the Jewish religion.  I wish it were that easy but it's really more an alternate, and fringe,  history of the Jewish religion.

 

34 minutes ago, Weezer said:

And if you want to take this any further, take it to PM so we don't hijack this thread.  

     We're discussing a recommended source so I don't know if that's hijacking but if it is then it would seem that ship has long sailed.

 

          mwc

 

[☆ pantheory ☆]

On 10/29/2023 at 4:34 PM, Weezer said:

Biglino's translation skills with the early writings is what I am recommending. His explanation of biblical writings seems spot on to me.  He is good enough for the Vatican to hire him.  And then fire him when his translations did not support a single god and other christian beliefs.  Yes, I take the other stuff with a grain of salt, but as discussed before, do not automatically reject all the possibilities.   

 

It definitely looks like there were many "gods" (and angels) in the bible, and that they were very human like.  And it seems to be lifted from Sumerian writings which do not seem to be attempts to develop a religion.  They seemed to simply be describing what had been observed.  Do you have a better suggestion as to where those gods and angels came from??

 

We all know where those gods and angels came from, right?  -- from fecund and furtive imaginations.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

2 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

We all know where those gods and angels came from, right?  -- from fecund and furtive imaginations.

No, we don’t all know that.  What if there were actual beings at that time that people THOUGHT were gods and angels. Have you read the Sumerian writings?

[☆ pantheory ☆]

9 minutes ago, Weezer said:

No, we don’t all know that.  What if there were actual beings at that time that people THOUGHT were gods and angels. Have you read the Sumerian writings?

 

Of course it's possible. But personally, I believe none of it, and think it's all fiction. I think the odds of it being true are not as good as me winning a big lottery -- a 50 million to one shot.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

22 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Of course it's possible. But personally, I believe none of it, and think it's all fiction. I think the odds of it being true are not as good as me winning a big lottery -- a 50 million to one shot.

 

I invite you to read about the Sumerian writings.  Or Googled Sumerian creation and flood stories.  There is a lot of information including from some academic sources.    

 

For you and mwc, the whole point I was wanting to make is that early Hebrew writers appeared to have borrowed from Sumerian writings, which indicated there were multiple gods.  As does the Bible.  The Hebrew writers modified the stories, made a botched attempt to squelch the multiple gods, and came up with their religion.  

 

I personally believe that many legends and myths have a thread of truth in them.  But can get blown out of proportion and eventually become ridicilous.  

[mwc]

4 hours ago, Weezer said:

 

I invite you to read about the Sumerian writings.  Or Googled Sumerian creation and flood stories.  There is a lot of information including from some academic sources.    

 

For you and mwc, the whole point I was wanting to make is that early Hebrew writers appeared to have borrowed from Sumerian writings, which indicated there were multiple gods.  As does the Bible.  The Hebrew writers modified the stories, made a botched attempt to squelch the multiple gods, and came up with their religion.  

 

I personally believe that many legends and myths have a thread of truth in them.  But can get blown out of proportion and eventually become ridicilous.  

     Since we got moved here I figured I'd follow-up.  It seems, on what's said here, we're not that far apart.

 

     As I said, I have read both Sumerian and Babylonian myths, as well as the Egyptian, Greek and Roman writings for that matter (admittedly it's been about a decade, give or take, for a lot of these).  However, it's fairly well accepted that the Jews, while in Babylon appeared to have integrated those ideas into their own (as well as encountering other ideas such as Zoroastrianism).  Meaning the first book of the bible was likely not the first written, but came after based on other writings.  This is where it appears we would agree.

 

     Now, given the state of the document it appears that there were possibly multiple authors and at least one major redaction, if not more.  The estimate for this is several hundred years after the return for captivity around the time of Ezra.  So you have more than one document merged into one during this time.  It may also be during this time that the push towards monotheism occurred meaning the first documents were less inclined towards such an idea, not counting the sources from Babylon since we would assume them to not be monotheistic.  I think we may agree here as well but I cannot say.

 

     I think we do disagree on things like, for instance, the idea of "botched."  Since it assumes a certain standard that we have that they may not have had.  Certainly, the whole thing looks like a hack job to us.  There are bits and pieces lying around that look mismatched and out of place but perhaps they had a different standard and/or purpose and so these things were not an issue?  It's easy to impose a standard we think people should have used but difficult, if not impossible, to know what standard they were using.

 

     Also, I think we disagree that this was an attempt by whoever did this to "come up with" their religion.  In my mind their religion comes before the documents.  It was invented already.  The documents were there simply to support the religion.  Stories would give weight to the rituals which would be the actual basis of any religion.

 

          mwc

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

13 hours ago, mwc said:

 

     Also, I think we disagree that this was an attempt by whoever did this to "come up with" their religion.  In my mind their religion comes before the documents.  It was invented already.  The documents were there simply to support the religion.  Stories would give weight to the rituals which would be the actual basis of any religion.

 

Allow me to let my elderly mind do some mulling in these early morning hours.  I think we may even agree here, if we use a word other than religion.   I see the whole bible as a ploy, that we now call religion.  A sneaky scheme to scare the hell out of people and control the masses of ignorant people..  The question in my mind is, from where, and how did all this crap come together?  Where did they get their information?  Was it from fairytale gods and made up stories??  Or was it from actual mafia like strong men/beings that had the power to scare the crap out of people and control the tribes in eary times??  And were seen as gods??  And through the ages the stories got embellished and twisted??  And we now see them as legends??  Myths??  My logical mind tells me it isn't all fantasy.  That there are at least some bits of reality involved.  My logical mind tells me that there have been some very sly, masterminds that used primitive societies through the ages, and put everything together. They mixed it with magical primitive myths and religions, Then eventually, with the power of the Roman government in the middle ages eliminated all the competition they could, and force fed their doctrine, and in a few centuries had conditioned a large segment of society to believe it is the HOLY WORD OF GOD.  Did that just happen??  Or was some mastermind(s) in control all along??  Or did sly individuals along the way observe what was happening and build on what was going on??  I know this sounds like a gigantic conspiracy theory, but those are the questions my 82 year old brain is asking.  It is an extremely complex situation.

 

 

[mwc]

9 hours ago, Weezer said:

Allow me to let my elderly mind do some mulling in these early morning hours.  I think we may even agree here, if we use a word other than religion.   I see the whole bible as a ploy, that we now call religion.  A sneaky scheme to scare the hell out of people and control the masses of ignorant people..  The question in my mind is, from where, and how did all this crap come together?  Where did they get their information?  Was it from fairytale gods and made up stories??  Or was it from actual mafia like strong men/beings that had the power to scare the crap out of people and control the tribes in eary times??  And were seen as gods??  And through the ages the stories got embellished and twisted??  And we now see them as legends??  Myths??  My logical mind tells me it isn't all fantasy.  That there are at least some bits of reality involved.  My logical mind tells me that there have been some very sly, masterminds that used primitive societies through the ages, and put everything together. They mixed it with magical primitive myths and religions, Then eventually, with the power of the Roman government in the middle ages eliminated all the competition they could, and force fed their doctrine, and in a few centuries had conditioned a large segment of society to believe it is the HOLY WORD OF GOD.  Did that just happen??  Or was some mastermind(s) in control all along??  Or did sly individuals along the way observe what was happening and build on what was going on??  I know this sounds like a gigantic conspiracy theory, but those are the questions my 82 year old brain is asking.  It is an extremely complex situation.

 

 

     Ah.  I see the origins of things a bit differently.  I would tend more towards ritualized superstition.  In a nutshell, you would have had some sort of coincidence(s) that occurred.  Someone did X and Y occurred or perhaps Y occurred and someone attributed it to X.  The order of events in these sorts of things are always difficult but ultimately irrelevant since cause and effect aren't actually related.  Kind of like the old "step on a crack break your mother's back."  A superstitious rhyme that, if it occurs is pure coincidence and whether the person notices they stepped on a crack and then the back is broken or the back is broken and then they decide it was the stepping on the crack that was the cause is of no real concern as far as real life goes but is important for the rituals.

 

     So if someone creates this sort of cause and effect, they usually keep doing it, especially if it appears to work.  A lot of times doing more and more elaborate things to sort of "amplify" the effect.  Here I would imagine folks that gamble.  It happens a lot at simple bingo parlors or at large casinos or even at home when watching sports.  People will bring a lucky charm (little items or clothing) or a perform a little ritual move like touching the machine in a certain way when they play or perhaps a sort or "prayer" (not to a deity per se but more like a verbal charm).  If things work to their advantage they bring more charms or make more elaborate moves.

 

     If this appears to pay off over time others tend to take notice and want in on their good fortune, or they want to be able to avoid bad fortune, or impart bad fortune on others, and start to copy these same rituals.  They bring their own charms.  Make their own moves.  If the community is small enough it's pretty easy for these rituals to "spread" throughout.  For someone to insist that everyone perform an action at a given time, such as taking a drink, in order for their player or team to achieve the desired goal and if it fails it's equally easy to not blame the ritual but one or more participants for not performing this ritual correctly.  It's not unusual for one or people in a group like this to essentially "emerge" as the de facto leaders which allow them to further control and shape things.

 

     What I'm saying is you have something growing from a small superstitious ritual to a much larger and formalized group ritual.  For things that are on larger time scales, which would be required for survival, the desire to control nature so you have good weather, good crops, safety, and so on, these things sorts of superstitions would have the ability to become traditionalized institutions.  No one would have been tracking statistics on how well they worked so they would have simply used them since they were the way they managed the world.

 

          mwc

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

10 hours ago, mwc said:

 

     What I'm saying is you have something growing from a small superstitious ritual to a much larger and formalized group ritual.  For things that are on larger time scales, which would be required for survival, the desire to control nature so you have good weather, good crops, safety, and so on, these things sorts of superstitions would have the ability to become traditionalized institutions.  No one would have been tracking statistics on how well they worked so they would have simply used them since they were the way they managed the world.

 

Thanks for the thorough explanation.  I can definitely see how a rain god or sun god, etc, could get started in that way.  But to me, in the case of the Hebrews I think it is more likely they were trying to please an actual, very powerful mafaia type "god" whom they were dependent upon for survival.  But we can't go back and prove any of it, so we just go on in life with our personal ideas.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 10/31/2023 at 12:46 AM, mwc said:

 

     We're discussing a recommended source so I don't know if that's hijacking but if it is then it would seem that ship has long sailed.

 

          mwc

At the time I suggested taking the discussion to PM, I thought we were still in Wertbags thread.  Thanks to Taba for moving it.