Match Day Thread Sunderland v Manchester United Sunday 9th April KO 13:30

The Bible.

 

I used to read the bible every week
The auto trader

 

Why did you stop?
Start sleeping under chronicles instead?

 

No, but it does talk about the "disciple whom Jesus loved"

 

No surprise an idiot mag quotes a book which promotes incest!

 

I was referring to your mate being a bumhole engineer a bit like you

 

This must be the most useless wum we've ever had on here.
And by god, we've had some **** ones.

 

Haven't seen one person get shredded so much since Nasty Nick was in Big Brother.

 

Nick cotton

 

By Steve ****head, i guess you are referring to Steven Taylor?






Now get back outside. Those Big Issues won't sell themselves.

 

Are you that stupid to believe they sell big issue ? They only try sell it to get a roof over there heads !!!
And it's a known fact they sell the nasty aswell

 

You remind me of Tom Hanks in The Terminal. Only you climbed out of the airport toilet window and escaped.

 

The Bible is piece of fiction you thick **** Horrible, ugly, ignorant, homophobic, Byker inbred ****. Your kids play on council estate grass verges with nowt on their back and feet with their mouth covered in mud. Eating every meal from a deep fat fryer with 6 month old fat

Now jog on Sausage Square.

 

Actually, its not fiction. There is a large amount of information recorded in the bible that is demonstrably historical fact. What it is, is a work of propaganda and should not be read literally.

I agree with the rest of your comment though.

 

I reckon you're gay but in denial! I'm straight. Married to a beautiful woman with 2 lovely kids! You on the other hand, shag your brother!

 

Which bible though? You stress on the propaganda though so fair play.

The old testament is 100% fiction, The new testament is meant to be true but full of distorted facts lost in the translation or retold stories spanning back centuries. The Bible is just a collection of scripture containing authors own personal interpretations of events, so the historic accuracy can fall at the first hurdle. Add to that different additions of the bible tell different stories in the way they've chosen to translate it and set the events to their own agenda. There are over 2000 version on the Bible, all conflicting in many many places with each other. Not just on political or spiritual levels but to thanks to a move away from 'word for word' bibles over the centuries towards 'Thought for thought' and then 'paraphrased' bibles there has been an element of Chinese whisper if you like which changes versions of events dependable on which route you take along the bible's evolution.

History doesn't change, it does read different depending on which side it was recorded so history itself can often be viewed with a degree of scepticism, but it doesn't evolve, it sits tight in place where the values of it's time never change. Faith on the other hand evolves so none of it's scriptures or the thousands of variations and the continued variations which will go on to be created, should ever be taken as fact, and with it contradictions should be expected.

 

Yes, I am well aware of the history of the compilation of the bible, its numerous versions, translations, the synods and meetings during which various books were added or removed and the fact that there are many documents relating to the life of Christ and other important biblical characters that are not included in some or all versions of the bible.

There are some elements of the old testament that might be considered to be fiction, Genesis for example, but that is really a misunderstanding of what it is. You have to remember that this was an attempt by people living many thousands of years ago to explain their existence and how the world came into being. They didn't have the same scientific understanding that we do and only had their own experiences and the stories passed on to them which would have been part of an even older oral story-telling tradition that would have changed and developed with each telling. Even then, the story is probably allegorical and Adam and Eve may not represent the first humans but the earliest remembered characters of a particular tribe or group. Other elements of the old testament, such as the Exodus, aren't supported by historical or archaeological evidence but probably contain a core of historical fact but this has been changed beyond all recognition by repeated re-telling and translations.

As for the new testament, this contains several examples where unrelated historical events (e.g. the census and a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn creating a bright 'star' in the sky) are shoved together to make a better story or to prove a point. I've even read one interpretation which suggests that there were two people by the name of Jesus (but referred to using the same name but in different languages up to that point), therefore offering a neat explanation for the resurrection story.

There are a lot of standalone facts in there that are correct but they are arranged in a misleading order.

Almost all of the content of the bible (or any version thereof) has to be understood as a propaganda and/or to be understood as the thoughts of people living at least 2000 years ago, with bits chopped and changed by other people during those 2000 years. Almost all of it is open to interpretation and while its wrong (not to mention irrelevant in the 21st C) to take it literally its also just as daft not to see that the key message of "be nice to each other" is the main thing to take from it. People will always search for things in it to support their own ****ed up agendas but that doesn't mean that the whole thing is wrong or bad.

 

I think it's a load of baloney.
The virgin birth.
Walking on water.
Turning water into wine. now that one is quite possible as the stewardess at my local seems to be able to do it in reverse.
No, too much ****ing ****e in it for me.

Just a means of controllin the masses
All religions do it.

 

Some of that's the propaganda though Billy and is just bollocks. The virgin birth is a good example though- at that time and in that part of the world what they considered to be a virgin and what we consider it to be were slightly different. Originally the story was probably clear to them but someone's come along and changed it slightly to make it sound more dramatic than it was.

 

I bet she'd been shagged arl ower Nazareth.