Zone1 The Annunaki

[surada]

Because my post was specifically for that part of it. "He has been rejected by all." That is a lie.

He's been debunked by experts in Sumerian cuneiform... For mistakes in his translations.

Zecharia Sitchin and Our Alien Anecestors | The Psychology of Extraordinary Beliefs

u.osu.edu

 

[TNHarley]

He's been debunked by experts in Sumerian cuneiform... For mistakes in his translations.

Zecharia Sitchin and Our Alien Anecestors | The Psychology of Extraordinary Beliefs

u.osu.edu

Nice link. Thanks
many other scholars have written about his work and have added their own supportive evidence

 

[surada]

Nice link. Thanks
many other scholars have written about his work and have added their own supportive evidence

He's been translated into 25 languages so that's a pretty big deal

 

[Natural Citizen]

The ''authorized'' Bible is translated by scribes who lived at a time when they were around six linguistics separated from the so-called original texts.

I'd imagine it's likely one of, if not the most mistranslated books in the world.

But nyooo...everybody wanna gang up on TN for thinking outside of the little box, and what seems to be for no other reason than the fact that he dare do so.

 

[Natural Citizen]

This is why I tend to avoid this section...

 

[buttercup]

The ''authorized'' Bible is translated by scribes who lived at a time when they were around six linguistics separated from the so-called original texts.

I'd imagine it's likely one of, if not the most mistranslated books in the world.

But nyooo...everybody wanna gang up on TN for thinking outside of the little box, and what seems to be for no other reason than the fact that he dare do so.

The Bible has stood the test of time, and 2000 years later is STILL the most read, studied, quoted, loved and hated, and best selling book of all time. Hands down.

Not to mention well over a thousand fulfilled prophecies (the odds of that many are statistically impossible) and millions (or even billions) of radically changed lives, the bottom line is, the Bible is no ordinary book. I know you don't believe that now, but it's the truth.

And we're not ganging up on TN, we're just having a discussion. Sometimes these types of discussions get heated, yes.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The Bible has stood the test of time, and 2000 years later is STILL the most read, studied, quoted, loved and hated, and best selling book of all time. Hands down.

Not to mention well over a thousand fulfilled prophecies (the odds of that many are statistically impossible) and millions (or even billions) of radically changed lives, the bottom line is, the Bible is no ordinary book. I know you don't believe that now, but it's the truth.

And we're not ganging up on TN, we're just having a discussion. Sometimes these types of discussions get heated, yes.

It doesn't change what I said.


Six linguistics separated. At least.

So if people are gonna make translation the fruit of their anti-position with regard to the topical content, then, they might wanna yank that plank from their eyeballs.

With regard to your other dialogue falling back on collectivism for justification, I've never believed in just following the carrot around on the stick just because other people collectively do so, no matter how long they've been doing it. It's a horrible way to justify something.

 

[buttercup]

It doesn't change what I said.

Six linguistics separated. At least.

So if people are gonna make translation the fruit of their anti-position with regard to the topical content, then, they might wanna yank that plank from their eyeballs.

Can you back yourself up? Because based on what I have read about this topic, that is a misconception. We can compare the earliest manuscripts against a modern-day bible, and contrary to what you said, it's actually quite amazing how well the Bible has been preserved. Obviously it has been translated to tons of different languages, and some translations are better than others, but regardless of language it can be translated from the earliest manuscripts, so the idea that it's like the children's game of "telephone" is simply false.

For anyone who has questions about this, I highly recommend the book 'The Case for Christ' by Lee Strobel. That book goes over ALL of the misconceptions or false claims about the Bible, and it is an excellent book. In fact, many people have come to Christ because of that book.

With regard to your other dialogue falling back on collectivism for justification, I've never believed in just following the carrot around on the stick just because other people collectively do so, no matter how long they've been doing it. It's a horrible way to justify something.

I wasn't claiming that because a lot of people believe the Bible that makes it true, obviously that would be a logical fallacy. However, when you have 2000 years of people picking it apart and looking to discredit it, there is something to be said about the fact that the Bible has not only survived but is STILL all those things I mentioned. So it's not about it being justified by the amount of people, but for numerous compelling reasons (including other reasons I didn't bring up) that you can't just wave away. Well, you can, but to me that shows a closed mind and heart.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Can you back yourself up? Because based on what I have read about this topic, that is a misconception.

Read better books?

We can compare the earliest manuscripts against a modern-day bible, and contrary to what you said, it's actually quite amazing how well the Bible has been preserved.

Except that ''we'' don't. And if ''we'' do, it's extremely selective, in most cases proof-texting in order to promote some authoritarian worldview, and largely in the theme of the narrative of 1st century Bishops regardless.

 

[buttercup]

Read better books?

I'm not the one reading books by a guy who has been resoundingly rejected by scientists, scholars and historians who dismiss his work as pseudoscience and pseudohistory.

The book I mentioned interviews actual scholars who have devoted their lives to this topic.

Except that ''we'' don't. And if ''we'' do, it's extremely selective, in most cases proof-texting in order to promote some authoritarian worldview, and largely in the theme of the narrative of 1st century Bishops regardless.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Ever heard the words "The truth will set you free"? When you come to Christ and you're born spiritually, chains are broken, there is freedom, it's the exact opposite of what you believe. But I don't expect you to accept that on my word alone because it's something you have to experience yourself.... that's one of the reasons why the PTSB hate Christianity, and why in communist countries Christianity is outlawed, because the government wants to be the highest power, and wants total control. So the authoritarian worldviews are anti-Christian, not the other way around.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'm not the one reading books by a guy who has been resoundingly rejected by scientists, scholars and historians who dismiss his work as pseudoscience and pseudohistory.

The book I mentioned interviews actual scholars who have devoted their lives to this topic.

Yeah, that's your problem. You only read material that serves to confirm your own worldview.

I, on the other hand, am very diverse and consider perspectives from all points of view. Not just those which serve to confirm my own.

As an aside, I'm kind of chuckling here as your model is akin to the intellectually dishonest tactics of the talking heads all over the idiot box who justified their attacks on the pro-freedom of choice folks to favor public perception of the shenanigans of Fauci and his bunch.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Because based on what I have read about this topic, that is a misconception.

You see?

 

[buttercup]

Yeah, that's your problem. You only read material that serves top confirm your own worldview.

I, on the other hand, am very diverse and consider perspectives from all points of view. Not just those which serve to confirm my own.

That's not true and you know it, or at least you should. I was a nonbeliever for many years, so I have already learned all about the other side (or sides) and read material from different perspectives. As I said to TN earlier on the thread, been there done that, got the t-shirt.

But I've also done more than just read a book. I've actually had experiences that are part of the reason why I believe what I do today. I mentioned one yesterday on this thread.

I think like some other nonbelievers, you are projecting. It's clear to see closed-mindedness and resistance in those who simply don't want to change their current beliefs, for a variety of reasons. I see it all the time from nonbelievers on these types of threads.

As an aside, I'm kind of chuckling here as your model is akin to the intellectually dishonest tactics of the talking heads all over the idiot box who justified their attacks on the pro-freedom of choice folks to favor public perception of the shenanigans of Fauci and his bunch.

I don't know what you meant by that, so if you want to make it more clear, please do... if not, that's fine too.

 

[irosie91]

The ''authorized'' Bible is translated by scribes who lived at a time when they were around six linguistics separated from the so-called original texts.

I'd imagine it's likely one of, if not the most mistranslated books in the world.

But nyooo...everybody wanna gang up on TN for thinking outside of the little box, and what seems to be for no other reason than the fact that he dare do so.

to what "authorized bible" do you refer and to what "original texts"? You make a very
general statement

 

[Natural Citizen]

to what "authorized bible" do you refer and to what "original texts"? You make a very
general statement

I was actually thinking about the authorized King James version. While it's likely the closest thing they have to the Greek and Hebrew, it's still a mess.

And my comments were purposefully offered in a general way.

I've no real interest in the terms of controversy you folks are arguing. As I said, I generally avoid this section.

But I can't just stand by and let people gang up on TN, he's my ace boon coon. He should be able to think outside of the little box without the usual suspects starting a crusade against him.

But..I'm glad you chimed in. I think the whole David/Abraham connection tale was something that was just thrown in there arbitrarily to justify a cause.

What actually was so special about him? The Bible never really says. Or maybe it did and ''we'' just don't seem to have an interest in gotting around to deciphering that one properly?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Actually, don't even bother answering. I can't stand this section. lol..

 

[buttercup]

But..I'm glad you chimed in. I think the whole Abraham tale was somethign that was just thrown in arbitrarily to justify a cause.

What actually was so special about him? The Bible never really says.

Yes, it DOES say. It was his faith. That's what made him special. (That's why he made it into the Hebrews 11 hall of fame faith)

 

[irosie91]

I was actually thinking about the authorized King James version. While it's likely the closest thing they have to the Greek and Hebrew, it's still a mess.

And my comments were purposefully offered in a general way.

I've no real interest in the terms of controversy you folks are arguing. As I said, I generally avoid this section.

But I can't just stand by and let people gang up on TN, he's my ace boon coon. He should be able to think outside of the little box without the usual suspects starting a crusade against him.

But..I'm glad you chimed in. I think the whole David/Abraham connection tale was something that was just thrown in there arbitrarily to justify a cause.

What actually was so special about him? The Bible never really says. Or maybe it did and ''we'' just don't seem to have an interest in gotting around to deciphering that one properly?

Ok----I got your point----but your statement IS over general-----after all---the bibles are not
short little novelas

 

[Natural Citizen]

Ok----I got your point----but your statement IS over general-----after all---the bibles are not
short little novelas

It's the INTJ in me. Can't help it. Some things I just personally see no point in debating.

But..that's just me. It's my nature moreso than any sort of intent. Kind of hard to explain, really, but I just find some dialogue to be trivial in scope of meaningful dialogue. Much of which may often be invoked to confuse the terms of controversy rather than discussing them in the intended context.

The odd thing is that I have interest in these kinds of discussions. But I just never really care for the tenor they take after a few pages.

I think the last time I was gonna start a thread in this section that I was interested in was with regard to the old Hebrew belief in two opposing Gods., which kind of shares the theme of what OP was talking about in tenor. But then I changed my mind just because I knew how it would go once the Christians chimed in and it would just derail the whole thing.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

But then I changed my mind just because I knew how it would go once the Christians chimed in and it would just derail the whole thing

Damn those Christians with all their facts and stuff