Read the thread about Jinn; then you will see what I was getting at. And The Old Testament was, indeed, taken from the Jewish scriptures.The first five books written by Moses are identical.
Sources:-
The British & Foreign Bible Society.
Beth Hamradash Synagogue, Leeds.
Rabbi Maish Levine.
Yes the hebrew language can be hard to
pronounce.The letters are consonants and
some can double as vowels.
Eve is spelled hey-waw-hey (hvh) and can
be pronounced eh-vay or eh-vah, you see the
Hey is h/e Waw is v/u/o/w.
Yes,indeed! And there are problems with misreading the Bible, For instance, Adam and Eve had two sons; but they also had daughters! And the original Hebrew scriptures can be misleading.Such as, Adam lived for 900 years. What is meant, is that the "family" of Adam lived for 900 years. One of the "sons" of the family of Adam was Seth! A family "dies" when nobody with the family name survives.
For instance, the "family" of my own name has existed for six hundred years! The name didn't exist before 1349. So, my original ancestor, John, has lived for 600 years? No! The "name" or the "family of John" will last until there are no members with my name still alive! That is as clear as I can make it!
Source:-
British & Foriegn Bible Society.
As an ex Christian and a current pagan, I find the Torah and Tha other Jewish scripture who's name I can't remember , the Quaran and the new testimont amazing books. Although they gain so much hatred, I find them fascinating. And, even as a pagan I often go to the three of them for moral guidance if I can't find anything in the branch of moral philosophy. And, often it has helped me to get through some very tough times. However, I'm no master or doctor of biblical , torahanic or quaranic studies, but I do understand the books much more than the average lay person, due to studying it formally. And, thank the gods I have. I have gained insight into all 3 books/collection of books that enables me to use them respectfully and to benefit, grow as a person.
I think people when they quote the bible, quaran or Torah they miss off most the quote. Most notably "thou shall not lie with another man". Although I can't remember the whole paragraph, I do know there is a story to it and it isn't referencing homosexuals as it is often twisted to mean. "Another" indicates adultery, and that I belive it to represent.
A Jehovah's witness came to me in town and started preaching how it was a aon to be gay, to be pagan and to be happy with it. And, as usual the 20 year old elder started quoting things. I waited till he finished and brought loads of theologians, theodices and philosophies into play. They couldn't belive a 17 year old knew about the telelogical argument and the moral dilemma of JS Mills inconsistent Triad.
I guess what I'm saying is, it depends how you look and view it. If you see it positively you will see the good things that can be gleamed from the books. But, If its used to spread hate and that's all you acknowledge then that's all that will be seen. A balance has to be struck of good and bad to see things clearly enough, to really find the "truth" regardless of translation and editing issues.
The problem with any holy book is that you can take one sentence and derive a variety of meanings from it, in order to suit one's agenda.
I would never base my morals on a book which is thousands of years old. As Richard Dawkins likes to point out, the first five commandments are irrelevant to mankind!
I also like to think most civilised countries are past stoning people to death.
If we are to base our morals of a book that old we must admit our society has remained static and there has been no advancement in the past 2000+ years alone.
In the last 100 years alone there have been massive advancements, in my opinion for the better. Dare I say it, because we have more atheists around! Or at least people who are non-dogmatic.
The King James bible is perhaps the worst example of a translation of a text in the history of the world!
Sometimes I will look at a passage in light of the qabalah, but will always look at the original hebrew- for enumeration mostly. But also because I like to know which aspect of God is talking where- YHVH, or Elohim etc.
As for Adam and Eve representing mankind,
Adam comes from the word Adamah meaning
red clay and easily represents man's physical
vessel and Eve comes from the word Ihvh, yahweh,
which is a name of God and Eve means 'root of
life' and easily represents man's soul derived from
his rib or life force.This is only one interptetation.
As much as that is true hadit, and I highly respect it. But, yet I find books of all kind regardless of age can have applicable meaning to what ever age we stand. It's really only western society that is more "civilized' in terms of stoning though. However, all books can be twisted into fitting a agenda. And by age, the origin of species must have no relevance today considering it is 150ish years of age. Age has no baring on it, other than context. It's upto the individuals to interpret it, and gleam what they can whether positive or negative.
I have studied Richard dawkins extensively and his biology, as pointed out by macgrath, of a "meme" is wrong. And, besides there are better and much more respectful atheists than dawkins. He claims "theists are utterly and gloriously wrong" in the book "the blind watchmaker" contracting the theological theory set my William paley, arch deacon of carlise , called the watch and the watch maker.
I only referred to Dawkins because his sarcasm makes me laugh! I think actively promoting atheism is just as bad as actively promoting religion....however, actively promoting science is okay in my book.
Of course you are correct. But the difference between the origin of species, and the bible, is that many people have come along and built upon Darwin's work and published their own findings.
Science evolves and changes to fit with the best understanding we can have. The bible's ethics and morals have reamined the same for a long time.
Now don't get me wrong there is a lot in the bible that is very 'lovey dovey' and does not need to be interpreted, if you read the New testament. However, I dislike people who pick and choose what scripture their particular brand of Christianity/Judaism follows.
I personally believe Christianity started off as a philosophical movement at first- I think it was 300 years after the death if Jesus when the Romans decided to paint his story and make him look like the son of God in a literal sense.
(I am sure you could correct me on that)
I am not by many means anti-christian, however, I will put my faith in science and listen to myself over than reading a book written by men who were probably inhaling some burning bush!
One bit of philosophy we could all learn- "Don't worry, be happy."
