Reading the Bible: Genesis - Creation

Debates: 9

Posts: 5,294

3

4

10

01.04.2019 10:42PM

3

4

10

01.04.2019 10:42PM

I have recently undertaken to read the Bible from the beginning to end, something I have never done before in full. I suspect that if I just did so by myself then I would soon quit from boredom, so I decided to discuss my thoughts on the topic with others here in this forum to give me a motivation to continue along as I do so.

How this will work is I will read a few chapters and write my thoughts about the work as I read along, then do some minor edits at the end of the reading. I won't be copy-pasting the actual text itself here. For reference I will be reading the New International Version (NIV) but discussion of any other versions is welcome in the thread. With all that said, let's begin.

The first obvious things that we notice as we read the first few verses are of course how little the story matches with what we know of modern science. The obvious things such as day and night existing before the sun and moon, light and plants existing before the sun, etc. These are hard statements to ignore considering modern scientific knowledge. However, I am not reading this book to find things to criticize about it or try to prove some point. I want to try to get a genuine understanding of it. After all these stories were created thousands of years ago by ignorant people, for them it was natural to look at the blue sea and see it is made of water then look at the blue sky and assume it is made of water being held above us (Genesis 1:6) It makes sense that someone would look into the sky during a full moon and think that the moon produces light (Genesis 1:16) even if we know these things to be false.

So then ignoring the obvious scientific inaccuracies, let's look deeper into this. As early as the second verse we start to see something interesting. The biblical description of God "Hovering over the waters" and the later creation of land paints a picture of the early world being covered entirely in water. Scientifically nonsense, of course, but that isn't the interesting part. The theme of the early universe starting as a vast expanse of water is a common one in many mythologies. Ancient Egyptian, Hindu, and even some Native American Folklore share this concept. This would seem to give credence to the idea that early mythologies, including the oral traditions from which the biblical tales are descended, either borrowed heavily from each other or share one or several common ancestor mythologies from which all take inspiration.

The next verse that catches my attention that I would like to talk about is Genesis 1:27. In most teachings of the biblical creation story Eve is presented as being the first human woman. In this verse, however, it states that man and woman were created at the same time. This is not an obscure translation error that got missed, the NIV is not the only English version to say this. For those of you that do not know there are many books and stories which existed within the same tradition as the original biblical stories but were later removed from the narrative and this verse is an example of a vestigial remnant of one such story. In the original story the first woman on earth was Lilith, and she was made from the same dirt that Adam was made from. She refused to be subservient to Adam however and she left the Garden of Eden prior to The Fall. This story does not exist in the Bible today because of mankinds tinkering with the stories over time, but it existed within the tradition at one point and this verse is one piece of evidence for that.

Well, that completes the first chapter of Genesis and I think that is a good place to stop this OP. I expected to get farther along than I did because I did not think there would be this much to comment on but I think this is enough to induce a dialogue for now. Looking forward to seeing if anyone else is interested in this topic and if this does lead to an interesting conversation perhaps I will continue to read the next few chapters and we can discuss that as well.

#2

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

3

5

01.04.2019 11:34PM

3

5

01.04.2019 11:34PM

-->

@Discipulus_Didicit

The first obvious things that we notice as we read the first few verses are of course how little the story matches with what we know of modern science. The obvious things such as day and night existing before the sun and moon, light and plants existing before the sun, etc. These are hard statements to ignore considering modern scientific knowledge. However, I am not reading this book to find things to criticize about it or try to prove some point. I want to try to get a genuine understanding of it. After all these stories were created thousands of years ago by ignorant people, for them it was natural to look at the blue sea and see it is made of water then look at the blue sky and assume it is made of water being held above us (Genesis 1:6) It makes sense that someone would look into the sky during a full moon and think that the moon produces light (Genesis 1:16) even if we know these things to be false.

Okay I know the average religious person argues for the perfection of the Bible, but when they do so their beliefs are dependent upon that so I'm gonna try something different here. It doesn't have to be that way, nobody is required to argue for a perfect Bible, especially if we really look at what the objective of the accounts are because after all this is a spiritual book not a science book and that is the nature of it. It is relaying a spiritual message not a science message so let us judge it based on a spiritual framework. If it were indeed claimed to be a science book then we could judge it based upon our current scientific understanding and miss the whole point. What if we were to put aside imperfections and examine the message by itself in a Theistic context, if we were to take more of a figurative rendering let's see what we get...

God sets in motion the creation of the universe, this doesn't have to be told in a scientific way at all. The beginning of Genesis is a picture of what God did or more like an idea, not an exact formula or order. The authors would have been putting forth an ideal or creating an image of God creating the world so that the reader can have a mental image of that. If it were a science book, there would be pages and pages of articulated chapters of nothing but how God specifically created the universe and that is absurd for anyone to expect. Rather, we get an illustration a child could grasp and it is just an idea not meant to be some perfected detailed analysis.

After we get the picture that it was God that created the heavens and the earth, creatures, plants and animals now we get into our part in the play.

Now we see two people that represent mankind as a whole, not just two random people, this is very important to grasp because that is how it is relevant to us, not just to two characters that we have no relation to. Rather the account is articulating the nature of man and his challenges he faces in a dualistic environment. Adam and Eve representing mankind, the "snake" representing the temptations we face as humans. There was no talking snake lol, the snake represents our weaknesses, and the tree represents the knowledge of good and evil, this is the mind and how we battle duality in this realm. By consuming the tree (the mind) being knowledge, we also contend with the nature of duality.

There are many more examples and so it doesn't really matter if characters were borrowed because we are no longer worried about a literal approach but understanding the underlying message. Now we have a scenario that makes sense and is applicable, there are so many layers to the creation account and the Adam and Eve stories I could go on for days just articulating the spiritual dimensions to this. This is what is magical about spiritual texts, they have layers of meanings not just one. That is the fun part about using illustrations/stories... you can apply more angles to it.

Topic's author

#3

Debates: 9

Posts: 5,294

3

4

10

01.05.2019 12:09AM

3

4

10

01.05.2019 12:09AM

-->

@EtrnlVw

Nobody is required to argue for a perfect Bible, especially if we really look at what the objective of the accounts are because after all this is a spiritual book not a science book and that is the nature of it.

As I said before I agree that reading the texts from the point of view of whether they are actually accurate is silly. Of course there will be inaccuracies since the people making the stories knew so little about the world around them. That is why I tried to brush over that and focus on instead learning more about the actual writing itself, such as looking at the similarities it shares with other mythologies and the evidence of the cut-out story of Lilith.

#4

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

01.05.2019 01:26AM

3

4

7

01.05.2019 01:26AM

I recently set out to do this myself again not too long ago. Just a moment ago, I finished 2 kingdoms(2 samuel in protestant bible) and am going on to 3 kingdoms(1 kings in protestantbible).

The orthodox bible is a bit different than the protestant bible. In fact, the base texts are different! There are more books in the orthodox bible too. The protestant bible chops the beginning and end of the book of Daniel off too... its also ordered differently... ah well..

Anyway, if you are going to use a protestant bible, there are many reasons not to use an NIV. Even some protestant circles jokingly call it the non inspired version.

Modern bibles remove a lot of scriptures. I use the King James online mostly because it doesn't have a copywrite, but also because the base texts are closest to what we use in the orthodox church(for the new Testament). The New King James uses the same base texts, and is a bit more modernized in its English.

I think that the approach you are taking to reading the bible right now is going to frustrate you tremendously. I would be surprised if you could make it through the whole thing going about it in the way you are doing it.

Good luck. I'd write more, but I am on a break. When I can, I'll talk a bit more on Genesis chapter 1.

#5

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

01.05.2019 03:27AM

3

4

7

01.05.2019 03:27AM

-->

@Discipulus_Didicit

The next verse that catches my attention that I would like to talk about is Genesis 1:27. In most teachings of the biblical creation story Eve is presented as being the first human woman. In this verse, however, it states that man and woman were created at the same time. This is not an obscure translation error that got missed, the NIV is not the only English version to say this. For those of you that do not know there are many books and stories which existed within the same tradition as the original biblical stories but were later removed from the narrative and this verse is an example of a vestigial remnant of one such story. In the original story the first woman on earth was Lilith, and she was made from the same dirt that Adam was made from. She refused to be subservient to Adam however and she left the Garden of Eden prior to The Fall. This story does not exist in the Bible today because of mankinds tinkering with the stories over time, but it existed within the tradition at one point and this verse is one piece of evidence for that.

The 2 different accounts focus on two different aspects of the creation. The lilith theory is a creative explanation that to my knowledge has no actual factual basis.

#6

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

3

5

01.05.2019 04:33AM

3

5

01.05.2019 04:33AM

-->

@Discipulus_Didicit

That is why I tried to brush over that and focus on instead learning more about the actual writing itself, such as looking at the similarities it shares with other mythologies and the evidence of the cut-out story of Lilith.

Why? are you not interested in the message of Genesis as a unique work?

#7

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,029

3

2

3

01.05.2019 05:33AM

3

2

3

01.05.2019 05:33AM

your looking to muh into it pal

You did it all wrong , or have done it wrong. See if you started believing in god before first orrrrrrrrr were somewhat dim witted you would know that God actually , put forth these scripture things in the bible, like they are actually gods words.

Then you read the bible the second time and it becomes pretty bloody obvious god wrote it for you.

And your scripture translations are mmmmmmm. They are absolutely 100% spot on.

Fukin beautiful, you've a certain way of translating scriptures like no other.

Your a scholar.

You start looking for more scriptures to traanslate, you get a different version or two .

And yes you are as good as gold , you are going to heaven.

Hi 5.

Then there is reading the bible with knowing full well that its only common sense God doesn't exist. ( for the first time )

You get 5 scriptures in and you know that anytime now you'll get to the , ' IS THAT A DAGGER I SEE THERE BEFORE ME ' scripture and at the end of reading a scripture you add , QUOTH THE RAVEN.

But the bible is brilliant FULL STOP.

#8

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,029

3

2

3

01.05.2019 05:45AM

3

2

3

01.05.2019 05:45AM

I COULDN'T read or write until, well I'm at a grade 5 level now.

So ummmmmmmmm THANKS FOR THAT GOD , thanks.

Are you saying i have to be able to read and write to be able to fully know the jesus god .

Absolutely crazy....

but its all good because i know him personally, we do stuff together sometimes.

Life goes on.

Topic's author

#9

Debates: 9

Posts: 5,294

3

4

10

01.05.2019 06:20AM

3

4

10

01.05.2019 06:20AM

The orthodox bible is a bit different than the protestant bible. In fact, the base texts are different! There are more books in the orthodox bible too. The protestant bible chops the beginning and end of the book of Daniel off too... its also ordered differently... ah well..

Using a more protestant-oriented version is the natural choice for me simply due to the fact that the majority of people in my country are Protestants.

Anyway, if you are going to use a protestant bible, there are many reasons not to use an NIV. Even some protestant circles jokingly call it the non inspired version.

Modern bibles remove a lot of scriptures. I use the King James online mostly because it doesn't have a copywrite, but also because the base texts are closest to what we use in the orthodox church(for the new Testament). The New King James uses the same base texts, and is a bit more modernized in its English.

I am aware that the KJV is, at least where I live, the usual go-to for people reading the Bible. Some get very emotional about it, with the more evangelical even going so far as to claim that Satan has tampered with all other English translations in an attempt to mislead people. Absurd. My decision to not go with the KJV as my primary subject of study was far from arbitrary, however. The old English tone simply struck me as something that I should not have to work around if I did not have to. People did not talk like that at the time that these stories were made or first written and they do not talk like that now either. The New KJV that you mention is something that I had not considered. Tomorrow I will do some research as to whether there are signifigant differences between that and the NIV and if there are I will consider switching.

Good luck. I'd write more, but I am on a break. When I can, I'll talk a bit more on Genesis chapter 1.

Looking forward to it.

Topic's author

#10

Debates: 9

Posts: 5,294

3

4

10

01.05.2019 06:25AM

3

4

10

01.05.2019 06:25AM

The Lilith theory is a creative explanation that to my knowledge has no actual factual basis.

Please clarify. Are you claiming that the Lilith story did not exist at the time that the original creation narrative did and was instead a later addition/explanation for something? That is what is seems like you are saying but I am not sure and do not wish to straw man your position by replying to that claim if it is not the one you are making.

Topic's author

#11

Debates: 9

Posts: 5,294

3

4

10

01.05.2019 06:40AM

3

4

10

01.05.2019 06:40AM

-->

@EtrnlVw

Why? are you not interested in the message of Genesis as a unique work?

Um, quite the contrary in fact. I am proposing to spend hundreds of hours of my own personal time reading pages of text from the bible specifically because the biblical view is what I am interested in studying. If I was interested purely in mythology as a whole I would make a topic about mythology as a whole, that doesn't mean I am going to avoid pointing out facts regarding the narrative simply because some people may dislike those facts, because I am approaching this from a neutral point of view. Facts are facts, and acknowledging facts that are true will help to further understand the context of the stories within.

Please refrain from claiming that I am biased against a certain story when the obvious fact is that if anything I am naturally biased very much in favor of it due simply to the fact that it is the only fucking story that I am reading out of thousands that exist. People will think that you are very silly if you do so.

Topic's author

#12

Debates: 9

Posts: 5,294

3

4

10

01.05.2019 06:49AM

3

4

10

01.05.2019 06:49AM

-->

@Mopac

@Deb-8-a-bull

And your scripture translations are mmmmmmm. They are absolutely 100% spot on.
Fukin beautiful, you've a certain way of translating scriptures like no other.
Your a scholar.

Hard to tell if that is sarcasm like most of the rest of your post clearly is, but since I know myself not to be a genius I am inclined to believe that anyone who claims I am a genius is either being sarcastic or sorely mistaken

More importantly... I am making this post to tag Mopac in it because I forgot to do so in post 10 where I responded to post 5 by them.

#13

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,052

3

01.05.2019 06:52AM

3

01.05.2019 06:52AM

This is what is magical about spiritual texts, they have layers of meanings not just one. That is the fun part about using illustrations/stories... you can apply more angles to it.

If you are so inclined you can find all sorts of allegory in Jack and the Beanstalk, Snow White and possibly 50 Shades of Gray.

I don't think the YHWHist priests who wrote Genesis (or the pentateuch)had the intention of writing an allegory like LOTR. They set out to write a version of history their people would be taught as the truth. But heir motivation was to preserve the Jewish people as a distinct nation, not to tell the truth. Unless there was a definitive jewish/yhwhist mythology there would be no way to stop the exiled jews eventually adopting the myths - and hence religion and gods - of their babylonian captors. Recall 10 tribes of the Hebrew disappeared a result of the Assyrian exile a century before.

#14

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,029

3

2

3

01.05.2019 07:01AM

3

2

3

01.05.2019 07:01AM

Who could ever possibly guess what it is that you might make your god tell you next ?

My mum warned me about you lot.

The danger must be growing for the rowers keep on rowing.

Good game.

#15

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

01.05.2019 03:18PM

3

4

7

01.05.2019 03:18PM

-->

@Discipulus_Didicit

I don't think there is any good reason to believe the Lilith explanation, yeah. I don't believe it was ever a part of Genesis.

The origin of this I believe can be traced to a rabbi who was trying to think up an explanation to this two different accounts. Other than that, I am not aware of any substantiation to this "2nd Eve/Lilith" theory.

But I think it is important to note that in Orthodoxy, the scripture that we have is considered canon, and we aren't really concerned with issues like this or even issues of authorship. These are the scriptures we use.

As I did say, we do not use the same source material as these protestant bibles. The protestant bibles translate from the masoretic text, which they mistakenly believe is in the original language. It is actually not, the masoretic text is in itself a translation, because ancient Hebrew isn't the same written language. Besides that, the masoretic text was translated in at the earliest, the 6th century.

We Orthodox use the septuigate, which though in Greek, is a translation nearly a thousand years older, done by the 70 best scribes and scholars of the Jewish faith(who give the septuigate its name, which means "70"), and for 300 years even before the events of the new testament had good reputation. It is also the text that the church has used since the beginning.

The protestants use the masoretic text because I think going back even to Martin Luther, believed it to be the original text, which it is not.

So if you are not using an Orthodox bible, the old testament is translated from the masoretic texts. Should this make much of a difference to you? Probably not. So at least now, I suppose you can consider this trivia unless you were interested in securing an orthodox study bible.

The westcott-hort and Nestle texts that come from the west's school of textual criticism are the basis of all translations of the new testament, and these are not the texts that the orthodox church uses. Oddly enough, the old King James' Textus Receptus is closer to what we use. To my knowledge, only The New King James is the only modern translation that uses this source text. So if you were going to use a modern protestant bible(as they are easier to obtain), I would go with New King James over New International Version.

As far as texts that use the same base texts that the NIV uses, the English Standard Version seems to be the best based on my examinings of these translations. That said, being Orthodox, I would say an Orthodox Study Bible is the best. I know people who helped write the commentaries and articles contained in it, and they are very knowledgeable people. Besides, you will also get commentaries from Church Tradition going back 2000 years.

Anyway, pardon me for the wall of text. I know it is a bit of a tangent.

#16

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

01.05.2019 03:21PM

3

4

7

01.05.2019 03:21PM

-->

@Discipulus_Didicit

Thats a lot of reading you got to do though, and I encourage you. Don't be discouraged.

#17

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,052

3

01.05.2019 05:12PM

3

01.05.2019 05:12PM

-->

@Mopac

The 2 different accounts focus on two different aspects of the creation.

The puzzle is why the writers didn't reconcile them better - they just put one version after the other. I wonder if it might be some sort of taboo so the scribes could copy but not alter their sources. We'll never know, of course.

#18

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

01.05.2019 07:22PM

3

4

7

01.05.2019 07:22PM

-->

@keithprosser

It would probably be better to assume that it was intended to be this way.

#19

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

3

5

01.05.2019 10:59PM

3

5

01.05.2019 10:59PM

-->

@Discipulus_Didicit

Please refrain from claiming that I am biased against a certain story when the obvious fact is that if anything I am naturally biased very much in favor of it due simply to the fact that it is the only fucking story that I am reading out of thousands that exist. People will think that you are very silly if you do so.

…."backs away slowly".....okay bro. Wow.

Topic's author

#20

Debates: 9

Posts: 5,294

3

4

10

01.06.2019 02:54AM

3

4

10

01.06.2019 02:54AM

-->

@Mopac

I don't think there is any good reason to believe the Lilith explanation, yeah. I don't believe it was ever a part of Genesis.

There is a distinction between the Genesis story and the Genesis book. The stories existed in oral tradition long before as well as alongside the various written versions of Genesis.

But like you say, in your denomination of the religion your scriptures are the canon and all you are concerned with. That is fine, I am actually pretty sure that is the case for most if not all denominations and their respective scriptures and I am not aware of any modern version where the Lilith story is canonized.

I am also fully aware of your objections to using any Protestant version and I think I have given adequate reason for why I am choosing to do so anyway. You consider your text to be more inspired and they consider theirs to be more inspired. I consider them to both be equally uninspired of course, but between the Protestants and the Orthodoxy the group with more influence over my daily life are the Protestants simply due to where on the planet I happen to have been born. Were I to live in an Orthodox majority country my default version would be to read Orthodox texts, but that isn't the case. All that being said I will take your suggestion as to which Protestant text to read under advisement going forward.

It would probably be better to assume that it was intended to be this way.

I think simply assuming something because it matches with your previous convictions is absurd and I think that under any context other than religion you would agree with me, but a more detailed conversation about reconciling the two Biblical narratives for creation can wait for my next Reading the Bible thread.

#21

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

01.06.2019 03:29AM

3

4

7

01.06.2019 03:29AM

-->

@Discipulus_Didicit

Well, you have to understand that thd bible is a part of our church tradition. The protestants broke off from a church that broke off from us.

So yeah, protestantism is a corrupt and incomplete form of Christianity.

And well, the secularists are way off. the mark. Protestant academics are not really too far removed from the secularists.

And the thing is, one of the major overarching themes of the new testament is how the letter kills bit the spirit gives life. What is the spirit? Truth. How did the west take this? They took this to mean that everything has to be rationalized, academicized, and intellectualized. We Orthodox take that to mean purifying the heart and intelllect. We don't mistake knowledge for Truth.

And these two vastly different approaches are the difference between actually practicing the faith and practicing something else entirely. Knowledge isn't going to help you see God. Purifying the heart is how you see God.

But you would greatly benefit from having an Orthodox Priest to consult during your studies. They are trained to help with these things. If you find a good one, they will get you to see things in ways you never would have before.

#22

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

3

5

01.06.2019 04:51PM

3

5

01.06.2019 04:51PM

-->

@Mopac

So yeah, protestantism is a corrupt and incomplete form of Christianity.

Where are these supposed "protestants" that you label for them to defend themselves? those who are weak in faith and confidence need to trash others to elevate themselves rather than just defending and arguing their own position.

The protestants broke off from a church that broke off from us.

That is where you lose track of what is actually going on. Of course you need to believe there was some institution to believe you're some Orthodox and everyone else is second hand heretics. There was never a church to break away from you are living in a pipe dream, it was the people themselves and you should know it. The confession of Peter was never about designating religious authorities rather was an individual commitment. There is nothing to "break away" from goofy, that is something you have made up. The people, who apply the teachings of Jesus are the church, not traditions and religious authorities. There should have never been "protestants, orthodox, catholic" ect ect… the body needs to be one and become one. Unity was the only direction the spirit wants. And unfortunately this probably will never happen in our lifetime because of this kind of post and attitudes.

And well, the secularists are way off. the mark. Protestant academics are not really too far removed from the secularists.

There's may things way off the mark including your assertions about some original church when there never was one. The church are the people which make up the body. Bricks and religious doctrines are not bodies people are. So there is no authority to condemn others except for the Gospels themselves. You've placed yourself in a false position (of pride like you accuse others of) and in doing so you really lost sight of the objective of the Gospels and their purpose.

And the thing is, one of the major overarching themes of the new testament is how the letter kills bit the spirit gives life. What is the spirit? Truth. How did the west take this? They took this to mean that everything has to be rationalized, academicized, and intellectualized. We Orthodox take that to mean purifying the heart and intelllect. We don't mistake knowledge for Truth.

Lol, of course because you never ask you only accuse and pretend you and your religious buddies are the only one who does this, pretty lame actually. Try asking one and be willing to receive an answer. But as of right now, where are any protestants to defend themselves against your slander?

But you would greatly benefit from having an Orthodox Priest to consult during your studies. They are trained to help with these things. If you find a good one, they will get you to see things in ways you never would have before.

Can you give me an example of that? without making assumptions about any persons?

#23

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,052

3

01.06.2019 06:31PM

3

01.06.2019 06:31PM

-->

@Mopac

I don't think there is any good reason to believe the Lilith explanation, yeah. I don't believe it was ever a part of Genesis.

I have to agree. I don't think the text indicates the Lilith story was removed or ignored; I think the written text prompted the invention of the Lilith myth some time later.

It seems that is also the mainstream view; I don't know what DD bases his very early dating of Lilith on.

#24

WisdomofAges

Debates: 5

Posts: 354

0

1

2

WisdomofAges

01.06.2019 10:35PM

0

1

2

01.06.2019 10:35PM

Comic Book of the GODS....the Bible ? a select compilation of shorts by unknown authors...with more HYPNOTIZED Bible verse VOMIT sheeple

drones addicted to it than any other Comic Book Series ! ...

SAD ...how all of these dumbed down and to STUPID... to accept that this content is 99% metaphorical...and regardless of whether events actually occurred or not they just can't get over the FACT that it does NOT MATTER...NOW ! .....like SO WHAT retard...start living...FOOL...drowning in this

horrifically obsolete COW DUNG of a story book...

Why don't YOU mentally Bible VOMIT molested sheeple analyze the MOVIE "PROMETHEUS"... and come to terms that HUMANS are a GENETIC

MODIFICATION CONSTRUCT of Advanced Alien visitors/miners.....of EARTH'S mineral resources = GOLD....idiots...

They did to HUMANS what humans do to lab rats and genetically modified/grown seeds to living tissue...FOOLS...what do YOU think human explorers of Mars will do if they find a new species of plant/insect/animal.....IDIOTS..they will analyze it and determine if there is anything potentially valuable to the HUMAN SPECIES for exploitation....MORONS...go sit on the TOILET with your Bible VOMIT garbage..,wake up...FOOLS

Then. if YOU have the intelligence (unlikely...just to dumbed down)...look at the STORY of GILGAMESH...+++ so many other amazing reads....of

many other civilizations globally from the same era as this Bible hoax construct

This BIBlE VOMIT is truly disgusting in regards to how stupid humans are.....with the obsession for this Comic Book garbage...

#25

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

01.07.2019 05:15PM

3

4

7

01.07.2019 05:15PM

-->

@EtrnlVw

You can see it as trash talking, but that isn't really it. The truth is, The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is an institution, and protestantism, being a reaction against Latin Papalism(they broke away from the true church), is by nature at least 2 steps away from the true church.

This is all very well historically documented.

And if that isn't proof enough, look at how fractured and anarchistic protestantism. It is unified only in its rejection of church tradition.

Protestant, evangelical, western Non Catholic Christian... whatever you want to call it.

And how can they be blamed for being ignorant of Orthodoxy? Well, it is my hope that they find their way back home and that there is a real explosion of the true church here in America. Protestants are, despite many of the things they are taught to make the conversion difficult, are better prepared to receiving the true church than most.

There is an ecumencial movement to try to unite all the churches, but it there is no precedent for the orthodox church to hold ecumenical councils with heretics as voting members. If we let everyone, who by self declaration claim to be Christian despite their rejection of church tradition form an ecumenical council with us, it would only serve to corrupt the faith. Many of these evangelical churches have outright rejected the ecumenical councils, and many of them even preach heresies from the pulpit. It isn't surprising to us, because the entire point of the ecumenical councils to begin with was to clarify what the church teaches in the face of rising heresy, not to innovate the faith.

The Orthodox Church doesn't need a reformation.

#26

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

01.07.2019 05:17PM

3

4

7

01.07.2019 05:17PM

-->

@EtrnlVw

The idea that there was no organized church, an institution, back in the. days of the apostolic church neither stands up to scriptural scrutiny or historical scrutiny.

So you are not really speaking from a position of knowledge.

Topic's author

#27

Debates: 9

Posts: 5,294

3

4

10

01.07.2019 05:20PM

3

4

10

01.07.2019 05:20PM

-->

@Mopac

So you are not really speaking from a position of knowledge.

Be careful not to let knowledge stand in the way of your truth. You taught me that earlier in this thread.

#28

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

01.07.2019 05:20PM

3

4

7

01.07.2019 05:20PM

-->

@keithprosser

It is something that tends to be spread by gnostics, a really pernicious heresy that has come into resurgence in recent times. Gnosticism is a heresy, and it stands in direct contradiction with the faith. What makes it particularly dangerous is that it likes to disguise itself as Christianity in order to undermine it.

#29

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,052

3

01.07.2019 05:49PM

3

01.07.2019 05:49PM

-->

@Mopac

Gnosticism is a species of 'conspiracy theory'. Such things appeal to individuals who fancy themselves as as members of an 'enlightened elite', and thus superior to the masses of 'sheep'.

#30

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7