Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Still Waters

Evidence of the Babylonian conquest found

888 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Desertrat56
21 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

I’m curious what you’re basing that on. What sort of texts? 

—Jaylemurph 

The bible is based on parts of the torah, and many historical texts that some might consider religious because they were written mostly by priests.  When Constantine decided to use religion to save his empire he had his people (the conclave) go through all the texts, historical and religious, and cherry pick the ones that would be used to create his bible.  A similar thing was done later with the Quran, but both groups used the same texts, just chose different sections and different interpretations.  (actually some of it is not so different, like the first 4 sections of the old testament and the Quran).  The Quran was created to keep the tribes together as a cohesive population, the bible was created to keep the empire strong and as a tool to expand the empire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
30 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

The bible is based on parts of the torah, and many historical texts that some might consider religious because they were written mostly by priests.  When Constantine decided to use religion to save his empire he had his people (the conclave) go through all the texts, historical and religious, and cherry pick the ones that would be used to create his bible.  A similar thing was done later with the Quran, but both groups used the same texts, just chose different sections and different interpretations.  (actually some of it is not so different, like the first 4 sections of the old testament and the Quran).  The Quran was created to keep the tribes together as a cohesive population, the bible was created to keep the empire strong and as a tool to expand the empire.

No, that was Athanasius the Bishop of Alexandria who "cherry picked" the text. Long after Constantine, who wasn't even a Christian. 

and the only truly historical text, which isn't even in the Protestant Bible, is Maccabees. The rest are exaggeration or outright fairy tales. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
1 minute ago, Piney said:

No, that was Athanasius the Bishop of Alexandria who "cherry picked" the text. Long after Constantine, who wasn't even a Christian. 

and the only truly historical text, which isn't even in the Protestant Bible, is Maccabees. The rest are exaggeration or outright fairy tales. 

I never said Constantine was a christian.  I said he created a religion to save his empire and to use as a tool to expand his empire.  I admit my history is weak in some respects, I know nothing of Athanasius, but he would not have been a Bishop of anything if Constantine had not created his religion.  Even when the Romans finally got to britain they were not really christians for the most part, but they used that religion to envelope the british ilses and succeeded in a way that no other conquerors had.  Of course they had to give the secular arm of the empire to britain but it was still part of the holy roman empire even after King Henry VIII.  Why do you think the whole world uses the gegorian calendar for business? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
1 minute ago, Desertrat56 said:

I never said Constantine was a christian.  I said he created a religion to save his empire and to use as a tool to expand his empire.  I admit my history is weak in some respects, I know nothing of Athanasius, but he would not have been a Bishop of anything if Constantine had not created his religion.  Even when the Romans finally got to britain they were not really christians for the most part, but they used that religion to envelope the british ilses and succeeded in a way that no other conquerors had.  Of course they had to give the secular arm of the empire to britain but it was still part of the holy roman empire even after King Henry VIII.  Why do you think the whole world uses the gegorian calendar for business? 

Constantine consolidated religions to keep problems between them in check. The Romans were not Christians when they invaded Britain, it wasn't even around then and Jesus wasn't born yet and the Gregorian Calendar was "corrected" using the Mayan one the Conquistadors brought back. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
21 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I never said Constantine was a christian.  I said he created a religion to save his empire and to use as a tool to expand his empire.  I admit my history is weak in some respects, I know nothing of Athanasius, but he would not have been a Bishop of anything if Constantine had not created his religion.  Even when the Romans finally got to britain they were not really christians for the most part, but they used that religion to envelope the british ilses and succeeded in a way that no other conquerors had.  Of course they had to give the secular arm of the empire to britain but it was still part of the holy roman empire even after King Henry VIII.  Why do you think the whole world uses the gegorian calendar for business? 

The Romans weren't Christians at all considering they invaded Britain in 43 AD which was centuries before Constantine. 

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

I never said Constantine was a christian.  I said he created a religion to save his empire and to use as a tool to expand his empire.  I admit my history is weak in some respects, I know nothing of Athanasius, but he would not have been a Bishop of anything if Constantine had not created his religion.  Even when the Romans finally got to britain they were not really christians for the most part, but they used that religion to envelope the british ilses and succeeded in a way that no other conquerors had.  Of course they had to give the secular arm of the empire to britain but it was still part of the holy roman empire even after King Henry VIII.  Why do you think the whole world uses the gegorian calendar for business? 

Your grasp of history is... idiosyncratic, to say the least. 

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
larryp
17 hours ago, Piney said:

 . . .  Bishop of Alexandria who "cherry picked" the text. Long after Constantine . . .  

and the only truly historical text, which isn't even in the Protestant Bible, is Maccabees. The rest are exaggeration or outright fairy tales. 

The "dead sea scrolls," tend to take the wind out of your sail. When one compares it to the bible, we find that, even though it's been translated millions of times, its original text has not changed. That's quite a feat, something you would expect from Yahweh, a loving Father. When you lay down tonight, you think about that. 

Edited by larryp
the details

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
10 minutes ago, larryp said:

The "dead sea scrolls," tend to take the wind out of your sail. When one compares it to the bible, we find that, even though it's been translated millions of times, its original text has not changed. That's quite a feat, something you would expect from Yahweh, a loving Father. When you lay down tonight, you think about that. 

Well, the original text would never change, would it? You could re-write the Bible tomorrow to be all in L33T sp33k and the original text would remain unchanged. I’m sorry Larryp, I don’t see your point.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
larryp
1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Well, the original text would never change, would it? 

It would if I changed it. Why is that concept so hard for you to understand? Why not step out of the cave into the light.

Edited by larryp
details

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
4 hours ago, larryp said:

The "dead sea scrolls," tend to take the wind out of your sail. When one compares it to the bible, we find that, even though it's been translated millions of times, its original text has not changed. That's quite a feat, something you would expect from Yahweh, a loving Father. When you lay down tonight, you think about that. 

I don't see your point either. Not all the scrolls are in the Bible and nothing to do with it's editing. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
4 hours ago, larryp said:

It would if I changed it. Why is that concept so hard for you to understand? Why not step out of the cave into the light.

Preaching is not allowed. Please be respectful of that. 

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
9 hours ago, larryp said:

The "dead sea scrolls," tend to take the wind out of your sail. When one compares it to the bible, we find that, even though it's been translated millions of times, its original text has not changed. That's quite a feat, something you would expect from Yahweh, a loving Father. When you lay down tonight, you think about that. 

There isn't an "original text."

There are a lot of different books and each one has a lot of variations.  The earliest complete copy of Genesis, for example, dates from 900 AD and it's in Hebrew and has some variations from the King James Bible version: http://www.bio-orthodoxy.com/2018/01/the-earliest-manuscripts-of-book-of.html

...etcetera.

The "Official Bible" (Vulgate Latin Bible translated by Jerome) was decided on in the 1500's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

It's sad how someone claims the Dead Sea Scrolls compared to modern Bibles shows "no" changes when, as an example, the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" was originally "Thou shall not murder". The distinction being that defending ones self is justifiable but premeditation IS NOT. The inherent hypocrisy of this lies in that shortly after the time Moses was allegedly given the 10 Commandments by God, God instructed the Israelites to destroy or subjugate everyone they came across in their settling of the Promised Land. Not exactly a loving Creator. 

cormac

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

There isn't an "original text."

There are a lot of different books and each one has a lot of variations.  The earliest complete copy of Genesis, for example, dates from 900 AD and it's in Hebrew and has some variations from the King James Bible version: http://www.bio-orthodoxy.com/2018/01/the-earliest-manuscripts-of-book-of.html

...etcetera.

The "Official Bible" (Vulgate Latin Bible translated by Jerome) was decided on in the 1500's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

Jerome’s text is from the early Middle Ages, c. 4th century or so. The books that make up the Bible were never officially chosen, but by about the time at the Council of Nicaea (though it was not a specific issue there) in CE 325, the text was basically set. 

The Vulgate was deemed “official” in the 16th Century only as a piece of anti-Reformation rhetoric — against vernacular translations like Luther and Wycliff. 

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
2 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

 The books that make up the Bible were never officially chosen

Wasn't there some form of council or official consensus after Athanasius's Easter Letter determining the books of the "official" New Testament? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
1 hour ago, Piney said:

Wasn't there some form of council or official consensus after Athanasius's Easter Letter determining the books of the "official" New Testament? 

In that letter, Athanasius uses the Greek term κανονιζόμενα, which suggests a formal process, but we have no records of that specific action. The Council of Rome a few years later approved the selection as a part of its official actions, but only as a sort of broad approval of many high-level general church actions by a wide group of bishops. In the same way, it was approved by two or three other late fourth century councils. 

—Jaylemurph 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
10 hours ago, larryp said:

It would if I changed it. Why is that concept so hard for you to understand? Why not step out of the cave into the light.

So you’d somehow find a way to rewrite something that already exists? All that would happen is that you’ve created a new text, the original text would both still exist and still be in the form it was to begin with because it already exists. 

Its like the Star Wars Special Editions, the original versions do still exist even though George has created something new and that he claims that that new thing is “more canon” than the old stuff.

Edited by Sir Wearer of Hats
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
2 hours ago, Piney said:

Wasn't there some form of council or official consensus after Athanasius's Easter Letter determining the books of the "official" New Testament? 

I do believe it was one of the Councils Of Nicea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
13 hours ago, larryp said:

The "dead sea scrolls," tend to take the wind out of your sail. When one compares it to the bible, we find that, even though it's been translated millions of times, its original text has not changed. That's quite a feat, something you would expect from Yahweh, a loving Father. When you lay down tonight, you think about that. 

Dude, Y-W-H-W wiped out the world seventy-one times prior to forming the Noahidic Covenant according to Jewish doctrine. Feel the love.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
3 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Dude, Y-W-H-W wiped out the world seventy-one times prior to forming the Noahidic Covenant according to Jewish doctrine. Feel the love.

But HE loves you! And slaughter you to prove it!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
6 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

But HE loves you! And slaughter you to prove it!

He loves you sooo much he created a special place called "Hell" if you didn't love him back.........

.......he also created it for people like you and I Jo. :yes:  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
2 minutes ago, Piney said:

He loves you sooo much he created a special place called "Hell" if you didn't love him back.........

.......he also created it for people like you and I Jo. :yes:  

LOL Jokes on them! Me and the Big Red S are on speaking terms. According to him, I'm going to live forever, because he doesn't want me messing up the works.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
2 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

LOL Jokes on them! Me and the Big Red S are on speaking terms. According to him, I'm going to live forever, because he doesn't want me messing up the works.

That’s like John Constantine’s technical immortality, Satan has a restraining order against him and God doesn’t want him.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
8 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

That’s like John Constantine’s technical immortality, Satan has a restraining order against him and God doesn’t want him.

More or less. :devil:

Satan got pished when I tried to turn the 'lake of fire' into a jacuzzi. But he got really mad and tossed me out when I taught Cerebus  to roll over and play dead. The big doggo just wanted belly rubs.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
6 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

It's sad how someone claims the Dead Sea Scrolls compared to modern Bibles shows "no" changes when, as an example, the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" was originally "Thou shall not murder". The distinction being that defending ones self is justifiable but premeditation IS NOT. The inherent hypocrisy of this lies in that shortly after the time Moses was allegedly given the 10 Commandments by God, God instructed the Israelites to destroy or subjugate everyone they came across in their settling of the Promised Land. Not exactly a loving Creator. 

cormac

Still, there are orders of magnitude fewer changes when compared to similar stretches of time in other religions of the ancient past. The Babylonian religion for example.

The Hebrew scholars and scribes maintained what can only be called a remarkable consistency compared to the others.

Not giving that credit to Yahweh though, but to the priests and scholars.

Harte

Edited by Harte
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.