Africa Speaks Reasoning Forum

What this thread is about is do you accept the entire Bible?  INI see that many do reject the letters of Paul as being truly inspired.  Are there ones here that only accept the Hebrew scriptures but not the Greek (that is, a Judaic form of Rasta, or others)?  Are there ones that accept the entire Bible except believe it has been corrupted?  Just would like to hear ones reason on the matter.

INI accept the entire Bible, but try to refer back to the original languages AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.  I don't believe the scriptures themselves were ever lost in their purest form, but merely that we have to keep "seeking for it as for silver."  (Proverbs 2:4) Silver is not found in sheets like gold, but rather in specks throughout the rock and in order to actually put it together it needs to be smelted 7x and the dross scraped away.  So it is a much more difficult metal to find and retain into pure silver (Ag) form.  Similarly, if we kick away the corruption of the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek => Latin => English => whatever other language, and get interlinear bibles and do research on the original Semitic and Greek words & scriptures we can obtain the best sense of what the original author, JAH, that is, meant when he inspired the individual to write it.

I'll reason on you with this...

Ok...(deep breathe)..

I think the Bible retains some of the knowledge of the Nile Valley civilizations and Great lakes region of Africa (as well as other nearby cultures) that proceeded it. Almost all of the scripture and concepts of spirituality(and some word for word) are found in millenia old teachings long prior to when man wrote the Bible down...In other words I think the Bible is a spin off of much more ancient papyri and pyramid texts...the Papyris of Ani(Book of Coming Forth by Day) was written down 3,400 years before the OLD TESTAMENT, and more than 4,200 years before the NEW TESTAMENT...If the stories are the SAME, why does the current religious and educational system, as well as others not want to give credit where credit is due? Isn't that plagerism?


http://www.africawithin.com/kmt/sacred_texts.htm

http://www.africawithin.com/jgjackson/jgjackson_african_origin.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/index.shtml

Do we see similarities here?

(http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/ishorus.jpg)
Auset/Isis and Heru/Horus
(http://www.usfca.edu/fpa/darkmadonna/images/montserrat.jpg)
Madonna and child of Montserrat

Osiris
Had well over 200 divine names, including Lord of Lords, King of Kings, God of Gods, Resurrection and the Life, Good Shepherd, Eternity and Everlastingness, the god who "made men and women to be born again."
Coming was announced by Three Wise Men: the three stars Mintaka, Anilam, and Alnitak in the belt of Orion, which point directly to Osiris' star in the east, Sirius, significator of his birth
Was a devoured Host. His flesh was eaten in the form of communion cakes of wheat, the 'plant of Truth'.
The 23rd Pslam copied an Egyptian text appealing to Osiris the Good Shepherd to lead the deceased to the 'green pastures' and 'still waters' of the nefer-nefer land, to restore the soul and body, and to give protection in the valley of the shadow of death...
The Lord's Prayer was prefigured by an Egyptian hymn to Osiris-Amen beginning, 'O Amen, O Amen, who are in heaven. Amen was also invoked at the end of every prayer.
The teachings of Osiris and Jesus are wonderfully alike. Many passages are identically the same, word for word.
As the god of the vine, a great travelling teacher who civilized the world. Ruler and judge of the dead.
In his passion, Osiris was plotted against and killed by Set and "the 72."
Osiris' resurrection served to provide hope to all that they may do likewise and become eternal.
Horus
Was born of the virgin Isis-Meri in December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.
His earthly father was named "Seb" ("Joseph").
He was of royal descent.
At age 12 he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized, having disappeared for 18 years.
Was baptized in the river Eridanus or Iaurutana (Jordan) by "Anup the Baptizer" (John the Baptist) who was decapitated.
He ad 12 disciples, two of whom were his "witnesses" and were named "Anup" and "AAn" (the two "Johns").
He performed miracles, exorcized demons and raised El-Azarus ("El-Osiris") from the dead.
Horus walked on water.
His personal epithet was "Iusa" the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father." He was called the "Holy Child."
He delivered a "Sermon on the Mount" and his followers recounted the "Sayings of Iusa."
Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, was resurrected.
Titles: Way, the Truth the Light; Messiah; God's Anointed Son; Son of Man; Good Shephered; Lamb of God; Word made flesh; Word of Truth.
Was "the Fisher" and was associated with the Fish ("Ichthys"), Lamb and Lion.
He came to fulfill the Law.
Was called "the KRST" or "Anointed One."
Was supposed to reign one thousand years.

Hotep,

Oshun_Auset,

Very nicely put. I added some more knowledge to my mental tool box .... thankyou

out_of_Zion,

Their is  much information that discredits the bible.


The bible has many unknown authors who have added their 2 cents. Willy Shakespare, yes, Willy Shakespare has added his two cents to the bible....

The council of nicea.... have played their part in altering the bible as well.

Don't you find it to be very strange that the so called inspired men have no clue where jesus was for half of his life....  What if the knowledge of where jesus spent those life changing years of his life was known it may have changed the way the people of that day thought about things dramatically and the way the world looks at christianity today!!!

Infinite Mind,

You must be some kind of Shakespeare fan to attribute the Bible to him when many English professors don't even attribute Shakespeare to Shakespeare and so little is known about the actual man himself.  C'mon, that's just absurd.

Anyway, the point of this thread was for ones to make input of what regard they hold the Bible to be the inspired word of God and you two obviously both reject it as such.  Your choice.  There is nothing I could ever say to change your mind and so I will spare I(NI) the time.

Greetings Out of Zion,

Do I detect someone refusing to learn, or rejecting all together, the African(and other) origins of the Bible on a sight called Africa speaks? Isn't that a little closed minded and culturally/spiritually miopic? Is not rejecting the Bible as the "inspired word of God" describing the reguard(or lack thereof) we hold it in(therfore we were reasoning on the subject at hand)?  The only reason you feel there is nothing you can say to change our mind is because you refuse to present factual reasoning to dispute the information put forth. If you did have some info, you would present it. You would research and reason on it. I've always been willing to hear the ideas of why someone holds the Bible as holy, but most who do as such refuse to discuss pre-existing cultures(especially those from Africa) that the Bible stories are direct copies of.  It is not a coincidence that the African origions of the worlds major religions are not discussed by Christiandom...They want to keep us mentally and spiritually subordinate and enslaved. If the Judaic and Christian traditions openly admitted that they are direct copies of the Nile valley and Great Lakes region's spiritual concepts, they would not have had an excuse to enslave and colonize the "heathen" Africans...How can the slave master admit they worship an African God, or copied and altered their spiritual systems from African ones, and simultaneousely oppress and enslave the same people? They can't, that is why this information is kept from the masses of people in general, and African people in particular. Why won't you open your mind to the African historical traditions that your belief system is a copy of? Why reject further knowledge or information? That's what Christiandom(Babylon) wants us to do ...not know (our) African history!!!

You say you don't reason on these subjects because you are ignorant of the "other" spiritual systems...here is your chance to learn...why deny yourself of this?  Most of this information is available on links to this very site. Most of it has been posted on this site already! I don't understand why someone would come to Africa speaks and not want to learn or discuss African history and spiritual concepts with African people, just because they predate the Biblical ones. Why would someone expect African people not to point to the African origins of things presented when applicable? You are speeking to Africans...You shouldn't get frustrated with the idea we want to talk about our history...coming to a site with our homeland in the tittle should have prepared you for this. You should actually want and welcome it. We will continue to discuss our home. Knowledge is power, my people have been stripped of that knowledge, and it is about time it is discussed. Let the truth be brought to light!

Out of Africa...would be more like it...

Mo fi sin Olorun,(In the service of God)

Oshun Auset

I think it's somewhere in Numbers where the Israelites start to mingle with the Mithraites (I think, could be one of the other "ites"), start fornicating with their women, adopting their rituals etc. Now nowhere does it say that the Mithraites forced the Israelites to do this, or went out of their way to seduce them or anything, just that certain Israelites decided of their own free will that they liked those Mithraite women and rituals. So God supposedly ordered all the Mithraites to be killed. What for? What did they do wrong? If anyone was wrong it was the Israelites for straying away from their foundation, the Mithraites never told them to do that. Now would the real divine, just God do a thing like this? Doesn't it really sound like someone invoking the name of "God" to justify their actions, they felt guilty for doing what they thought was wrong, instead of dealing with their wrongdoing themselves they blamed it on someone else, the Mithraites, killed them all, and then justified it by saying God told them to do it.
SO ultimately, to me, no, the Bible is not the inspired word of God, it was written by men, who regardless of whether or not they were inspired by 'God', filtered any inspiration they may have had through their own cultural and personal perspectives.
How else can you explain the vast difference between the 'God' of the OT and the 'God' of the new, did 'God' change? Surely 'God' cannot change, it must be the people PERCEIVING 'God' who changed.
Out_of_Zion what do you have to say to Oshun's post about Christ and Osiris/Horus?

I'm going to print out some links that iyah gave me in PM about the Afrikan origins of the Biblical myths as she explained it and read them at my conveinience off line and then make a reply as the amount of information is too much for me to read in any short sitting period and respond to.  I need to make notes & do some research and actually put this opportunity to both learn of the Afrikan traditions and teach of what I know to use.

Blessings.

INI will re-approach this topic most likely not until Monday as I will be gone for the weekend.  Give thanks for the patience you shown Oshun)Auset for my dismissive attitude.  Gman, I will read through Numbers and find the account so we can quote it here and look at it.  

Peace.

This is actually a very plausible theory, but in the context that this was blurted out, you have reason to be suspicious of this allegation. This idea, which is extremely intriguing I might add, stems from the idea that the King James Version is allegedly attributed to a man named Francis Bacon.

"Sir Francis Bacon (later Lord Verulam and the Viscount St. Albans) was an English lawyer, statesman, essayist, historian, intellectual reformer, philosopher, and champion of modern science. Early in his career he claimed “all knowledge as his province” and afterwards dedicated himself to a wholesale revaluation and re-structuring of traditional learning. To take the place of the established tradition (a miscellany of Scholasticism, humanism, and natural magic), he proposed an entirely new system based on empirical and inductive principles and the active development of new arts and inventions, a system whose ultimate goal would be the production of practical knowledge for “the use and benefit of men” and the relief of the human condition.

At the same time that he was founding and promoting this new project for the advancement of learning, Bacon was also moving up the ladder of state service. His career aspirations had been largely disappointed under Elizabeth I, but with the ascension of James his political fortunes rose. Knighted in 1603, he was then steadily promoted to a series of offices, including Solicitor General (1607), Attorney General (1613), and eventually Lord Chancellor (1618). While serving as Chancellor, he was indicted on charges of bribery and forced to leave public office. He then retired to his estate where he devoted himself full time to his continuing literary, scientific, and philosophic work. He died in 1626, leaving behind a cultural legacy that, for better or worse, includes most of the foundation for the triumph of technology and for the modern world as we currently know it."

from: http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/bacon.htm

Some people think that William Shakespeare was a pen name for Francis Bacon. This link has much on this theory:

http://www.sirbacon.org/links/evidence.htm

Here is a link to the theory that Francis Bacon(William Shakespeare) edited the King James Version of the bible:

http://www.sirbacon.org/links/bible.html



You must REALLY want me to be a woman for some reason - anyway I think the reason you keep referring to me as a she is because of my screen name "Iyah." Iyah in the way I am using is in the Rastafari context - I and I greet each other and refer to one another as 'Iyah' at times. 'Iyah' is a derivative of the word Nyabinghi.

iyah   :-[   appology AGAIN.  now you see how scatter brained I can be!

I'd written a reply for this but then i accidently highlighted and lost it in an instant.  Besides I would like to read more than just one aspect (I read of the Garden of Eden) before I make a well-thought-out and lengthy reply.  Much of what I am reading so far is not that new.  I encountered it in discussions with a mentor of mine and also in Joseph Campbell's books.  I look forward, though, to reasoning it out and discussing this.  Blessings.

Hotep,

Oshun_Auset, you gave a solid proof that the kjv bible is a fraud. Some aren't ready for that type of awakening, but we thatnk you for your efforts. I will leave the following statement from a brother named AmenKaRaHeru to be contemplated upon!



Religion was created via a paradigmical matrix of an individual-duality created out of fear and ego; the fear(and reality)of not being in control and the ego driven desire of wanting to control others. Religion sublimates self. It attacks self, and brings fear to knowledge of self, effectively cutting self off from that which is within self. Religion is a contradiction. It tells one that one is created by god. It says that the creator is perfect. Yet it tells one that somehow a perfect, omnipotent, and omnipresent creator made a mistake and somehow, outside of the will of a perfect, omnipotent, and omnipresent god, man, a creation of god, was able to act outside the will of god.
The belief in religion creates a spiritual dichotomy in man. To teach that a hue-man somehow had/has the ability to act outside of the will of a omnipotent, omnipresent god is arrogance carried to the nth degree. Conversely, religion also teaches that because a hue-man made the "choice" to act outside the will of god, hue-mans no longer are capable, through their own efforts, to have a spiritual relationship with god. Because of this make-believe spiritual impotence, hue-mans that accepted/accepts this view were/are forced to look outwardly for a resolution to their perceived spiritual impotence. Thus in these individuals, the need to embrace a particular religion is then fomented and acted upon, and the religion embraced is based on one's ego(what tickles the ears and pleases the heart; i.e., the "perception" or "belief")and one's prejudicial inclinations.
Religious beliefs replaced right-knowledge and knowledge of self. Consequently hue-mans became dependent upon man's written words concerning their's or another's perception of god. God became "he." "He" became jealous, wrathful, sad, happy, sarcastic, vengeful, and racist; i.e., hue-man(albeit with much more power). Then satan was created and is now worshipped as the enemy of god and is the perceived cause of all misfortune in the world, and "he" too is able to act outside the will of an omnipotent, and omnipresent god. The ludicrousness of religion is only surpassed by its arrogance in attempting to suggest that a creation of god can act outside of its will and the meta-physical and physic-al laws it created.

AmenKaRaHeru

in MY opinion,ones have to talk about in what sence is the KJV a "fraud".in some aspects,it is a fraud for the simple fact that it doesnt acknowledge the fact that most of the "Mysteries" init have been takenfrom our Incient schools of thought.but in another way,it isnt a fraud because when one OVERstands the Laws of Nature and the Heavens,and the Incient meaning of the symbols of the Helios Biblios,one will OVERstand that it is Iniversal.i Know some religions like say.....Buddhism,that doesnt subscribe to what that one said in his writing.in the case of Buddhism,one actually knows that to KNOW thy-self(as InI ForeMothers/fathers taught us)is the ONLY way to Transcend Sufferation.

Formerly Known as Nazarite

Well said (former) Nazarite.  What you said about the Helio Biblio being a summation of the Laws of Nature & Heaven is very much in agreement with what I believe.  

So far the best quote I read in what I have been linked from O_A is this:

Maynard Shipley (p 60, Sex and the Garden of Eden), emphasis added:
"That ancient Pagan creeds, legends and myths, part of the universal mythos, should be found embodied in the religion of ancient Mexicans and all these again are to be but original sources of modern orthodox Christian religion, is by no means in explicable and need not be attributed to the subtlety of the ubiquitous devil.  The explanation is that all religions and all languages of men had a common origin in an older seat of civilization.  Where that original center of culture was is another story."

How true this is! - and how well stated!  So often I hear ones trying to villify other religions that share a common root (look no further than the Judaic founding of Christians and Muslims, the fundamentalist versions of which constantly combat one another despite the fact their religion is 80-90% identical, differing only perhaps on large & important points).  The phrase "to each his own" has been by and large lost on this generation, ever since the so-called social awakenings that prompt the overabudance of forced propaganda we see promulgating our media sources and indeed the minds of those around us, speaking fabricated thoughts formulated en masse.  

In reading  much of what I have read so far, I must admit it is a reminder of Joseph Campbell's well phrased quote on existence, that "Myth is the depersonalized dream, dream the personalized myth."  Quite simply, all religions are going to cater to the human identity and because there is a common source ("EDEN," by whatever name or whatever place you locate it; few doubt that the human race did not start in one particular localé, the so-called "multiple Eden" theory of the past long having been disproven by science through studies of the Y-chromosome, some of which was touched on above by ones).  

I'm reminded of the childish game of "telephone" in which a line of people whisper messages in one anothers' ears and the original message changes by miscommunication throughout the line, except this is on a large scale of human cultures and consciousness and the changes are by and far less incidental, but nonetheless, accumulate to semi-large differences through time and multiplication.  I'll touch more on this after I read more specifically Afrikan mythos...it seems most of what I am getting is Egyptian in origin and I would like to vary what I read before I make a response (perhaps a new thread maybe specifically comparing and contrasting the Bible with Afrikan writings) on the matter.
---
Infinite Mind,
I'm here to discuss what is, not what isn't.  I can clearly see you are an outright atheist which makes me wonder your purpose at Rastafari speaks where most acknowledge some form and representation of JAH.  Even others, non Rastas (though I do honor HIM and respect HIM as a great man & colossially important figure of mankind's history!), like myself, have some form of creedo and acknowledge a creator.  Perhaps you should go post at a sci-fi site where you can discuss aliens with the rest of the wackos in this world.

"To teach that a hue-man somehow had/has the ability to act outside of the will of a omnipotent, omnipresent god is arrogance carried to the nth degree. Conversely, religion also teaches that because a hue-man made the "choice" to act outside the will of god, hue-mans no longer are capable, through their own efforts, to have a spiritual relationship with god. Because of this make-believe spiritual impotence, hue-mans that accepted/accepts this view were/are forced to look outwardly for a resolution to their perceived spiritual impotence. Thus in these individuals, the need to embrace a particular religion is then fomented and acted upon, and the religion embraced is based on one's ego(what tickles the ears and pleases the heart; i.e., the "perception" or "belief")and one's prejudicial inclinations.  
Religious beliefs replaced right-knowledge and knowledge of self.
Infinite Mind

Explain how this reflects an atheistic belief.
As Joseph Campbell would have said, not believing in an anthropomorphized 'personal god,' or not supporting religion as a construct, does not amount to atheism. 'Religion' as most humans frame it is profoundly disempowering.
Rootsie

Rootsie,

he seems to deny all ideas and concepts of a higher power other than oneself, which in my definition constitutes atheism.  But we'll let the man speak for I-self.

out of zion:

"I'm here to discuss what is, not what isn't.  I can clearly see you are an outright atheist which makes me wonder your purpose at Rastafari speaks where most acknowledge some form and representation of JAH.  Even others, non Rastas (though I do honor HIM and respect HIM as a great man & colossially important figure of mankind's history!), like myself, have some form of creedo and acknowledge a creator.  Perhaps you should go post at a sci-fi site where you can discuss aliens with the rest of the wackos in this world."


You have a conditioned thought process you look at the world through a toilet paper roll.

I understand what led you to believe that I was atheist.  But do you understand what led you to believe I was atheist?

Why do you assoicate aliens with wachos?
Their have been more sightings of aliens than any holy figure in any holy book.

House_of_Ra-sta,

Whats the use in perpetuating a lie?

out of zion:

"he seems to deny all ideas and concepts of a higher power other than oneself, which in my definition constitutes atheism.  But we'll let the man speak for I-self."


This higher power that you speak of is everywhere and at the same time nowhere.  This Higher power that you speak of defies and denies all ideas and concepts.

I don't see anything worth replying to there.

Give thanks to the Most High JAH, Yeshua King and Savior, and may JAH kingdom come and show thee your error.  I might be looking through a toilet paper roll, but I got my eyes on the prize and this pitiful world don't compare.  SE'LAH!!

I take that back.  

The "sightings" => ever notice they all occur in bed?  Ever hear of sleep paralysis?  Dreams?  It's all psychological.

As for sitings of UFO, there is plenty of natural phenomenons and non-phenomenons, such as man made crafts, that have accounted for all that hoopla.

Sounds like someone could discount/disprove spiritual/religious "sightings" with the same logic.

Of course they could, have, and will.

So do you or do you not believe in the spiritual relm? I'm confused now on your stance...

(I just accidently posted this in the Where Is God thread, too)

No, I do believe in the spiritual realm.  String theory all but confirms it - which the Kaballahists predicted thousands of years before...

I'm merely saying that those who wish to debunk spiritual visions have a wealth of reasons to do so, and always will detract from them in one way or another.