The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
40 votes

What exactly is the Bible?

I'm writing this because in the last week, not just only DP, but I have had people argue for their beliefs of various topics, ranging from anarchy to minarchy, and more. But people keep telling me they hate Christians because Christians want and expect everyone to be slaves.

There seems to be a lot of confusion about this so I wanted to clear something up.

I will say first I completely accept your beliefs, if you do not wish to accept Christianity that's fine, but I have to set something straight so people can stop hatemongering and spreading the wrong message.

The Bible is not a book of tyranny. it is not a book that says, "You WILL obey God." It says, "You should obey God."

Throughout the whole Bible, the message of Liberty is spread. It says that man was meant to rule, and not each other, but over the earth and be caretakers of it. Man is NOT meant to be slaves to any man, and definitely not slaves to God. Each man has his own free will to choose.

The Bible does ask for submission. However to submit is not to be enslaved, it is to willingly serve. You will find that serving others inspires others to serve you. All of the principles of Bill of Rights and dare I say, yes, the Declaration of Independence and natures law, can be directly pulled from the Bible.

I just wanted to clarify that, because many seem to think the Bible is the cause of war. I guess if that's true, than so is Liberty. Because liberty and freedom is exactly what the Bible teaches us to take part in. Just for the record, it also teaches us to stay out of entangling alliances.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Bible

is a very small peice of the Sumerian creation story. I was written in cuneiform about 4000bc. It is only a small portion of the whole story. If you want to know more about the 'Bible', you should research its origin. Another interesting story is the 'List of Kings', also written in cuneiform. If you begin to research these things I suggest you have an open mind.


I now consider the Book of Genesis

to be a re-writing of history from the Hebrew monotheistic perspective. The older, more detailed accounts, referred to "gods." In the earliest written accounts (Sumerian), a "god" was one of "those who from heaven to Earth came," one of the Anunnaki who descended to Earth in their flying machines, genetically engineered crop plants and livestock and, after repeated attempts, succeeded in blending their own DNA with "early man" to produce a slave race "in their own image and likeness," us.

I know this sounds wacko and absolutely heretical to anyone who has lived with the Bible as their constant companion and has otherwise not delved into ancient writings, but I see overwhelming evidence of very ancient advanced civilizations on Earth, so advanced as to raise serious question that they could be be terrestrial in origin. And since we are now poised on the brink of "god-like" breakthroughs in genetic engineering, it hardly seems strange to imagine representatives of older, more advanced civilizations being able to do what the Sumerians say they did.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

check out Voddie Baucham's message

exciting and informative on how the Bible is distinct from other books.

It is a

Historical account of the Adamic people.

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

My personal feeling is that the bible is a guide

to life.
I don't believe in a God.
I change the word 'God' into other concepts like 'nature', 'moral', 'wisdom', etc. I believe strongly in those concepts.
Reading the bible like that makes sense to me as it contains many wise lessons and lots of history.

Yes, in the New testament I

Yes, in the New testament I would say this thread is true. However, the old testament is quite violent at times. Thomas Jefferson's Bible, or as Jefferson would call it, "The teachings of the Jesus of Nazareth." Starts out with the Tax on the world. I think for many libertarian people that short book, helped me understand the basics of Christianity and why it would appeal to people fighting for freedom at all times in history.

A Holy Book

That was sought to be destroyed by Karl Marx and in turn eventually Marx and his family ended up with a unwelcomed and unusual fate.


what is the bible

Mostly a collection of moral stories plagiarized from other earlier religions.

The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it-Andrew Jackson

True. Of course you were down

True. Of course you were down voted.

What exactly is the Bible?

I think the Bible is a collection of works meant to help mankind.

Think about how the story by Shakespeare of Romeo and Juliet has saved countless lives by being told to people nearing the age of matrimony. Shakespeare has been gone a while but not the magic in his story.

The Bible is full of life's lessons people learned in the past and tried to set in writing as some sound rules to live by. Whether you believe in a god or not the rules still apply.

Parts of it, I'm thinking, are history lessons. I remember reading one story that sounded like the invention of the brick. It talked about when it happened people started talking in different languages and spread off in different directions across the face of the earth. I think it was not so much a language problem as the new idea of a brick got people thinking of different ways they were going to use them and no one understood each other. Concepts like fireplaces, dams, outhouses, walls, or aqueducts would have been hard to grasp.

Anyway that was my interpretation. I think much in the Bible has been translated over and over so many times; one has to perhaps reach for the answers in some of it.

Another part where I may be reading differently than some people is a part when someone is trying to explain to someone else that, you don't even credit God with a tenth of your world. I think what the story and the person meant to convey is that; all of the books are books of god, and all of the houses are the houses of god. You know. Credit God for everything.

Perhaps it is meant to guide you between the Heaven and Hell here ON Earth.

A point often missed.

"Anyway that was my interpretation. I think much in the Bible has been translated over and over so many times; one has to perhaps reach for the answers in some of it."

You have your facts wrong. Modern bibles have not gone through several translations. The path of translation is not from A to B to C to D, etc. It is more like A to B, A to C, A to D. We have plenty of manuscripts in the original languages, and most translations are translated directly from the original languages. We also have dictionaries and lexicons of those languages based on works of the time, so we can see the scope of meaning of words in the original languages. You might invest in a concordance or some free bible software like e-sword. Also, the fact that there were multiple lines of transmission of the text simultaneously spread into different regions is significant. It is a reason why textual criticism of the biblical text is able to demonstrate tenacity, the idea that the original text is intact, because of the comparisons of different textual families at early stages of transmission. Even famous anti-christian scholars admit that the bible we have today says pretty much the same thing as the originals.

I have trouble one on one at

I have trouble one on one at work.

I remember once the new guy said he needed a torch. We came back with the acetylene tanks and he was all like, "No. No." What he actually wanted was a flashlight.

And that was a British guy trying to speak English.


You're not familiar with British English and the propensity for Brits to use it? Hermeneutics examines contextual issues, and with the Bible, you can be assured that people have devoted their lives to understanding the contextual issues. The fact that Homonyms give you trouble doesn't mean that Bible scholars who study the cultural and historical contextual issues in depth are as sloppy.

Thank you Anthony

I am a coward that often needs encouragment and a stiff slap in the face to remind me that I need not be afraid. Fear yields shame and I am unashamed of my belief in Christ - I should be fearless.

Thanks for the slap in the face.

"The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in battle."

So hell is consistent with liberty?

You guys keep telling me that people "choose" to go to hell. If I don't like God's rules, he isn't sending me to hell, I'm choosing to go to hell? Is this correct? Is this any more logical than saying a woman "chose" to be raped, becuase she didn't want to have sex with a man? Is that consistent with liberty? If I don't choose your rules, I suffer the natural consequence of hell? If I don't "choose" Obamacare, I suffer the natural consequence of a tax penalty? Someone explain to me how hell is my "choice".

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Another Issue about your argument

Your underlying assumption about God is wrong. First of all, God is good. He is the ONLY ONE good in the entire universe. Secondly, He created all things that existed, so we are obliged to obey Him. NOT to obey Him would be evil. Thirdly, His rules are for our good and benefit. It is NOT meant to harm us.

Your examples above are non-examples. The people who wanted to rape, those people who wanted to impose Obamacare on us did not do it out of love and goodness. So these examples doesn't apply here.

God is not evil. He is not planning for our destruction. On the contrary, He wants us to be saved, and to be free from sin and Satan's tyrannical rule. Satan rules through force, through fear and through sin and death. God is the opposite of that. So if we don't choose God, then we are choosing evil and our choices have consequences. And if you choose evil, then even if God allows you to go to heaven you wouldn't be happy! Because you can't stand God, so you have to be away from Him as much as possible! And that's the place called hell. In reality, it is called the lake of fire, that's the eternal home for all those who've rejected God and Christ.


...the only point I might differ with you on is whether that 'eternal home' will always be occupied. I don't think God's love and will to redeem those who have rejected Him somehow arbitrarily expires at death. If all things in Creation, whether in heaven or on earth, are to be reconciled through Christ (Colossians 1), I believe God will accomplish his will to do this eventually. My 'old man' has already been crucified and buried in Christ, and is being transformed into the new. I don't see God's justice and wrath abandoning this ultimate redemptive purpose for anyone. It just may take some eons of wandering.

Otherwise, it will be kind of sad that there is always a scar on creation, some pocket of evil that is merely contained -- settling for a situation that is less good than the original state of the creation. I believe the end of the story is truly good! :)

Freedom of choice

The freedom of choice and the consequences of choice comes together. When God created this universe and more specifically, when He re-created the earth and created men to rule over the earth, He gave us a choice in the garden east of Eden. We had a choice to listen to Him or not listen to him. And there is a consequence that follows our choice. If Adam and Eve listened to Him, then the result is life. If Adam and Eve didn't listen to Him, then the result is death.

In the best sense, spiritual life and death doesn't mean existence. It means whether we exist in connection with God or without God. Because life flows out of God, so when we are connected to God through Christ, we are alive, when we are not, then we are dead in spirit.

So hell, means an eternal separation from God, and that is the consequence of not listening and not believing and not trusting in God. And it is a very logical and sensible consequence.

very well said

I like it.

"The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in battle."

is jail consistent with liberty?

I would say yes.

Can freedom and liberty exist without law and order? I would say no.

Concerning Hell, yes you choose to go:

You choose to break the Law, you choose to sin, you choose to be unholy. I do too.

Justice requires punishment for breaking the law; every action results in consequences.

GOD set up a system of Laws after Adam and Eve choose sin and evil; GOD did this to reestablish a foundation for Liberty and Freedom. You may not like those Laws, I get that, but without the Law there can be no justice, no clear definition of good and evil, and no Liberty or Freedom.

Do you follow so far? It took me about 26 years to grasp this...

Christ is the ultimate source of Freedom and Liberty because only he can provide a true seperation from sin/evil by satisfying justice and accepting the consequences of our choices on our behalf - that was his choice - now we are able to choose or reject him.

Remember all choices have consequences, like it or not.

Yes Hell is consistent and dare I say necessary for the eternal existence of Freedom and

"The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in battle."

Great description.

Perfect description, this is why I fear anarchical society will never succeed. "Can freedom exist without law and order? I would say no". Just because one part of society chooses anarchy another will form pacts and alliances and other forms of government and will rule over those who chose anarchy.

There must be some law and order to give us the appearance of an anarchical society.

Like communism, it is great on paper and in theory, but it can never work in reality.

God is consistent with and liberty hell consistent with tyranny

no no.. if you dont like God's rules then you're already in hell. Hell = darkness (the absence of light) which is equal to being ignorant and that in turn will bring you great pain in life.. God represents all that is good, honest and true inside of you. "God" is not some man up there in the clouds judging you and hell isnt some place you go when you die. these things are spiritual states of experience. So the absence of God is hell. its time to quit reading your myths as historical facts and start reading them how they were intended to be interpreted as metaphors..

See the responses below where

See the responses below where the literal translation of the word Jesus used for "hell" was actually a local trash dump on fire. To me this means that he is saying, "if you do or don't do XYZ, then you will be in a state of eternal hell on earth." In other words, if you kill someone, or basically do wrong in general, your personal world will become hell. You will stay up at night reliving all the F-ed up things you've done in your live. Your entire being will be weighed down by guilt, or depression, or negativity. As a result, you will not ever be able to fulfill/realize your true potential as a human (which is heaven). This is my interpretation of heave/hell at least.

That would be an example of eisegesis.

Eisegesis is an invalid form of interpretation where you put your own ideas into the text, ignoring the context.

The Bible shows that Hell is a place where souls are destroyed after death: Luke 12:5 "But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him."
Matthew 10:28 "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

Matthew 25:41 mentions eternal fire which was designed for Satan and his angels which rebelled against God. A mere trash heap has a different purpose, and how could your suggestion correspond with the purpose laid out here?

If you want to take a literal

If you want to take a literal interpretation, then you need to go back to the literal, original language, translation, and meaning. Thus, trash dump.

Also, where do the Lost Gospels come into play with you? Up to 20 Gospels omitted for different political reasons by popes and others. Many of these Gospels directly contradicted what ended up in the final product.

There is a difference between literalism and letterism.

There is a difference between literalism and letterism. You seem to promote letterism. Learn more about it here under the letterism section:

Your understanding of the history of canonization seems lacking.
How did you come to the conclusion that writings which were never recognized as scripture by the Christian church were 'lost' gospels? How did you come to the conclusion that the canonization of biblical texts was based on politics, when the criteria for canonization included that they were texts already in consistent use by christian churches. Canonization was not a decision to make a 'final product', it was merely a recognition of what was already considered scripture by Christian churches. The ante-nicean church fathers quoted Scripture extensively. These were people who were students of the Apostles hand picked by Jesus, and students of those students, and so on. You can reconstruct just about the entire new testament from early patristic quotations prior to the council of Nicea; which testifies to the accuracy of the canon we have today. The so-called 'lost' gospels you mention are mostly gnostic gospels and blatant forgeries. If you read the Bible, and then read those other books, you should see the difference. The fact that they directly contradict widely accepted scriptures only adds to the fact that they were never scripture to begin with.


God owns private property. It's literally called "the Kingdom of God".

Just like any private property, if you want access, you need to follow house rules or go on your own way.

Why would you expect to be able to trespass in spite of the rules of the proprietor on the proprietor's own property?

That's not very libertarian of you.

So, if you CHOOSE you do not want in, what happens to you if you choose to go another way is your own business. Good luck!

Why fight yourself?

what I understand from my brief time with the new testament, following rules is exactly not the way to get into the kingdom. In fact those were the people jesus lashed out at in the market.. Its by faith alone right? the kingdom is every man's birthright, Its every man's property!! The U.S.A is a physical manifestation of this idea. This is the promise land. And we have a God given right to be free.

If it's by faith alone...

...then the rule is still there - i.e. must have that faith in order to gain entry.

No difference.

So who's property is hell?

I'm not asking to trespass into The Kingdom of God. I'm also not asking to trespass into hell. Who's private property is hell? I don't want the owners permission to go there either.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).