Is the Bible Fantasy?

Source

This hub answers the question, "Do you think the King James Bible to be a fairy tale?" asked by JThomp42. (Which user is apparently no longer on Hub Pages, as it took me some time to formulate my answer.)

If you believe you will take offence to the reply given here, I suggest you stop reading now. If you are willing to have an open mind, then read on.

The Short Answer

In a word, yes.

It Goes Beyond "Versions"

Not only the King James version. The entire book was written anywhere from one to three centuries after the purported incidents, and was based on oral traditions. Oral traditions are notoriously unreliable, as they get twisted, embellished and misunderstood.

If you've ever played the child's game "telephone," in which everyone sits in a large circle and whispers to the next person a simple sentence that was whispered to the first person by the group leader, you'll understand. The final person in the circle stands up and announces the phrase he heard--or thought he heard. 99.99999999% of the time, it is so far away from the original statement as to be unrecognizable.

Furthermore, there was the Council of Nicea which met in around 300 A.D. (or 'C.E.' as they now call it. ...) and their purpose was to decide which books they deemed fit for the general population to even know about. At that time, there were more books deleted than now exist in any version.

Proving the Source? Good Luck!

Next, there is the issue of proving the source. If the bible were to be subjected to the tests of evidence as applied in a court of law, it would be dismissed as hearsay!

The reason for this being that no one now alive was witness to the supposed events, and neither do they personally know any of the people who were then alive, since we do not have thousand-year-plus lifespans.

Claiming to "know" someone based upon the stories told within the pages does not count as 'knowing' by current acquaintance with a flesh and blood person alive today, in the eyes of the law. Ergo, all content of this book proclaimed to be "holy" is hearsay, pure and simple.

How Do I Know This?

You want me to cite my sources, I'm sure. Well, I began to question things that just did not make sense to me many years ago, and began to do research. The reason I began this quest was my own failed attempt at becoming a nun. I used to be a believer, until I got the inside story from that phase of my life. There were so many things that just did not gel, so many contradictions and other things that I could not accept, that I left the convent and went my own way, convinced by my experiences and research that atheism made more sense to me. (And no, atheists are not "satan worshippers," for we do not believe in such an entity any more than we believe in any deity.)

Many years later, when I met my current husband, I found we had that in common. He had gone through seminary school to become a licensed minister. (Yes, he has all the certificates of each section passed through study, as well as his license, and he found the same, and much more besides!) He does not practice, as a direct result of what he learned, because it is not in him to be a hypocrite and preach things he does not believe.

It is from him I learned about all the deleted books, and all the variations, written and re-written over time to satisfy the priest class, and to rule and control people by fear. It was also written over many centuries, and not all at once. Far from being the "inspired word" of any god, it is purely the controlling, patriarchal words of men.

It is a book designed to denigrate women, and to keep people coming to church and giving up significant parts of their income or fruits of their labor in the fields, in order to keep the churches in business. In effect, all religions are cults.

Furthermore, none of the story is very original. It is a mere re-hashing of far older traditions dating back to 2500 B.C., with the ancient Egyptians and their pantheon of gods. You can read more details of thatand other evidence at the links above right.

Keep the "Common People" Ignorant

In the early days of the church movement, it was actually forbidden for anyone but the priest class to learn to read, so no "commoner" could actually know what was written in the so-called "holy" book(s). They were forced to rely upon the pronouncements and interpretations of the priests.

Little, if anything has changed. If the priests cannot keep people in fear of some eternal damnation in the afterlife, and thereby keep their coffers full, they will be out of business. And make no mistake; churches are a business.

Ask yourself why the Vatican, for example, needs the extreme riches and treasures they hoard? This is supposedly a religion that preaches a simple life of poverty, and yet they rank among the wealthiest of all countries! They certainly do not sell those treasures to further helping the truly needy, nor do they donate them to museums for the enrichment of all.

No, they hide them away in locked vaults to keep their secrets.

Comments?

No, not this time. I have deliberately omitted a comments box, for I have merely presented the answer to the question asked, as I have learned the facts to be.

I have no intention of getting involved in a flame war of arguments for and against religion. You may agree or disagree with my inside evidence, as you see fit. I do not care; you are free to believe or disbelieve as you choose.

I know what I know, and I live my own life free from guilt and as a good person. I don't need some self-righteous pulpit-crier to tell me right from wrong.

© 2015 DzyMsLizzy

More by this Author


Click to Rate This Article
working