the original hebrew i suppose...

the concept is called "olamhaba" and is discussed here
but it is nothing like the "heaven" we are familiar with
like angels and clouds in the sky and whatnot

no such thing really appears in the OT i have been told....
but here is a reference

http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm

this "world to come" is not well defined in the OT.
it might as well be a state of mind rather than a place.

so as far as i can tell it is not in the OT at all
despite the english translations.

the real question is why do those who dont believe concern themselves with others who do? The Bible is not a beginner book exactly and out of context, many things can be claimed. It takes more than a passover of the bible to understand it. It takes other resources which explain the CONTEXT of the verses and the translations of the original words. Heaven and Earth were both used metaphorically in many places in the KJB and also used to replace other original words which actually had slightly different interpretations from those definitions we commonly refer to in THIS generation of readers.

Because those who do want to and are constantly, with their 'sermons' and 'scripture thumping' attempting to convert those of us who don't!

The so-called "Bible" is itself an "out of context" collection of various mythological stories. There is no 'context' to it. It's just a collection of various stories that were selected by various people. And I think it's extremely wise to recognize that during various translations and transcriptures these 'collections' of stories were carefully sewn closer and closer together as much as the translators and transcribers could possibly manage. After all, it would be no secret that they would use their previous knowledge of the stories they are attempting to combine to 'interpret' the next story that they are attempting to incorporate into the cannon.

What I've found in my studies of mythologies in general is that the biblical stories are truly no different from any other mythology. The only thing that makes them even remotely appear to be slightly different is the very fact that an attempt was made to 'cannonize' them.

I've been reading various folklore about the various so-called Archangels. What I've discovered, is that not only did they not originate in the stories of the Bible, but there are also many quite contradicting stories and tales about each of the Archangels. These were mythologies that far predate any cannonization of the biblical stories and were clearly part of many pagan cultures as well. In fact, often times the names have been slightly changed to "protect" one fable from another. But if you read the stories you can see that they are clearly referring to the same characters and situations.

There is nothing special about the biblical mythologies other than people like King James attempted to cannonize it and basically 'forbid' any other tales to be accepted. In other words, if the tales aren't in King James "book" then they are simply dismissed as being "untrustworthy".

But why should anyone worship King James? That's basically what you are doing when you worship the bible as the "Word of God". Only because King James says so.

Also the idea that "The bible isn't for beginners" and can only be made sense of by people who are truly dedicated to it, is utter nonsense. The many disagreeing demoninations of Christianity are absolute proof of this. Even clergy who have studied these texts for their entire lives disagree with each other on how they should be interpreted and precisely what they should mean. Look at how vehemently the Catholics and Protestants disagree with each other on various issues. And then the Protestants themselves all have different ideas. You're never going to convince me that the Amish are getting the same moral values from the Bible as the Baptists, for example.

I grew up as a Free Methodist, and they disagreed with a lot of other demoninations.

So the very idea that the so-called "book" can even be made to make coherent sense is itself a nonsensical idea. Clergy don't even agree with each other on what it means.

or conversely, why do those who believe concern themselves with those who do not?

if they are fine upstanding people then let them believe as they
wish. no just and caring god would ever punish the righteous even
if they believe in the easter bunny.

Well, not only that, but I comment on all other mythologies, so why stop with the Biblical mythologies? If I drew some sort of line there that would indicate that I see the Bible as something "special" which I absolutely do not. It's just another human mythology, no different from any other mythology. So why not treat it like any other mythology?

I rephrase then. I understand people sharing their beliefs in these forums,,that wasnt really what my curiousity is about.

my curiousity is about this,,, I believe in God , I believe the Bible to be the true word from God, I believe Jesus died on the cross for our sins

I can explain why I believe these things or what these beliefs mean to and for me and my life,,,but I dont expect or TRY to convince others to change what they believe in this forum, nor do I attack their intelligence or sanity because of what they believe ,,,,I just wonder why these threads tend to turn to that so often

its like,, if you believe this or that, you dont have the same intelligence or sanity as I do ,,,,,,its not a contest, people believe what they do or dont and it has little to do with mental capacity or ability

because it the foundation of the philosophical foundations and parables of all christians, muslims and jews as well as others
it is interesting and informative and a very early attempt to
wrestle with fundamental philosophical issues.

it is beautiful in its own way. nothing to be derided or
ridiculed. not to be taken seriously as history however.

I agree, and simply MUST add a comment on this as well.

These people who claim that they are out to help God 'save souls' are truly doing nothing more than belittling God and demonstrating a complete LACK of FAITH in God's abilities to save rigtheous people on his own.

If they think God needs their help, then they must not have ANY confidence in God at all. They simply don't TRUST God to save people on his own.

Evangelism is a slap in the face to God. Evangelists are doing nothing more than displaying the fact that don't TRUST God to do anything right on his own.

But then again, after reading the Bible I can't say that I blame them for feeling that way.

Bibleophobic. KingJamesophobic.

Well Slow, I confess that I honestly don't know much about the Jews and Muslims. But the Christians bring it on themselves with all their constant proselytizing and evangelizing. And I'm not talking about ever 'individual' follower who got sucked in. I'm talking about the organized religious instuitions (the VERY REASON why so many people did get sucked into it).

Historically it's been a force to deal with.

I can't tell you how many times I was truly hurt and infuriated by the "Chrsitains" as I sat through science classes hearing what the "Chrsitians" did to harrass scientists and scientific progress.

So I have absolutely NO SYMPATHY for Christianity whatsoever.

None at all. Zip, Zilch, Nada.

Precisely how the Jews and Muslims fit into the picture I'm not really sure. I think they have their own religious battles going on and I personally feel that their difference of opinion in religion is at the root of the Mideast Crisis. Although I'm sure there's a lot of polical crap involved there too. But I think it was the difference in religious views that brought it to a head.

In any case, when the "proselytizing and evangelizing" stops, then so will I. Because I'm just a 'reactionist'.

If they Quit preaching it to me and "Demanding" that Jesus is God and the Bible is the word of God, then I'll quit commenting on it too.

well there were the crusades....

religious extremism has always been a source of strife as have other "philosophies of superiority" such as Nazism and Marxism or Capitalism.

right now the most serious threat to peace in the world is islamic
extremism - not just in the mideast but throughout the world.

certainly the radical islamists are outraged at the jewish infidel presence in their midst - but there is also a big component which is merely "you're in my spot" - just like two dogs or cats fighting over a chair in the living room independent of religion.

the bible though is just a very influential book whose naive
stories have been twisted into nefarious unwarranted interpretations
but it is still a rattling good yarn.

I don't know how I came about to learn this, but the apostles did not have the belief in Him that he was God, either, or that he had special knowledge usually reserved for divinity, etc.

Even when He died, they ran away like cowards. Nobody came to cheer him on the cross. Save for Peter.

But after he came back, the whole gang started to have dreams about God, Jesus, the knowledge he impaled into them, and Jesus gave them lots of knowledge not only after he died, but way way way after that too, when he had gone to heaven. He made regular trips to the dreams of the Apostles.

This is not bu*l. It's true as the Gospels.

S1owhand perhaps can affirm this, and correct the factual mistakes I made. This is not a recount of mine of first hand knowledge.

Why do those who don't believe concern themselves with others who do? Because atheists like to proselytize as much as anyone else.

Proselytizing is an ancient need, goes back to prehistoric times.

I'm too tired to explain it now. Maybe I did already here, on some forum post.

It has to do with the fact that if you make someone else into believing exactly what you believe in, then he will fight on your side in war, since your God (general you) will not make you lose the fight and the war, so it's good to believe in the one and only.

But what you do when you proselytize is making sure that your army has more people, who will dependably fight for, and on, your side.

This is what gives fierceness to the nature of man to proselytize.

I am an atheist, and I am fearsomely, bravely so. I display the same religious fervour as all the other atheists on this site. It's our glee and pleasure to make fun of religions, because the urge in us to proselytize is based as on the same socio-emotional mechanism that makes religious people to proselytize, the same that gave the ancestors of each and every one of us a huge advantage to survive and propagate their DNA over those who did not see the point of, and who did not have the genetic mutation to buy in into the automatically generated social and survival advantage via emotional motivation to proselytize.

----

As a logician, I laugh at your defense of the wording of the Bible. It was God's word. If it's supposed to be interpreted, which need it cannot avoid, then it's not perfectly written. That's A. B. is that if you morally allow one interpretation, then you cannot say no, on a moral basis, to another interpretation, unless you can logically disprove it. You can substitute any one and same word for "morally" and "moral".

If you stick to logic, and disregard even the natural causation in the world, if you disregard the natural laws, as you very well have the right to, in my book; and you stick to the internal logic of the Bible, then you see huge logical discrepancies and self-contradictions. This is a more serious reason why people need to give interpretation to the Word. But it's not fooling anyone any more. The highly religious Christians don't believe the Bible any more than a Hindu or a Galapagos giant turtle does. You don't believe the Bible. You believe the Bible as it has been interpreted for you, and you believe the words of the Bible with the meaning of the concepts, with the basic word meanings, and with the meanings of the parables as given to you by you and by the interpreters, not as the Bible states them.

Heaven is heaven, the sky is firmament.

I don't think it can be mixed up. If the KJB interpreters were goons, well... what can I say. A goon is a goon is a goon.

sounds "divinely inspiped"

Why do those who don't believe concern themselves with others who do? and vice versa?

in a word. pride.

in two. foolish pride.

instructors instruct, teachers teach , we believe what we are taught or we dont,, but it is still a belief in the lesson and a belief in the words,,,,,

how can one believe something that is in another language , to believe is to understand on some level,,,so of course interpretation is needed, there is more in this world than mans logic,,I dont confess that it is better or worse than mans logic or that a logical man is any better or worse for understanding it,, just that it is,,,


If I set out today to write a book of thousands of pages, which included events, parables, metaphors and vernacular of TODAY. based in the culture, economy, and laws of today, I would mean EXACTLY what I wrote,, but those reading it 2000 years from now might come up with many different INTERPRETATIONS of what I meant when they apply THEIR metaphors and vernacular to the book. But still some would happen to be CORRECT if they did the research and comparison to read the book in context with HOW it was written NOW instead of how they had come to expect a book to be written THEN...

Right? Seems so obvious ...

Two polar opposites of one, unbroken linear projection ... End points ...

... Arguing for turf, like some glorified gang war ...

Almost like a a left fist and a right fist, from the same body ... Taking turns punching their own face!

Dear MsHarmony... I feel for you, I truly do. You are one precious human being. But a proselytizer, one who has pride in his work, will be softened by pathos, but not deterred.

I hear what you say. If YOU were to write that book, yes, I'd see your point. But the book, as claimed by those who believe in it, was written by God. This is where the problem lies.

For God, given his credentials, it would have been child's play to inspire the wording of a book that 1. Was portative between languages, cultures and millennia; and 2. Was full of His truth, unchangeable by man's reworking or putting it into different languages.

So here we have a situation: 1. God is omnipotent and has the wisdom. 2. He inspired the Book to convey his wisdom to man. 3. The meaning of His got scrambled due to multiplicity of translations.

This is unacceptable. If some of the wisdom disappears with each new translation in a linear line of translations, then the book is not translatable in essence. So why believe in it? It's a book now, not The Book. Your faith in some tenets is a faith that has been forged and forced upon you by interpreters, not language translators, but those who interpret God's words. If you believe in those interpretations, then you run the risk of doing the exact opposite of what God really wants you to do. That is so because the rules and laws you adhere to in your acts, are rules that had been interpreted, not directly gleaned from the Bible. And it has not been directly gleaned from the Bible because the Bible, as we have seen, is a book, not The Book.

I started a movement to read the Bible and believe what it says, instead of believing what other explainers say it says. You are still doing that. I fail to see how anyone can defend such a faith, such an systematic series of acts satisfying the tenets of deception that grew out of altering the words of God.

Would it be too much to ask for the opening paragraph of your first book, which would essentially be an introduction to your philosophy?