Glad I'm not a Palestinian in Jerusalem...

Originally posted by utherpendragon
[b]The Jehovans changed the rules. But you knew this already, don't you?

I beg to differ.The Jehovans did not change the rules. Monotheistic Religion was around before them. Zoroasterism for one.[/b]

Hogwash.

Most learned gentlemen would place zoroaster around 1000 to 1100 BC.
Moses escaped from Egypt around 1200 BC (during Ramsesses II's rule).
And Genesis is supposed to be another 800 years earlier still.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Good, you found it.

"Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me." (Is this really english?)
Here it says, black on white, that there are strange gods that god doesn't want us to worship. God says it himself! There are more gods than himself. Do I need to go further?

Yeah.
Presumably the translator should have been shot.
It's widely accepted that the first commandment refers to God being the one and only true God and that other gods are fake, hence you shouldn't be puttin' them in front of the one with the capital G.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Hogwash.

Most learned gentlemen would place zoroaster around 1000 to 1100 BC.
Moses escaped from Egypt around 1200 BC (during Ramsesses II's rule).
And Genesis is supposed to be another 800 years earlier still.

The religion was founded by Zarathushtra in Persia -- modern-day Iran. It may have been the world's first monotheistic faith. It was once the religion of the Persian empire, but has since been reduced in numbers to fewer than 200,000 today. Most religious historians believe the the Jewish, Christian and Muslim beliefs concerning God and Satan, the soul, heaven and hell, the virgin birth of the savior, slaughter of the innocents, resurrection, the final judgment, etc. were all derived from Zoroastrianism.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Yeah.
Presumably the translator should have been shot.
It's widely accepted that the first commandment refers to God being the one and only true God and that other gods are fake, hence you shouldn't be puttin' them in front of the one with the capital G.

So you think one part of our present bible is false?
Then I can as easily say the any part can be false.
Even the one where Jesus is resurrected from the dead?

In my opinion the bible is true it its entirety, and the holy spirit wouldn't allow any mistranslations. Or no part at all can be known to be fully true. Who is he who can tell right from wrong? You?

Originally posted by utherpendragon
The religion was founded by Zarathushtra in Persia -- modern-day Iran. It may have been the world's first monotheistic faith. It was once the religion of the Persian empire, but has since been reduced in numbers to fewer than 200,000 today. Most religious historians believe the the Jewish, Christian and Muslim beliefs concerning God and Satan, the sou ...[text shortened]... of the innocents, resurrection, the final judgment, etc. were all derived from Zoroastrianism.

I know where Zarathushtra was born.
I know where Persia was (hence they speak Persian in Iran...).
You just, seemingly, don't understand WHEN Zarathushtra lived.

As I just pointed out to you, he "probably" lived around 1000 and 1100 BC. That's LATER than Moses. and MUCH LATER than Abraham.

So it wasn't the first monotheistic faith. Was it??
Thank you. You may now kiss my feet.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
So you think one part of our present bible is false?
Then I can as easily say the any part can be false.
Even the one where Jesus is resurrected from the dead?

In my opinion the bible is true it its entirety, and the holy spirit wouldn't allow any mistranslations. Or no part at all can be known to be fully true. Who is he who can tell right from wrong? You?

Considering I find the bible en par with Lord of the Rings and the brothers Grimm... there's not much honour for you to gain here.

The bible, if it were true, would be true in its initial form: old Hebrew, Greek and that funny language Jesus spoke.

Any translation cannot be contributed to the Holy Spirit. If so, how come there are different translations?

Originally posted by shavixmir
I know where Zarathushtra was born.
I know where Persia was (hence they speak Persian in Iran...).
You just, seemingly, don't understand WHEN Zarathushtra lived.

As I just pointed out to you, he "probably" lived around 1000 and 1100 BC. That's LATER than Moses. and MUCH LATER than Abraham.

So it wasn't the first monotheistic faith. Was it??
Thank you. You may now kiss my feet.

some sources on your dates would be helpful.
Ive always understood zoroasterism to be any wheres from from 3000-3500 years old . some say as much as 3700.
judaism 3300 -3500 yrs old. Maybe putting them as contempory but the jewish faith was heavily influenced by zoroasterism,making that older ( atleast some centuries) in my book. I admit i may be wrong(not likely) and if you can give me some proof....before all this foot fetish stuff starts,it would be greatly apprieciated.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Considering I find the bible en par with Lord of the Rings and the brothers Grimm... there's not much honour for you to gain here.

The bible, if it were true, would be true in its initial form: old Hebrew, Greek and that funny language Jesus spoke.

Any translation cannot be contributed to the Holy Spirit. If so, how come there are different translations?

You're right. The only thing that's worth reading is the original documents.

Because if we read today's bible we learn that the bat is a bird. This is obviously false. (It's a mammal.) The problem lies in the translation.

Anyone referring to the bible, and quotes it, have to show, at the same time, that the translation is done properly, and understood in the light of that culture and that time. If not? It's not worth quoting at all and presume it is the Truth.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You're right. The only thing that's worth reading is the original documents.

Because if we read today's bible we learn that the bat is a bird. This is obviously false. (It's a mammal.) The problem lies in the translation.

Anyone referring to the bible, and quotes it, have to show, at the same time, that the translation is done properly, and understo ...[text shortened]... t culture and that time. If not? It's not worth quoting at all and presume it is the Truth.

You're right. The only thing that's worth reading is the original documents.

that would be nice friend,except there are no "original documents"

Originally posted by utherpendragon
[b]You're right. The only thing that's worth reading is the original documents.

that would be nice friend,except there are no "original documents"[/b]

You mean they are lost, or they have never been there?

Originally posted by utherpendragon
some sources on your dates would be helpful.
Ive always understood zoroasterism to be any wheres from from 3000-3500 years old . some say as much as 3700.
judaism 3300 -3500 yrs old. Maybe putting them as contempory but the jewish faith was heavily influenced by zoroasterism,making that older ( atleast some centuries) in my book. I admit i may be wr ...[text shortened]... give me some proof....before all this foot fetish stuff starts,it would be greatly apprieciated.

Yeah... let me just shake my sleeve and see how many Zarathushtra resources just tumble out...

Good grief.

There are many references to Zarathurshtra living in the court of Darius. This would place him around 500 BC.
That's where my education on the subject stopped.

However, I've heard quite reliable sources on this Persian claiming that the language he wrote in was older than the 6th century jargon in Persia.
This could lead to him being a fart and writing in an older tongue, or it means the sources in my education were wrong.

Now, I can't remember off by heart, what the linguistics were, but seemingly the language Zarathushtra wrote in was very similar to another language and would have to be placed 100 to 200 years after writings in that other language (Vedic Sanskrit?).

Weighing everything up, it seems most likely he existed in the 11th century BC (or there-abouts).

Originally posted by shavixmir
Yeah... let me just shake my sleeve and see how many Zarathushtra resources just tumble out...

Good grief.

There are many references to Zarathurshtra living in the court of Darius. This would place him around 500 BC.
That's where my education on the subject stopped.

However, I've heard quite reliable sources on this Persian claiming that the lang hing everything up, it seems most likely he existed in the 11th century BC (or there-abouts).

The problem with the assertion that because the gathas are written in Avestan* (not to be
confused with the holy scriptures Avesta that forms the foundation of Zoroastrianism) it must
indicate that Zarathustra lived around that time, is that it may not even be Zarathustra that wrote
down the gathas. It is believed that he's the author, but the only reason we understand Avestan
today is that it resembles Vedic Sanskrit. If we assume that Zarathustra actually lived long before
the gathas were written down in Avestan, it's not unlikely that they are translations from earlier
transcripts now lost to us (even written down from oral traditions). This puts new doubts on these
estimates.

Some scholars propose that we should instead look at the similarities between the ideas presented
in the gathas and basic principles of other religions in the surrounding area. When we do that, we
find that Zarathustra's ideas (of which the gathas is all we really have - the rest of the Avesta are
not Zarathustra's own words) match several other religions that sprung up throughout the middle
east during the last few millenia before Christ, though all these other religions add to the basic
philosophy of Zarathustra (as does Zoroastrianism - ritualism being an example). In light of this,
it's not at all unlikely (if far from proven) that Zarathustra actually lived further back in time than
1100 BC.

Kurosh (Cyrus) the great didn't live at the same time as Zarathustra. Zoroastrianism was already
an established religion when Kurosh lived. This is another reason that some consider the
possibility that when the Persian Empire expanded, and since Kurosh allowed everyone to keep
their religions, other religions may have been influenced by Zoroastrianism (and consequently the
ideas of Zarathustra) and the other way around.

* That'd be old Avestan, which doesn't resemble younger Avestan a whole lot.

Er, why are we talking about Zarathustra here?

Originally posted by FabianFnas


"Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me." (Is this really english?)

Of course it is. Does it seem to be something else?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Of course it is. Does it seem to be something else?

It's called xenotheism.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Of course it is. Does it seem to be something else?

If this is English, I've never heard English spoken like that before. Is it a dialect or something, spoken in the BibleBelt area? Or is it pentacoastal? Is it still a living language spoken by living people?