• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Unpopular & Mistranslated Bible Verses

Get Kraken

Get Kraken

Junior Acolyte
Joined
May 6, 2021
Messages
80
Thought these would be fun to share.
My favorite is Genesis chapter 3 v. 22
Now the Lord God said, "Behold man has become like one of us, having the ability of knowing good and evil, and now, lest he stretch forth his hand and take also from the Tree of Life and eat and live forever."

In this verse Gd admits he lied and the Serpent was right (it didn't kill them and they did become "like " Gd and the angels) Gd also explains that he needs to prevent man from gaining immortality and that's why he seals the garden. Really feels like he's afraid of his own creation here.
I NEVER heard this verse in Church. Didn't know it existed until I read it myself. Seems like good Ancient Aliens, Simulaton Theory, or Gnostic material.

For mistranslated an example is the very first verse is actually plural "Gods created the..." its "elohim" plural for "el" Gd
 
Last edited:
Like much of the Bible, this verse is very mysterious.

Firstly, it is unclear who the "us" is God is referring to. It has been argued it a reference to the Trinity, to attendant angels or yes- the serpent. I personally don't belive he is talking to the serpent - but, it's possible. It is not uncommon for God and Satan to have cordial, "professisonal" conversations within the Bible. Think about the Book of Job.

To me, God, as an act of mercy - denies immortality at this point to Adam and Eve because they are effectively spirtually broken. Because that would be an immortality of torment. Living forever in the "broken" form of a human would be akin to hell itself. The tree is still there, and immortality is still available but one has to achieve Salvation to access it.

My take on it. And that's all any of us can have.
 
Last edited:
I haven't got a single quote, but the whole Song of Songs is, well, weird. The Christian interpretation of it being some kind of allegory about God's love for the Church or for man or whatever is ludicrous. God must have the serious tantric hots for the Church.
 
Themis said:
I haven't got a single quote, but the whole Song of Songs is, well, weird.
Click to expand...

I think it's incredible.

So beautiful, erotic, passionate, sensual.

Whether the interpretation of it being a theological metaphor was intended is unclear. It seems to be something that begun to be promoted around the 11th century I think.


Personally...for me it is a transcendent piece about the mysterious, profound and spiritual nature of ecstacy.
 
Coastaljames said:
I think it's incredible.

So beautiful, erotic, passionate, sensual.

Whether the interpretation of it being a theological metaphor was intended is unclear. It seems to be something that begun to be promoted around the 11th century I think.


Personally...for me it is a transcendent piece about the mysterious, profound and spiritual nature of ecstacy.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, it certainly is. It's one of the most profoundly beautiful works about sexual love ever written. It is emphatically NOT about God's love for the Church.
 
Themis said:
It is emphatically NOT about God's love for the Church.
Click to expand...

For me, I don't need to decide whether it is or whether it isn't. It's one way to look at it. But I think that's a bit duller than what was intended.
 
Coastaljames said:
For me, I don't need to decide whether it is or whether it isn't. It's one way to look at it. But I think that's a bit duller than what was intended.
Click to expand...
It is one historically impossible way to look at it, yes.
 
It can be very hard to interpret things from thousands of years ago with a modern mind. I have been surrounded by ancient aliens and Simulaton theory so it's hard for me not to see that.. Kabala definitely describes religious ecstacy with sexual language so I wouldn't be surprised if the Torah and Bible did too.

Have either of you read Jonathan Kirsch? The Woman Who Laughed at God and The Harlot by the Side of The Road are two collections of unpopular Bible stories I really enjoyed.

The Hebrew Goddess by Raphael Patai is more Kabala but touches on religious erotic language in the Torah too... and odd uses of he/her to refer to Gd. Generally God's spirit is female (think the motifs of the dove) and Gd would be more masculine.
In Judaism Elohim as the multiple natures of Gd.

In Judaism on Shabbat you bow to Shabbat Quee/bride... and the Song of Songs is read on the Shabbat which falls on Passover. Married couples are also encouraged to make love on Shabbat night so the timing of the song being read is appropriate. Patai believes that's because Gd and the Shabbos bride also consumate that night. Its all metaphors not literally the way Roman's or Greeks would have meant it (not technically polytheism but Patai believes it has roots in polytheism)

I looked up the wiki for song of songs and its pretty cool
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_Songs
 
Themis said:
Oh yes, it certainly is. It's one of the most profoundly beautiful works about sexual love ever written. It is emphatically NOT about God's love for the Church.
Click to expand...
Why?

I have experienced it as encompassing agape, caritas and eros. YMMV of course :)
 
Frideswide said:
nooooooooooo! I prefer different realities :)
Click to expand...
Oh. Erm. Jeez. Really? Uh. Well, OK. I guess, taking the position of a medium-weight contextualist, the compilers of the OT probably didn't have a vision of the universal church when they decided to throw in the SoS. BUT... alternatively, if we're being a C19th theologian (and who wouldn't want to be one of those?) if the one true God is immanent, universal, everywhere and always, then hey presto, the OT folks just didn't KNOW that they were talking about the universal church, but they were, and that's what Divine Revelation is all about.

:bish: I love this lil guy.
 
Get Kraken said:
It can be very hard to interpret things from thousands of years ago with a modern mind. I have been surrounded by ancient aliens and Simulaton theory so it's hard for me not to see that.. Kabala definitely describes religious ecstacy with sexual language so I wouldn't be surprised if the Torah and Bible did too.

Have either of you read Jonathan Kirsch? The Woman Who Laughed at God and The Harlot by the Side of The Road are two collections of unpopular Bible stories I really enjoyed.

The Hebrew Goddess by Raphael Patai is more Kabala but touches on religious erotic language in the Torah too... and odd uses of he/her to refer to Gd. Generally God's spirit is female (think the motifs of the dove) and Gd would be more masculine.
In Judaism Elohim as the multiple natures of Gd.

In Judaism on Shabbat you bow to Shabbat Quee/bride... and the Song of Songs is read on the Shabbat which falls on Passover. Married couples are also encouraged to make love on Shabbat night so the timing of the song being read is appropriate. Patai believes that's because Gd and the Shabbos bride also consumate that night. Its all metaphors not literally the way Roman's or Greeks would have meant it (not technically polytheism but Patai believes it has roots in polytheism)

I looked up the wiki for song of songs and its pretty cool
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_Songs
Click to expand...
I have to take the Christian interpretation of the OT with a big grain of salt because the same rules apply to the Christian interpreters of the OT, especially post-apostolic ones, as apply to critiques from the C21st century. The Christian interpreters would themselves be interpreting from within a context many generations removed from the writers of the materials they were interpreting. I'm a nerd, so I find it interesting to think about all the layers of interpretation, and wonder why, in that specific context, did a particular interpretation hold more weight than another, only to change in a few generations' time.
 
Coastaljames said:
Like much of the Bible, this verse is very mysterious.

Firstly, it is unclear who the "us" is God is referring to. It has been argued it a reference to the Trinity, to attendant angels or yes- the serpent. I personally don't belive he is talking to the serpent - but, it's possible. It is not uncommon for God and Satan to have cordial, "professisonal" conversations within the Bible. Think about the Book of Job.

To me, God, as an act of mercy - denies immortality at this point to Adam and Eve because they are effectively spirtually broken. Because that would be an immortality of torment. Living forever in the "broken" form of a human would be akin to hell itself. The tree is still there, and immortality is still available but one has to achieve Salvation to access it.

My take on it. And that's all any of us can have.
Click to expand...
We were taught at school that God used 'us' and 'we' in the sense of the Plural of Majesty, as when Queen Victoria said 'We are not amused.'
 
escargot said:
We were taught at school that God used 'us' and 'we' in the sense of the Plural of Majesty, as when Queen Victoria said 'We are not amused.'
Click to expand...
That cracks me up because that's a cultural spin that I don't think was practiced in ancient Hebrew and both the "we" and elhohim are in the Torah too.
Patai believes the Elohim literally means plural gods. He points to archeological and Biblical evidence that ancient Jews and Caananites merged their religions for a while. El for instance was the Caananite God of lightening.
 
Get Kraken said:
That cracks me up because that's a cultural spin that I don't think was practiced in ancient Hebrew and both the "we" and elhohim are in the Torah too.
Patai believes the Elohim literally means plural gods. He points to archeological and Biblical evidence that ancient Jews and Caananites merged their religions for a while. El for instance was the Caananite God of lightening.
Click to expand...
Yup, it was bullshit like the rest of the tripe we were force-fed. :badge:

(Dunno which smiley went in there as they randomly disappear so I couldn't tell which I'd clicked on.)
 
escargot said:
(Dunno which smiley went in there as they randomly disappear so I couldn't tell which I'd clicked on.)
Click to expand...

we are looking at this and other things!

and the place needs more Rocking Badger IMNSHO!
 
Some of the stuff in the OT is almost comedic in a very black way: 2 Samuel 18: 10-15 (New international version)

9 Now Absalom happened to meet David’s men. He was riding his mule, and as the mule went under the thick branches of a large oak, Absalom’s hair got caught in the tree. He was left hanging in midair, while the mule he was riding kept on going.

10 When one of the men saw what had happened, he told Joab, “I just saw Absalom hanging in an oak tree.”

11 Joab said to the man who had told him this, “What! You saw him? Why didn’t you strike him to the ground right there? Then I would have had to give you ten shekels[b] of silver and a warrior’s belt.”

12 But the man replied, “Even if a thousand shekels[c] were weighed out into my hands, I would not lay a hand on the king’s son. In our hearing the king commanded you and Abishai and Ittai, ‘Protect the young man Absalom for my sake.[d]’

13 And if I had put my life in jeopardy[e]—and nothing is hidden from the king—you would have kept your distance from me.”

14 Joab said, “I’m not going to wait like this for you.” So he took three javelins in his hand and plunged them into Absalom’s heart while Absalom was still alive in the oak tree.

15 And ten of Joab’s armor-bearers surrounded Absalom, struck him and killed him.
Click to expand...
 
Coastaljames said:
Why imposible to you? Genuine question. I think I know what you will type, but maybe not :)
Click to expand...
Ah! Sorry, I missed this! Basically, see responses below. It's just because of context and reading things through their historical moment of composition/compilation. Obviously the rules of historical contextualisation are irrelvant, or loosed and the very least, where faith or other kinds of experience are involved, so that's just me! Some theologians (or secular philosophers, mutatis mutandis) would say change is only growth or revelation, and so growing understanding of anything/everything is simply the Revelation revealing itself as per God's plan. It was one way people reconciled God and Darwin in the nineteenth century.

Erm, sorry: nerd alert!
 
escargot said:
We were taught at school that God used 'us' and 'we' in the sense of the Plural of Majesty
Click to expand...

Well, the Trinity...three of them.

Timble2 said:
Some of the stuff in the OT is almost comedic in a very black way
Click to expand...

I think there is a huge amount of humour, black and otherwise, in both Testaments!

Themis said:
Ah! Sorry, I missed this! Basically, see responses below. It's just because of context and reading things through their historical moment of composition/compilation. Obviously the rules of historical contextualisation are irrelvant, or loosed and the very least, where faith or other kinds of experience are involved, so that's just me! Some theologians (or secular philosophers, mutatis mutandis) would say change is only growth or revelation, and so growing understanding of anything/everything is simply the Revelation revealing itself as per God's plan. It was one way people reconciled God and Darwin in the nineteenth century.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that! One day I might be intelligent enough to understand it :)
 
It was with much juvenile glee when I first heard about the prophet Elisha (he with the thinning hair) approaching the city of Bethel (Kings 2 23-25). The little city kids started jeering at his bald head and stung by their cruel mockery, Elisha turned around and cursed them in the name of the Lord. There upon, two she-Bears came out of the woods and ripped 42 of the little tykes to shreds. Moral: show respect to your Elders.

As explained in the link below: first off, the King James Version didn't do a good job of translating the hebrew word 'na'ar' which can mean anything from boy to young man to adult (eg Absalom), stewart, servant or priest depending on context.
Second, Bethel was a hot-bed of idolatrous non-Aaronic counter-culture ie political and religious rivalry to the orthodoxy preached by Elisha.
Third, the insult 'bald headed' can be synonymous with 'empty headed'.
So what Elisha met was possibly a crowd of young men (or even rival preachers) calling him foolish with a mouth full of wrong.
Even a prophet like Elisha can't call down a curse from God, that's up to God moving in mysterious ways (through the interpretive medium of Bears)

https://www.1517.org/articles/the-m...acks-a-bald-prophet-and-forty-two-mouthy-kids
 
Bad Bungle said:
It was with much juvenile glee when I first heard about the prophet Elisha (he with the thinning hair) approaching the city of Bethel (Kings 2 23-25). The little city kids started jeering at his bald head and stung by their cruel mockery, Elisha turned around and cursed them in the name of the Lord. There upon, two she-Bears came out of the woods and ripped 42 of the little tykes to shreds. Moral: show respect to your Elders.

As explained in the link below: first off, the King James Version didn't do a good job of translating the hebrew word 'na'ar' which can mean anything from boy to young man to adult (eg Absalom), stewart, servant or priest depending on context.
Second, Bethel was a hot-bed of idolatrous non-Aaronic counter-culture ie political and religious rivalry to the orthodoxy preached by Elisha.
Third, the insult 'bald headed' can be synonymous with 'empty headed'.
So what Elisha met was possibly a crowd of young men (or even rival preachers) calling him foolish with a mouth full of wrong.
Even a prophet like Elisha can't call down a curse from God, that's up to God moving in mysterious ways (through the interpretive medium of Bears)

https://www.1517.org/articles/the-m...acks-a-bald-prophet-and-forty-two-mouthy-kids
Click to expand...
Much smitiness :axem:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top