Use the drop-down boxes above to navigate through the Website  
Return to Reasoning List

Here is a link to this page:

misunderstandings of man in the Bible

1 - 1011 - 2021 - 23
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: Ark I Sent: 1/12/2014 1:42:34 AM

This is a reasoning for people to speak of parts of the Bible that they think are the misunderstandings of man.

Here is a Reasoning from Garveys Africa that explains what this Reasoning is about.

What I would like to ascertain - now that we have the power of discern and of research available to us - which parts of the bible do you as rasta have a problem with if any? Or have researched and found is unlikely to be true?

Rather than just saying 'the bible isn't all true'. Or 'Rome changed some of it'

Let's take one step further and really assess (my rasta brethren wil say BUN assess but stay with me lol) what exactly are the inaccuracies? What do we need to put down what do we need to keep hold of?

Let's discuss the entire book collection of the bible and see if there really are things of concern and ungodliness - if so... What are these texts? Where did they come from? Who put them there and why? Etc

For the sake of usefulness lets keep the Reasoning in this topic focused on the parts of the Bible people feel are the misunderstandings of man.

For Reasoning about parallels between the Bible and other writings, we should make another topic. Let's keep this Reasoning about what parts of the Bible people feel are the misunderstandings of man.

Avoid making statements about why you think the Bible should or should not be discarded, I don't want this Reasoning to turn into a debate about that.

Also, if a person feels that somebody is mistaken in their claim that a part of the Bible is the misunderstanding of man, then start another Reasoning and then make a post here referencing the claim that is being refuted and link to the Reasoning that was made to refute the claim.

There is an example about how to make a link below the box used to write a post. The actual link to use is in green letters and can be seen above the title of a Reasoning. Don't use the web browser address box or you may give somebody access to your user account.

Also, if another person refutes the same claim, then try to put your Reasoning in the link made by the first person refuting the claim rather than starting an additional Reasoning.

Doing these things will make it easier for people to see all the claims of misunderstanding and will prevent this topic from being a Reasoning about something else.

Messenger: Ark I Sent: 1/12/2014 1:53:30 AM

When I started this forum, I made a Reasoning where I said:

I used to just accept every word from the bible. And if something didn't seem justified to I, I would think of a reasoning to make sense of it. But after some time, I would see that the reasoning I made was weak and did not justify it at all, so I would think of another reasoning to justify it. But after some more time, I would see that my new reasoning didn't justify it either.

So now I only accept what is justified within myself. Because I won't go against the Spirit of Truth within I and deal with something that I see as wrong. If I later come to an Iverstanding, and sight the justification, then I will accept it, but if not, I won't.

I already showed the examples that Christ spoke about to point out what I and I should or should not worry about concerning the law. Here are some examples of scriptures that I sight are not justified within Iself:

Leviticus 21
17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.
23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.

I don't see why a person with a broken foot or crooked back, blind or dwarf should not offer bread unto Jah. I feel this is from man, not Jah.

And in Corinthians 11, where Paul speaks against man wearing long hair. That is not justified for I, so I don't deal with that.

And I don't accept that a woman has no say, and should just do whatever a man say. Many men out there are not good examples of Jah livity, and all they will do is teach a woman foolishness. And a woman shouldn't go against God, because a man tell her to do it.

And also, I sight that the men who don't consider the instruction and opinion of their wife will be weak. I will never refuse good instruction, or correction, no matter who brings it to I. I don't have any desire to continue in foolishness because I am too stubborn to deal with what a woman say.

A man and woman come together as One, and Jah should be their guide and light. A woman often times will think of things that a man doesn't, and a man will often times think of things that a woman doesn't. So as One, I and I should rise and come closer to Jah, as One mind.

There are also other parts in the scripture that are not justified within Iself, and I am not blind, so I will not be lead by the blind. If I can see for Iself why something is so, then I will deal with it. And if the parts of the bible that are not justified to I are written by people that can see, then there should be a way to explain the justification.


Messenger: Ark I Sent: 1/12/2014 2:01:48 AM

This reasoning soaks about how people are misled by the words of Paul.

Here is a reasoning related to those Scriptures. It shows other scriptures of Paul that better explain what he is saying, showing that he is saying the same thing that Khamyl just said. Many don't like to think about the part I am going to show, because it goes against their philosophy of "acceptable wickedness" and being "saved by Jesus". But before I show the part about Paul, I will speak from the Christian Source, Christ.

I and I are to be One with Jah and One with Christ, not separate. But people would prefer to listen to the preacherman, or apostles, over the words of Christ. The sacrifice of Christ, was that he taught I and I Jah way, because he knew that he would have to sacrifice his body to teach I and I this, because he knew that babylon would crucify him for teaching the truth to the people. But he still showed I and I, he sacrificed himself for this. So when people forget his words and teachings, it is a disrespect to the sacrifice Christ gave in order to show I and I these words.

Christ said,
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

This is not a request, and Christ didn't say try to be so, but he said Be ye therefore perfect. And for people that think that the perfection is something less than this or that, Christ showed them, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. So this kind of perfection is the highest form of perfection there is.

The apostle Paul in some ways misleads the people by confusing them. Maybe he was trying to hide the truth so that only some will see, or maybe he was trying to mislead the people, and also inserting the truth, so the people could not speak against him. Only Jah knows this for sure, but the truth still can be seen in the words of Paul. The reason I say that his words are misleading is because he spends so much time sounding like he is saying that we are not required to live perfect, but are supposed to just repent and Christ will save us for our sins. And for only a couple of sentences he shows that the grace he is talking about doesn't make void the law (Law of Jah, not law of man), but the law is established.

Romans 3
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Some don't consider what he said above or the other things that he said to show the reality of righteousness, because they are so few in Paul's words. But some people do remember these words, but still don't require themselves to live in Jah way, they think that it will just happen one day when they die. But if people consider the words of Christ and read these words of Paul with Christ's teachings in mind, they will see the Truth. There is no law against righteousness, and if I and I are guided by Jah, then it is impossible to sin, so the law is of no effect for I and I. So by our choice, and the strength of Jah, I and I ways will be made perfect, because Jah will only guide I and I in perfection.

Galatians 5
13For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

14For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

15But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

I see this as saying when I and I walk in Jah Spirit, we will not sin

17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

So when I and I are led by the Spirit, I and I are not under the law because I and I are only walking in righteousness, because Jah Spirit would never guide I and I towards wickedness

Here are the works that are not of the Spirit. Laws do exist against these works, because they are sin

19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

The works of the flesh, which is called sin, include those things written above. It is not just the "big" sins like murder and others, but it also includes hatred, wrath, strife, envyings, drunkenness and revellings. So those that claim they are walking in the Spirit are only truly walking in the Spirit if they don't do these things. Otherwise, the most they could be doing is only partially walking in the Spirit.

Here are the fruits of the Spirit, which is called righteousness. No laws exist that are against these actions, so they are not under the law.

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

24And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

So Christians have crucified the sinful part of theirself, and only walk in righteousness, because that is the only way Jah Spirit guides.

25If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

Selassie I also knew this, I have posted this before, but I will post it again.

When He sacrificed himself at Golgotha for the atonement of our sin, He prayed with His last breath for the forgiveness of those who had tortured Him saying, 'Father, forgive them for they know not what they do'.

Shame on those of us who are Christians and do not follow the way of the Savior of the World, whose life was filled with kindness, humility, and martyrdom! If we lived by the laws he gave us and were worthy of being called Christian, peace would have reigned on this earth.

Men were supposed to be the equals of the living angels who unceasingly sang praises before the eternal God. Had this been so, peoples of the world would not have been divided along lines of enmity.


Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 1/12/2014 2:10:17 AM

Ark I you have a very interesting interpretation. Do you feel that parts of the written word is the works of man and other parts are the literal word of Jah? Or do you subscribe to all of it being from man? Some of it holding a divine truth and some not so divine or true. This may seem like a small difference but it is a significant one. My reasoning is with the latter...

On the same note I don't hold the authors of this book collection over the writings of any other human being who have the essence of life or 'god' on their minds.....

I really wouldn't put them above most of the Rastafari I meet, who in everything they do is inspired by Jah. Just like I wouldn't put JC above myself, I thought we are all the sons and daughters of Jah? But that's a sidetrack.....

Also, I'd like to make reference to the anti-African nature of the bible but il expand on this with some references later. I clearly think these references are not gods work

But like I said its interesting to see ark-I subscribe to man having error within the bible. This is good but unfortunately not a common thread among many bible readers


Messenger: Ark I Sent: 1/12/2014 2:17:24 AM

The Bible is all written by man, and the Righteous teachings are inspired by God.

Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 1/12/2014 2:19:33 AM

and the unrighteous teachings?

Would you accept that the righteous teachings inspired by god can be found in ALL (or at least many) walks of life or literature and not just this book?

- I ask because the original reasoning when I came here:

'rasta doesn't need the bible as a necessity to reach HIM or the righteous teachings'

of which many people disagreed with me

And if I could show these righteous teaChings somewhere else which predates the bible and it's characters - would it not be logical to use this original source as our reference point and not the secondary source ie the bible even if the teachings are the same?

Messenger: Ark I Sent: 1/12/2014 2:29:55 AM

The unrighteous teaching are the misunderstandings and vain imaginations of man.

Yes, righteous teachings can be found in other holy books, if not all at least most.

In regards to the I last question. I feel that any book a person reads that contains righteous teachings is good to read. Most books will have some teaching that another book doesn't, or will explain a teaching better than another book.

Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 1/12/2014 3:25:32 AM

What a revelation. I can't argue with that. A well balanced reasoning.

I personally have to deal with the root sources from people of which can be traced and shown historically. It is what is mentioned above in addition to the anonymous nature of the bible authors and the way in which the book has been used negatively since it's inception which makes I say enough is enough, and put t down. I'm not trying to convince others to do the same here just explaining my take on the situation.

I'd also encourage ones to call it / flag it up / burn when something harmful or negative to the essence of Haile Selassie and his throne arise within any so called divine text. We can't let these things slide anymore. The curse of ham as an example. Total Nonesense. As is turning the other cheek and respecting your slavemasters IMHO

Haile I. HTP. Know your self.

Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 1/12/2014 4:12:31 AM

THE BOOK OF GENESIS (in its entirety based off common interpretation)

- Places the story of creation approx. 6000 years ago
- The Earth was created in 1 day (which goes against both science and nature)
- The Sun was created after the plant life and after the establishment of dayLIGHT??
- Talking snakes???
- The idea that Woman cometh from Man, the idea that women are the first to sin / woman has brought original sin, shows the misogyny the bible holds from chapter 1. We all come from a womb. The incients Ites up the Queen Mother. The bible even mkes reference to the Queen of Heaven but always refer to God as a 'he' and a 'father' - where is SHE?

- The idea that God did not want Adam to eat from the Tree of Knowledge - JudeoChristian God can go and talk - IMAN MusT eat from that deh tree. Thats a must.

Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 1/12/2014 4:25:33 AM

Is Abraham a fictional character based on Ancient Indian teachings of BRAHMA?

Brahma outdates Abraham
Abraham is the figure head - Brahma is the figure head
Abraham and Brahma are anagrams of the same name
Gods come out of Brahma‘s body, God makes Abraham fruitful and 'kings come out from him'
Abraham had a wife named Sarah, Brahma has a wife named Sara-swathi
Abraham tells Pharaoh his wife is really his sister, Brahma has a wife who was his sister
Abraham is from Ur, meaning the city of the Light, Brahma's is the Lord of the Light
= the list is endless, further explained at the bottom of the post.

Abraham Etymology:

Abraham literally means Ab - the father, and raam/raham meaning of the exaulted. As the father of the Jews is this merely a coincidence????

Think about this - same applies for Jesus CHRIST - The man is literally named 'Father of the exalted" and low and behold his destiny is to become the founding father of Jewish faith. Unless his mother - And Christ mother - were Oracles, then this seems a handy coincidence.

My conclusion? Abraham was not a real man but the works of the mind of man. He never existed outside the realms of to tell a story. A story which heavily copies from the Ancient Teachings of India (as well as KMT). Afterall...

"Abraham is an allegory" Galatians 24

Some further references below. This is only a sample. Id recommend ones look to the Indian God MANU who is the Hindu NOAH figure in their version of 'the great flood' again which predates any 'original' Hebrew tablet. The original Hebrew Tablets are found in SUMA - an geographical area sandwiched right inbetween KMT / INDIA and Europe.... another coincidence

The moving of the stars of the Celestial Cow (the Milky Way) represents the passing of the generations of humanity. The 100 Brahma years, toward the birth of the first man of the DivineCovenant, represent an ancestral promise that lasts until the end of the world by way of divine relationship and fruitfulness. The Covenant of Abraham is confirmed by the miraculous sign of a son born on his 100th year and Sarah‘s 90th
This covenant relationship is the single vow toBreath In and Breath Out from generation to generation between God and Humanity.
Notice during the life of Abraham the five-fold gifts, teaching was offered to Abraham by his
wife, where the Lord said, ―;Hearken to the voice of Sarah‖; Genesis 21.12, and Brahma‘s offering as High Priest would be akin to Abraham‘s offering to Melchizedek, Gen14.20; the offering to the three Divine Beings Gen18.1-8; the offering of the Ram in place of Isaac, Gen22.1-13; the offering to Hagar of wheat and water, Gen21.14; the offerings to his children sent off to the East, Gen25.6). The correlation between Brahma and Abraham in the five-fold sacrifice in the later book of Manu is telling of a longstanding shared tradition in India beyond the Vedas and Upanishads.

1 - 1011 - 2021 - 23

Return to Reasoning List

Haile Selassie I