JAH - The Bible is the Book of Life

Return to Reasoning List

Here is a link to this page:
http://www.jah-rastafari.com/forum/message-view.asp?message_group=5586&start_row=1

The Bible is the Book of Life

1 - 6

Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)

Messenger: MELCHEZIDEK

Sent: 3/30/2014 7:15:52 AM

The Bible: The Book of Life

The Bible is a Holy Bible the written word of Jah. God is Jah and reveals HIMSELF the Christ the Godhead Ras Tafari the Elect of God who opened the Book for I and I too read. The Holy God Jah Ras Tafari God the Most High Lion of Judah HIS ELECT and Holy Book the Haile Selassie I Bible Amharic still the word remain the same transcendance of all boundaries of empires and all conceptions of race because it remaineth eternal.

JAH RAS TAFARI
ALPHA AND OMEGA
BEGINNING WITHOUT ENDING
EXISTING ITINUALLY
BRIGHT AND MORNING STAR
CONQUERING LION OF JUDAH
ELECT OF GOD

Messenger: Jeffrey Di Lion

Sent: 6/27/2023 12:31:14 PM

But does the word of the REAL bible really remain the same? please help me on this one. Im not dissing Haile Selassie, but what would he answer to the fact that "virgin" also could mean "young woman"(alma)in Hebrew ?

Or that The New International Version says that all foods are now clean when the King James Version explain it like this: Mark 7:18-19 "And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him. Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?" - He simply means that if you nyam some unclean meat, it's not the biggest sin in the world because it's gonna be cleansed out again. BUT he NEVER said it was clean.

NOW The New version added their own fake translation which is in the parentheses below

“Don't you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) - New international version

Now people can read this version to think that Pork is a clean meat to nyam and therefore get deceived from the true original word.

Another example -
Rape is totally forbidden and is punished with death. It's actually compared to killing your neighbor as described in Deuteronomy 22:25-27
BUT Deuteronomy 22:28-29 says:"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, He shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her, He can never divorce her as long as he lives" - That's a huge oxymoron. And to me it sounds like they simply translated it badly/incorrectly. I think that "rape" should have been read as"having intercourse" (where both people agree). Because no man would marry a woman who was not a virgin at that time as it was against "God's law" AND every man that raped would have been put to death. So once again the word does not remain 100% the same. What do Haile Selassie mean then when he says that the word remains the same no matter which version it may be?

Selassie also says that "unless man accepts with clear conscience the Bible and its great Message, he cannot hope for salvation."
But for me it's hard to get, cuz I think there are many messages of the bible. The Christ message are easy to accept. Others I don't overstand

For example-
I think that women are very downpressed in the OT. First, you must not marry the man you are in love with, but fathers marry their daughters away and David buy his Wife Michal for 200 penis parts. Haile Selassie was very keen on equality between man and womban, from when he insisted that Menen should be crowned on the same day as himself to the education he and his wife offered to women. Would he agree with the message of the OT on how the women were treated?

And can muslims or (people with other faith) accept the message of the bible without being a christian?

I HAVE to question the faith on these topics. Hope I can get some answers. Give thanks :)

Rastafari

Messenger: IPXninja

Sent: 7/10/2023 12:53:44 PM

Jeffrey Di Lion: the fact that "virgin" also could mean "young woman"(alma)in Hebrew ?

It shouldn't be taken as any disrespect to H.I.M, being a Christian, that he would have believed and accepted as he was taught. And at the time the Christians did not have a very good understanding of Hebrew. They were reading their NT in Greek and English. But we do have to say, yes, there were 2 words for virgin and the one that was used to indicate virginity is bethulah.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/1330.htm

They may have misunderstood the usage of 'alam and took this to mean that the virginity is hidden, but more than likely it simply means you don't know whether she is a virgin or not. She's just young; hence, "young woman" should be the correct translation.

Messenger: IPXninja

Sent: 7/10/2023 12:55:08 PM

19 For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

Wow! I honestly did not know this was in the NIV! Learned something new today. Thanks!!

And you're correct. Pork is still and will always be "unclean". You cannot declare something to be clean or unclean based on some religious ideology. These were about health and hygiene. That's why they used the word "clean/unclean" instead of "sin/transgression". If we were to say "Oh well it's in the law that we should avoid unclean animals" and therefore it is a transgression, no the law isn't saying it is a moral issue that you cannot do. It says the same thing about sex. Sex itself is an unclean act. Because these things were "unclean" there was a prescription suggested. Like, yeah, maybe don't have sex and immediately receive guests. And they already didn't live in the most hygienic environment or have antibacterial soaps, wipes, and feminine hygiene products. They had to cope with germs and allergens by avoiding more things. That doesn't mean the things they were trying to avoid were bad/evil.

But the fact that this is in the NIV... It is them wanting to insert their bias because they want to feel justified in eating pork. You are 100% on point about that. I would also say that food preparation is also essential. I'm especially careful with chicken but there's been a lot of problems in recent years with certain types of lettuce. So rather than simply absorbing the law as "do or do not" we need to understand nature and where the ideas of the writers were coming from.

Messenger: IPXninja

Sent: 7/10/2023 12:56:01 PM

Jeffrey Di Lion: That's a huge oxymoron. And to me it sounds like they simply translated it badly/incorrectly. I think that "rape" should have been read as"having intercourse" (where both people agree). Because no man would marry a woman who was not a virgin at that time as it was against "God's law" AND every man that raped would have been put to death. So once again the word does not remain 100% the same.

This one isn't a translation error. This is more so an error of the patriarchal society. Men were thought to be almost required for a woman to survive on her own. If she had no man she would either have to live with relatives and basically be a welfare recipient (from Tithes). So once a woman was "humbled" (had her virginity taken) she was no longer a prize for the men of this time period. If she was attractive that may not have been a deal breaker. But the bride price was a lot lower for a non-virgin. So the rapist was taking more than just her virginity. He may have been stealing a better future with a financially secure man. Because those were the men who didn't have to rape anyone. They would just buy what they wanted (including women). Keep in mind there were not only concubines at this time but "mostly" legal prostitution.

So I think the marriage was an OPTION in this case because the father had to be paid still and this was a way to force the man to pay the financial obligations. The existence of HER choice in the matter was of lesser importance (which I don't agree with) because fathers were already arranging marriages with men so women never really had an equal choice in who they slept with. Rape is generally not a crime worthy of death. And I don't think it should be; not because it's not heinous enough to be worthy of death, but because there are too many issues in proving that a rape occurred. But... if the woman was already promised to someone else, that's why it was considered a higher crime. Again... the error is in the patriarchy. It was more of a crime because you were forcefully taking another man's "property".

Messenger: IPXninja

Sent: 7/10/2023 12:56:58 PM

Would he agree with the message of the OT on how women were treated?

I doubt he would just like we today wouldn't. Just because someone is a certain religion doesn't mean they have to agree to or uphold the traditions that have nothing to do with their devotion to spirituality.

Matthew 15:9
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Titus 1:14
Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

Even in the biblical era, they understood the difference between the "traditions of men" and their spiritual devotion to God. The Jews wanted to push the traditions of their elders upon the people as "Judaism" so that some of it, depending on the type of Jew, isn't biblical. It's simply the traditions of the elders of the tribe of Judah. And some of those traditions evolved to this day. Some people believe there is a proper way to tie your shoes but it wasn't some divine revelation.

Haile Selassie was himself a ruler and so we can see what he believed in many things in his own laws and judgments that he established. So if he didn't support slavery or the mistreatment of women, then he had the opportunity to show that in his own rule. So from what we can see, he wasn't a slave to these ancient ideas of men and patriarchy.

And very likely Haile Selassie got what he NEEDED from the bible and from the Christian religion. And there's a lesson in that. Take what it is that you need. Too often we humans want to identify as a group and so the question of "what was he"... is really only relevant to that desire to label which we assume was true of people even in ancient times. But there was no name for the religion of Israel before Judaism. They were simply Israelites, identified by their national designation. Did that mean all Israelites shared all and only the same beliefs? No. So by that token, no one needs to call themselves a Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. These labels are meaningless to anyone other than humans using them to judge people according to what they believe are these standards.

1 - 6

Return to Reasoning List