What do people pretend is in the bible but is absolutely not in the bible?

What do people pretend is in the bible but is absolutely not in the bible?

What do you think?

12 Points
Upvote Downvote


Leave a Reply
  1. I am seeing a lot of comments saying things that actually are in the bible but for some reason they ignore that the bible continues after jesus is crucified

  2. Explicit ban of homosexuality.

    It’s never specifically mentioned in the Bible and the famous “a man shouldn’t lie with another man”-quote is just a mistranslation from “a man shouldn’t lie with another boy”, speaking against pedophilia.

    Sodom wasn’t destroyed for the gays but for refusing to follow basic hospitality rules. They were not gay, there were unfriendly so they got nuked.

    The “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” sentence somewhere in Leviticus is not a general statement but specifically described certain rituals for israelian priests.

    Translating ancient texts from dead languages into current speech is hard and mistakes happen. But they need to be acknowledged.

  3. God helps those who help themselves, that actually comes from the Greek myths, Aesop’s fable “Hercules and the Waggoner.” where a guy was having trouble with a muddy road and was praying Hercules for help, Hercules appeared and told him how to help himself, the moral being thee gods help those who help themselves.

  4. a lot of quotes

    “god works in mysterious ways” – there’s plenty of biblical quotes that have similar sentiments but that specific phrase comes from the 1760s or thereabouts

  5. “God won’t give you more than you can handle.”

    The quote is about temptation. God will not allow you to be *tempted* more than you have the ability to resist. Nothing about the severity of Trials and Tribulations. [1 Corinthians 10:13](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:12-14&version=KJV)

    >There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

    To my knowledge, that Jesus was fully human and fully divine simultaneously. That wasn’t really canon until the Council of Nicea in 325, I think (and even that council had a smidgen of politicking about it).

    That Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they approved of homosexuality. [As the story goes](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2018%3A16-33&version=NIV) (Genesis 18), God planned to destroy the cities because the cry against them was so great, but Abraham said “will you kill the good with the bad? What if there are 50 good people there?” Abraham then haggled his way down to 10, but only found Lot’s family. Later, two angels visited Lot’s family (and remember that hospitality was a sacred virtue across several cultures in those days), to which the entire male population of Sodom responded by marching to his house and demanding to be allowed to violate the angels. A bit more than consensual butt-stuff, then.

    The Devil’s whole character arc, iirc, is mostly from Paradise Lost. That the Devil was the beautiful angel Lucifer who rebelled, was cast out (and smashed his face on the way down, apparently), renamed himself Satan, and became the ruler of Hell. And also became the Serpent in the Garden. Some interpretations (including Shin Megami Tensei) totally separate Satan from Lucifer, where Satan remains an accusing angel under divine authority (that is, basically the Prosecutor for God). The story of Job, where Satan is just chilling in Heaven, makes a bit more sense under this interpretation.

    That masturbation/sex for pleasure is explicitly bad. One of the stories used against them is that of [Onan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan), who used the pull out method, to which God with His own (pulled his life right out of the world). This story has been used to say that spilling seed is sinful, so any sex outside of the intent to procreate is sinful. BUT, there are other interpretations.

    From what I’ve found, back in those days, if a man died and left a widow without a child, the man’s brother had a duty to take the widow and produce a child; otherwise, a sister-in-law was off-limits. A child produced this way would pass in the name of the dead husband (as in, the child would be considered, for all non-biological intents and purposes, the dead man’s son).

    If [Deuteronomy 25 5-6.](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+25&version=KJV) is just a restatement of a cultural rule that already existed, then that might be the case.

    >If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.

    >And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed *in the name of his brother which is dead,* that his name be not put out of Is’ra-el.

    Onan’s explicit, God-given duty was to impregnate Tamar, his *older* brother Er’s widow. God-given, as in it was a direct order. Now, Onan’s and Er’s father, Judah, was still alive. If Er or any of his line (which a child between Onan and Tamar would be) was alive, then when Judah died, Er or the child would get the firstborn’s inheritance. If Er was dead, and there were no males in his name, then Onan would get it, since he had no more older brothers.

    So we’ve got: (1) disobedience of a direct order from God; (2) sex with an off-limits person that wouldn’t fall in the “pass in the name of the dead” exception (since you can’t say in good faith the exception applies when you pull out), AND (3) an attempt to unjustly gain an inheritance. All three together kinda make the argument that it was about general non-procreation a bit weak.

  6. Literary beauty

    Muslims are even more emphatic about this point and I’m skeptical although I haven’t read enough of the Quran to really comment. The Christian one however is completely laughable in terms of being quality reading

Leave a Reply