LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   Senate Chambers (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=445)
-   -   The Bible: Myth or Truth? (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=123806)

El Sitherino 02-25-2004 07:42 AM

The Bible: Myth or Truth?
 
First off, I wish to know the opinions of all who participate here.
Should the bible be taken literally word for word, or figuratively?

I'm just really skeptical about the bible.
To me it just seems kind of... off key, not really sure.


now to the query.

"1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

"1:2 And the earth was without form"

If earth was without form, how could it exist? Does it mean shape or what?

"1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

"1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. "

well before he created light wouldn't there have been dark, thus in creating light it was already divided?

"1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."

Our source of light is the sun right? well how could he create light and then create the sources of it, the stars.
Also the moon doesn't give off light of it's own, it reflects it.

"1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. "

"2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. "

didn't he already create man and woman earlier? perhaps I'm reading it wrong.

"2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." instead of making her from part of man, couldn't he just as easily use the same process he used to create man, but switch out the organs?

Since the bible is a big book and I can't question every section of it on here within one post, I just wish to let everyone know I'm curious as to houw to address the bible. As I stated earlier, Should it be taken literally word for word, or figuratively?

Ray Jones 02-25-2004 10:22 AM

Re: The Bible: Myth or Truth?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by InsaneSith
"1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."

Our source of light is the sun right? well how could he create light and then create the sources of it, the stars.
Also the moon doesn't give off light of it's own, it reflects it.
stars are not the "source" of light. light is just a electromagnetic wave within a small range of the whole electromagnetical spectrum, which is caused by altering electromagnetic fields. those are mainly caused as the "result" of a chemical reactions (->fire) or physical "events" (->glowing metal).

also, stars are the same "things" as our sun.

Quote:

"2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."
is this called a "faith op"?

Quote:

instead of making her from part of man, couldn't he just as easily use the same process he used to create man, but switch out the organs?
yes, that sounds quite logic .. ;)

as for your question, no, i wouldnt take it literally, but it surely containts some interesting views on how it was in those days. and there may be some valuable stuff in it also. but it should not taken very literally, at least we should not forget, it's now 2000 years old, written down by men/women living in a hole another time and "world" (and this 4000-8000 years AFTER the creation process). it probably has some truth in it but it is not "the truth" and especially not "the only truth".

Feanaro 02-25-2004 07:21 PM

Well first, me being a christian, i believe that the Bible is true and that every word is the truth.
Quote:

well before he created light wouldn't there have been dark, thus in creating light it was already divided?
You see light and darkness weren't already divided because God had not divided it yet. It is hard to comprehend that light wasn't divided from darkness because it has always been that way, to us. So we think it is impossible for light to not be seperate from darkness. Yet it wasn't seperate till God had made it so.
Quote:

didn't he already create man and woman earlier? perhaps I'm reading it wrong.
The second chapter of Genesis is not what had taken place after the first chapter.It is just more explanation of what happened on the sixth day. That God had created man and woman and how. So it's not in chronological order. get it?
Quote:

instead of making her from part of man, couldn't he just as easily use the same process he used to create man, but switch out the organs?
Yes God could have done that, He couldv'e even said "make man" and it would have been so. God does things to see our connection to Him and all His greatness. For the exact reason why God pulled Adams rib out to make Eve, i do not know. But i have a few thoughts about why God did that. If you want me to explain them i will.
Quote:

I'm just really skeptical about the bible.
In Christianity one of the biggest things is faith. Faith that God's word(the Bible) is the truth. And that God seperated light from the darkness it's all faith.

El Sitherino 02-25-2004 08:58 PM

Re: Re: The Bible: Myth or Truth?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by RayJones
stars are not the "source" of light. light is just a electromagnetic wave within a small range of the whole electromagnetical spectrum, which is caused by altering electromagnetic fields. those are mainly caused as the "result" of a chemical reactions (->fire) or physical "events" (->glowing metal).

also, stars are the same "things" as our sun.
.

I knew this already, I didn't mention the sun and stars because I knew the sun is a star :p it's elementary stuff :p

Ray Jones 02-25-2004 09:06 PM

of course!! ;)

:)

i also thought again about the woman and the mans rip.
perhabs this does just mean "he" took from what he "made" the man and "made" a woman of it too. maybe the same way he made adam, only with known differences ..



hmm.. maybe that doesnt change much.

Uber_Saber 02-25-2004 09:19 PM

I'm a Presbyterian, (And a preacher's kid, to boot) and I've never really taken the first chapter or two of the bible seriously. Actually, there's a lot of it I don't take seriously, because I believe a good part of it was influnced by whoever wrote any given section and their experiences in life, and the views held at that time.

In other words, there are a few recurring themes in the Bible that I take seriously, but the exact words, for the most part, I don't take literally. Does that make sense?

shukrallah 02-26-2004 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Uber_Saber
I'm a Presbyterian, (And a preacher's kid, to boot) and I've never really taken the first chapter or two of the bible seriously. Actually, there's a lot of it I don't take seriously, because I believe a good part of it was influnced by whoever wrote any given section and their experiences in life, and the views held at that time.

In other words, there are a few recurring themes in the Bible that I take seriously, but the exact words, for the most part, I don't take literally. Does that make sense?


So we should listen to you, because you are a preacher's kid?

The bible says God was the auther, man just wrote it down. Dont call God a liar ;)

ET Warrior 02-26-2004 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
So we should listen to you, because you are a preacher's kid?

The bible says God was the auther, man just wrote it down. Dont call God a liar ;)

And if I were to tell you a 100 page long story today, and you go home and write it down, I have a feeling you'd make a LOT of mistakes.

Dont call humans perfect.

Kain 02-26-2004 06:09 PM

Quote:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness
Me and my friend once threw this into a pastors face. He says 'us' and 'our', so one would assume he's speaking to the angels, but this is only an assumption since angels weren't even mentioned until way later into the Bible. So is God a skitzo? Or did they just forget a huge piece of that entire line?

Hm, it would seem that the 'Word of God' is quite faulty.

...not to mention the countless other hypocracies that one could read but be blinded by faith and thus completly ignore the fact that they contradict what was said earlier, but since there are SO many and I don't have a Bible on hand to quote exactly, I won't throw any out there just yet.

Elijah 02-26-2004 07:41 PM

The trinity, know as the 3 in 1, being the Father, Son and the Holy spirit. Thats who he was speaking to.

Thrackan Solo 02-27-2004 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZDawg
The trinity, know as the 3 in 1, being the Father, Son and the Holy spirit. Thats who he was speaking to.

Took the words right out of my mouth

obi 02-27-2004 12:40 AM

I believe the Bible is 100% true.

Watch "The Passion of Christ," and your opinion very may well become the same as mine.

Jesus owns.

Correct me if I'm wrong, InsaneSith, but you took those things from the Skepticists' (sp?) Bible, right?

Many beliefs can be questioned, none can be proved, unless you have experienced them for yourself, as I have.

SkinWalker 02-27-2004 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InsaneSith on 02-25-2004 04:42 AM:

The Bible: Myth or Truth?

I must say both. Once one recognizes the parallels of biblical myth to Near Eastern literature and oral tradition and also takes into account the fact that the "Bible" is an anthology of various religious documents, created by various authors, at various times, it is easy to see the truth and wisdom contained.

Quote:

Originally Posted by InsaneSith on 02-25-2004 04:42 AM:
First off, I wish to know the opinions of all who participate here.
Should the Bible be taken literally word for word, or figuratively?

Only a fool (in my opinion) would accept the Bible literally. Right off the bat, there are two very different accounts of the same event (creation). In one account, we see a very Yahwist slant, in the other, an Elohist version. The two contain some contradictions between them if accepted literally and offer contradictions within each account if we are to evaluate them epistemologically: the presence of "light" prior to the light-sources (sun & moon); creation of the earth prior to sun & moon; etc.

The author(s) recorded an account that no man could have observed, but these questions by themselves mean very little if the point is simply to question the validity. What is useful is to ask these questions as a way of discovering what the period was like during the time the Bible was written.

As an anthology (remember "Bible" is from the Greek ta biblia, or "the books"), the Bible, particularly the old testament, is a collection of stories and mythologies that were already popular among the peoples of the Near East and shared among many cultures and nations.

We can see the evolution of mythology in a variety of biblical / Near East parallels, including the creation myth.

The Enuma Elish, sometimes referred to as the "Babylonian Genesis," documents the myth of creation in which a conflict occurs between Tiamat of the Sea (a dragon) and Marduk. Marduk agrees to defeat Tiamat if the remaining deities acknowledge him as "Supreme." Marduk splits Tiamat "like a shellfish into two parts" and uses these to create the heaven and the earth (ANET, 1955, 67)

The Genesis antagonist is a watery chaos (Gen 1:2) called "Deep," or Tehom in Hebrew. In fact, "tehom" and "tiamat" are from the same Semitic root word. Used in Genesis, it is without a definite article, suggesting that it was understood to be a proper noun, "and darkness covered the surface of Deep."

The Hebrew authors during the fifth and sixth centuries BCE edited out the references to other gods and deities except for the ghostly reference to Tehom, sticking to their culture of monotheism. This is also supported by Psalm 74:12-14 where we see:
Quote:

Yet, God, my King from the first,
author of savings acts throughout the earth,
by your power, you split the sea in two,
and smashed the heads of monsters on the waters,
you crushed the Leviathan's head….

Quote:

Originally Posted by InsaneSith on 02-25-2004 04:42 AM:
Since the Bible is a big book and I can't question every section of it on here within one post, I just wish to let everyone know I'm curious as to houw to address the Bible. As I stated earlier, Should it be taken literally word for word, or figuratively?

It should be accepted as any great work of literature. There is much truth and wisdom to be had from reading the Bible, but to live one's life believing it to be literally true in every respect, every word, and valid to each letter is foolhardy.

I say "foolhardy" since literal belief would invalidate much of the science that has been tested and demonstrated, including the fact that the Earth is spherical not flat.


Quote:

Posted by Uber_Saber on 02-25-2004 06:19 PM:

Actually, there's a lot of it I don't take seriously, because I believe a good part of it was influnced by whoever wrote any given section and their experiences in life, and the views held at that time.

Very little is known about most of the authors of the Bible. What is sure is that they often used stories that were common of the time, often much older, to adapt to their own uses by changing some contexts or combining with other such stories.

An example is the parallel that exists between the story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife, the Biblical story, and the Story of two brothers, and older Egyptian tale. In the Biblical account, Potiphar's wife attempts to seduce a young Hebrew slave who refuses. She accuses him of rape and he is imprisoned. The Egyptian account offers the same characters (but with different names) and the same actions – except the young man isn't imprisoned: he proves his "innocence" by taking a knife and cutting off his penis.

Obviously, the Hebrew author had a problem telling a tale of a young man who amputates his own penis yet goes on to father the two tribes of Israel! So some minor changes were made.

There are many, many parallels in the Bible to Near Eastern stories that are in the earliest cuneiform writings and likely have origins much further back in oral histories. The flood myth involving Noah is an almost word-for-word lift of a portion of Gilgamesh. Gilgameshes flood account, in turn, has it's roots in the Akkadian Atrahasis epic. This epic has it's flood myth portion incorporated from the Sumerian myth of The Deluge and was recorded in the late third millennium BCE (2000 – 3000 B.C.)

The "Deluge" was recorded on a cuneiform tablet and the story goes that the gods have decided to send a flood to destroy the "seed of mankind." Ziusudra, a particularly pious man, attentive to divine revalations, was chosen by the gods to survive so he builds a "huge boat." The flood sweeps the land for 7 days and 7 nights then Utu, the Sun god, appears, to which Ziusudra sacrifices an ox. Ziusudra (which, by the way, means "life of long days") is then rewarded for obedience with eternal life.

Quote:

Posted by lukeskywalker1 on 02-26-2004 11:46 AM: [/b]The Bible says God was the auther, man just wrote it down. Dont call God a liar
He may not be a liar, but he's certainly a plagiarist! :)

Actually, in the ancient world, writing was relatively new and literature wasn't "owned" in the way that ownership is thought of now…. the stories of the time likely had anonymous authors and began as oral traditions that were later recorded and modified. In fact, it would be hard not to have shared many of the better stories in the Near East when you consider the population densities and small area of the known world at the time. A good example of what I'm talking about is Homer. Most people of today consider Homer to be the author of the Odyssey and the Iliad, but he was more of a "transmitter" in that he took the time to write down and perform these stories during his time.

Quote:

Posted by obi-wan13 on 02-26-2004 09:40 PM: [/b]

Watch "The Passion of Christ," and your opinion very may well become the same as mine.

Naah…. I read the book. :cool:

Source for Near Eastern Mythologies:

ANET (1955), Pritchard, James. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton Univ Press, 1st edition.

obi 02-27-2004 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SkinWalker


Naah…. I read the book. :cool:


I've always loved Jesus, but I can honestly say, not as much as I did when I watched this movie. Reading it and actually seeing it are different. It was almost as if every sin I have ever done just slapped me in the face. It's a powerful movie. VERY powerful.

It sheds a whole new light on Jesus and the Christian religion.

Kain 02-29-2004 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZDawg
The trinity, know as the 3 in 1, being the Father, Son and the Holy spirit. Thats who he was speaking to.
AH HA!! HAHAHA!! The basis of polytheism RIGHT THERE!! Several seperate parts making up the whole. Just like the Egyptian and Greek pathenons, entire entities who make the whole of existance! But Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all worship ONE 'God', so how can there be 3 parts to this 'God' without being polytheist?

El Sitherino 03-01-2004 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by obi-wan13
I believe the Bible is 100% true.

Watch "The Passion of Christ," and your opinion very may well become the same as mine.

Jesus owns.

Correct me if I'm wrong, InsaneSith, but you took those things from the Skepticists' (sp?) Bible, right?

Many beliefs can be questioned, none can be proved, unless you have experienced them for yourself, as I have.

I took it from my bible that i got at a christian book store so... it's probably not.

Tyrion 03-01-2004 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by obi-wan13
I've always loved Jesus, but I can honestly say, not as much as I did when I watched this movie. Reading it and actually seeing it are different. It was almost as if every sin I have ever done just slapped me in the face. It's a powerful movie. VERY powerful.
I don't see why everyone believes that Jesus went through absolute torture for us. Sure, he spent three days in absolute agony. But it was only three days, a relatively very short period of time. Now, if he was in hellish torture forever for our sins..then he did make a sacrifice.

I mean heck, we pagans(non-christians, not the earth-worshiper kind) get infinitely more torture in Hell then Christ would.

toms 03-01-2004 02:18 PM

if a film has that much of an effect on your faith then it can't have been very strong to start with. but the film has almost no bearing on the truth of the matter. Lots of people stated that they cried in ROTK, but that doesn't make it true... just well and powerfully told.

AFAIK Mel Gibson is part of a small section of christianity that has a number of very odd beliefs, including the fact that the current Pope is a heretic.

As for the bible... i take it as a collection of stories and histories mean to act as examples and guides for the people of the time (and with important messages that can still be applied today).

However, i don't take it as the literal truth. I don't think most christians do. FOr various reasons that people like Skin have stated a lot better than me, but mainly for the reason that it was written, rewritten, collected and translated by humans and at no point was it divinely created.

Uber_Saber 03-01-2004 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
So we should listen to you, because you are a preacher's kid?

The bible says God was the auther, man just wrote it down. Dont call God a liar ;)

I am merely informing you of my qualifications. You may get offended, or try to offend me, but whatever.

You are using circular logic there. The bible says that it is true- therefore it is true? Nothing, nothing in this world that humans do is above a bit of messing up. We've been messing up from the beginning- why should that change?

Feanaro 03-01-2004 10:43 PM

The Bible is the word of God. it is "God-breathed" through humans to write down exactly what it is supposed to say. So God told man what to write so therefore is true.
Quote:

if a film has that much of an effect on your faith then it can't have been very strong to start with. but the film has almost no bearing on the truth of the matter. Lots of people stated that they cried in ROTK, but that doesn't make it true... just well and powerfully told.
Have you ever seen a movie or read a book or article that gave you stregnth or insiration? It is not a weak faithed person who can get inspiration from a book or movie. It couldv'e have been God's intension for obi-wan 13 to see this movie and gain stregnth from it. That could be my purpose to stregnthen others who are confused or losing their way. God works in mysterious ways.
Quote:

I don't see why everyone believes that Jesus went through absolute torture for us. Sure, he spent three days in absolute agony. But it was only three days, a relatively very short period of time. Now, if he was in hellish torture forever for our sins..then he did make a sacrifice.
I would like to see anyone to be beaten till almost dead. Flogged so flesh is ripped from your body, and a crown of thorns shoved onto your head. To be berely recongnized as human. Then to be nailed to a cross hand and feet and placed on a hill for all to see youy die, where the only way you could breath was to actually lift yourself up while having a nail piercing your feet. All because you want people some one who has never done anything for you, or thought twice about you to live in heaven away from death and pain. And because you love them. Now if you're telling me that thats not enough for salvation, that being in agony for you and me and to not suffer as long as some think, than i'm sorry. I hope that one day understanding will come to all.

SkinWalker 03-01-2004 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Feanaro
The Bible is the word of God. it is "God-breathed" through humans to write down exactly what it is supposed to say. So God told man what to write so therefore is true.
So why does this anthology of "god-breathed" documents have so many parallels and direct relations to Near Eastern myths, legends and stories prior to the bible's conception?

What of the documents that "didn't make the cut?" Those that weren't chosen by those that canonized the various versions of judo-christian texts? Were these less breathed upon? Or did they simply not fit the idea that the human redactors and editors had for the overall anthologies?

The presence of literary trends and patterns seems to discount the influence of a deity... if the deity was imperfect enough to allow such trends and patterns in its word, then how can its word be considered true simply because of itself.

Tyrion 03-02-2004 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Feanaro
I would like to see anyone to be beaten till almost dead. Flogged so flesh is ripped from your body, and a crown of thorns shoved onto your head. To be berely recongnized as human. Then to be nailed to a cross hand and feet and placed on a hill for all to see youy die, where the only way you could breath was to actually lift yourself up while having a nail piercing your feet. All because you want people some one who has never done anything for you, or thought twice about you to live in heaven away from death and pain. And because you love them. Now if you're telling me that thats not enough for salvation, that being in agony for you and me and to not suffer as long as some think, than i'm sorry. I hope that one day understanding will come to all.
That toture was given to some of the prisoners there. Some of which probably were innocent, but were executed anyway. Did those people absolve our sins too, for going through the excact same toture as Christ, except Christ had it easier, he knew he was the son of God and would go to heaven. I imagine the other roman/jew probably doesn't have a clear indication of where he's going, making him extremely terrified and in more torture than Christ.

obi 03-02-2004 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by toms
if a film has that much of an effect on your faith then it can't have been very strong to start with.
Woa there, let me just point out my faith was at a very strong point when I seen this movie. It just strengthened my faith even more. You can't have a strong enough level of faith.

Just because you're healthy, do you stop eating?

Food for thought, no pun intended.

Sorry if this was a bit off of the subject, I just had to interject there. ;)

Uber_Saber 03-02-2004 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Feanaro
The Bible is the word of God. it is "God-breathed" through humans to write down exactly what it is supposed to say. So God told man what to write so therefore is true.

Just because it is the word of God doesn't mean men couldn't get it wrong, in my opinion.

Tell me, when it says that God created the world in seven days, with all the animals and humans, does that mean the all the stuff about evolution, descending from apes, leaving the trees, etc., didn't happen?

Is it just a giant plot?

ET Warrior 03-02-2004 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by obi-wan13
Just because you're healthy, do you stop eating?
No, you continue your current eating habbits because that's what is making you healthy, among other things.

So if your faith is good, why change what ain't broke?

:p :D ;)

toms 03-02-2004 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by obi-wan13
Woa there, let me just point out my faith was at a very strong point when I seen this movie. It just strengthened my faith even more. You can't have a strong enough level of faith.

Just because you're healthy, do you stop eating?

Sorry, that came out a bit more insulting than i intended. What i was trying to say was that on one hand we have people saying the bible is the word of god, his divine message, etc... and then others saying "yeah, but the film was better!". This just strikes me as odd. So basically a film by a guy from hollywood is more moving than the original text upon which a whole religion with billions of members is based?

Films can be a very visceral medium (sight, sound, directors playing with oyur emotions, etc..) but that doesn't mean that just because something was visceral, emotional and moving it makes it any more correct or real or true. I have seen films that made me cry when people were hurt or died, that doesn't make those characters that i cared for any more real or correct. The Nazis made deeply emotional and moving films about the power and correctness of their state and the evilness of the jews... that didn't make those films true or right, but they were involving and emotional for the people watching them.
-----------------
Anyway, back to the bible. It is known that the bible was assembled from various writtings a number of years after the events depicted in them.

While i might, possibly, be able to accept that the writings by the saints and the disciples might have been divinely inspired (although i don't remember any evidence that god ever spoke directly to the disciples, or that they were infalible as they often showed human failings or missunderstood jesus's teachings), i don't see ANY evidence that the group of religious scholars who put the bible together were in any way divinely guided.

There is no mention even in the bible of an angel coming down to them and instructing them on what to include, or anything like that.

This means that this group of primitive men were effectively the editors of the bible, but they may not have fully understood the mesages within it, or may have allowed their own understandings and prejudices to influence what they felt was significant.

For example, there is a lrage amount of evidence of the existence of other gospels that were not included. There is also evidence that the accounts and opinions in these ofther gospels may not have exactly tied with those that were included. Maybe those that put the bible together didn't like what they saw in those gospels and so left them out. In particular i feel that the women in jesus life got a raw deal in the bible, possibly due to the existing prejudices of the time.

Do catholics (the largest group?) teach that the bible is the unaltered word of god? Curch of england and a lot of other significant christian religious factions don't teach any such thing.

El Sitherino 05-04-2004 10:32 PM

after the large bring up of the bible being false, or tainted in other threads, we'll bring this back.

my question:

if god wanted to wipe the slate clean, and restart humanity pure, then with his infinite knowledge and such, he should have known noah's son would look at noah in lust, and become "corrupt". So if he is really all powerful and all knowing, couldn't he have done something to make sure his plan of purification works? I mean, to me it seems pointless that he slaughtered all those people in a flood, only to not let it work.

toms 05-05-2004 07:25 AM

it does seem a bit odd that god wiped out all those people for no reason, as (if noah and his family were the only human survivors left) judaism (as christianity then was) was never the dominant religion even after the flood.

Surely if the only couple of people left after the flood were people who had been saved by god then judaism might have been the dominant religion for a week or two. :D

Also, surely the comment about "2 sources of light in the heavens" proves (more so than evolution or anything) that the bible isn't what actually happened, but stories to allow more primitive people to understand the broader concepts. We know that the moon doesn't emit light.

THis doesn't make the message of the bible false, it just means that every single tiny (mistranslated, passed down) wprd houldn't be taken as the litteral truth.

jon_hill987 05-05-2004 12:54 PM

The whole myth or truth thing can be summed up by considering the lost page:
Other books by the same author

and the bit missing from the fron that says:
To my darling Sarah

seriously though I wouldn't take the bible word for word, I think that they are stories (some maybe even baced on real events eg the parting of the red sea) made up to help people live better lives.

lukeiamyourdad 05-05-2004 06:00 PM

Nothing should be taken word by word. Look at the extremists. They take everything word by word and look what happens...two buildings dissappear

Kain 05-05-2004 06:21 PM

True, Islamic extremists take out 2 buildings and thousands of lives.

But look at Christian extremists. The crusades: Thousands of lives lost. The Salem Witch Trials: Hundreds of lives lost.

And for what? Because Christian's just HAVE to be right.

lukeiamyourdad 05-05-2004 10:24 PM

Well, in those times, people were less educated so they were easily manipulated by those who were(aka the Pope who started the Crusades, Urban Something I think).

Same for the Salem Witch Trials. You could compare it to Senator MacCarthy's commie hunt. People were afraid of everything and misinformed.

jon_hill987 05-06-2004 03:27 AM

I don't think Islamic extremists take the Quran (not sure if thats the correct spelling, sorry) word for word, I think their leaders twist the words in order to brainwash their followers, I'm sure it dosn't say to blow up buildings or that if you die killing hundreds of people in a suiside bomb attack you will go to paridice.

Ray Jones 05-06-2004 06:40 AM

maybe you could point out what exactly is said in those "frustrating posts"?

and maybe i missed your valuable post in here?



however, may i offer you one of those tasty chocolate cookies and a chilled glas of milk, so that we could calm down a bit to put it into the context of a more constructive conversation.

let start with you telling us what you think about this topic?

toms 05-11-2004 12:08 PM

im glad we have CapNColostomy to pop up in al these threads and collectively point out that we are all talking rubbish. Nothing like useful input to move a discussion onwards...:rolleyes:

anyway.
The Quran has been "guarded" much more intensely and fanatically than the bible, passed down as near as possible "word for word" and (as far as i know) untranslated or modifed. Yet even with this book there are scholars who, having none nothing all their lives but study the Quran, can't agree about almost anything in it. For every scholar you can find who argues one thing, you can usually find another who argues the exact opposite.

If even they can't agree on the quran then what are the odds that anyone can agree on the much more revised bible. Let alone the odds that any one lay worshiper or preacher has the meaning exactly right.

I expect most people who believe in the bible (even those who believe in it "word for word") actually believe in the interpretaion that they were first taught. If they had been brought up in a different community they would probably believe in a different interpretation.

That is why i think you should take the overarching messages from the bible (or other such books) and not worry about the "exact wording of a specific passage the happens to possibly mention something that could probably be interprested to mean something." phew.

Doomie 05-12-2004 10:26 AM

people who do take the bible too serious are predicting the end of the world soon, it's true! i just made a thread about it in yoda's swamp, 'the end is near' i believe...

ZBomber 05-12-2004 06:36 PM

Ty, I love to be nit picky towards you. :)

Yes, others were crucified, but none servely as Christ. mos tof the time, they carried their cross, and were tied to it, then hung until dead. Jesus was beaten brutally (even more so than the usual criminal). Most of all, he never commited ONE sin, while the others may be innocent for what they were convicted, still have sinned.

Imagine having nails stuck in your hands for 10 minutes. Now imagine 3 hours, a crown of thorns on your head, being jabbed at with a spear, hanging, and still hurting from the whips and barbed club wounds. Get the picture?

Tyrion 05-12-2004 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZBomber
Imagine having nails stuck in your hands for 10 minutes. Now imagine 3 hours, a crown of thorns on your head, being jabbed at with a spear, hanging, and still hurting from the whips and barbed club wounds. Get the picture?
Considering he went to Heaven for eternity after that, it doesn't seem that bad. Still horrible, but it's only three hours. Cancer patients too also have to endure alot of pain, and they have to endure it for a much much longer time than Christ did.

SkinWalker 05-12-2004 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZBomber
Imagine having nails stuck in your hands for 10 minutes. Now imagine 3 hours, a crown of thorns on your head, being jabbed at with a spear, hanging, and still hurting from the whips and barbed club wounds. Get the picture?


If indeed it actually occurred that way. There's very little evidence outside of scriptural texts that the guy even existed, much less whether or not he was executed in the manner described in the Bible.

One way to look at it is if there are other mythological elaborations present in the Bible (Noah's Flood, the Creation story, etc.), then why believe that the authors of the gospels were truthful. They weren't even kind enough to leave us with their names.

ZBomber 05-13-2004 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrion
Considering he went to Heaven for eternity after that, it doesn't seem that bad. Still horrible, but it's only three hours. Cancer patients too also have to endure alot of pain, and they have to endure it for a much much longer time than Christ did.
Its not really the same..... people TORTURED him. With cancer patients, we are trying to cure them, not hurt/kill them.

SkinWalker - I think I misread your post... but are you saying the Gospel writers don't give us their names? If you are saying the Old Testament writers, I'm guessing it would be the Jewish Leaders.... and by putting their name down, they may be taking the attention away from God.

Of course, thats just what I think, as it doesn't say that anywhere.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.