Disscussion on the bible

[Byzantine Mercenary]

Ok, i thought it might be interesting if we had a little disscussion on what you think of the bible.

What i mean is, do you consider it word of god? or are you sceptical of it? or do you think that it depends on the part in question?

I would apreciate input from all the christians here and also it would be great if some of the atheists and agnostics here could give some input as to how they would feel about it were they to believe. (hopefully adding some objectivity).

My own opinion:
I feel that from the looks of it an error is made in the composition, or at least the common interpretation of the bible. Firstly it isn't too clear as far as how to consider the old testament.

Is it merely the teachings that jesus came to correct, considered wrongly the word of god (in which case why did he quote it so often)?

Or is it the word of god? (in which case why did he need to come and teach)

Or is is a back ground filled with both valid teachings and missinterpretations of gods will, to put jesus's teaching in perspective?

Secondly what of the new testament?

Currently it is all considered gods teaching by many christians, but what of the books written by paul and revelation? these are teachings that came after jesus, did he not say that there would be none? indeed if such teaching were valid would not also those of muhammed and numerous other later prophets be too?

I think that the only teachings in the bible that realy are to be taken as gods teaching are the gospels, the rest while useful and interesting is not nessisarly communicating gods will

[Lord Winter]

I think the bible is so completly magled by constant translation that it is hard to take anything literly. As for books of the bible and all of that, I've always heard the post gospel books are more then a how to church book then gods word. The gospel and the profets are proably the most important thing that you can take from the bible.

[HoreTore]

I see it as a myth/history book. Much like the way I see the religions of the greeks, romans, vikings, etc.

[Lemur]

It's helpful if you stop thinking of the Bible as a singular book. It's a library, friends. The writings originate from many different languages, over many centuries. Some parts of Genesis are at least three thousand years old. The Revelation of St. John, on the other hand, was written during Domitian's reign, somewhere around 95 A.D. So you're talking about a compendium that was pieced together over the course of, at minimum, a thousand years.

Those who believe that the Bible is the literal word of God find themselves in much the same bind as Muslims who believe that the Koran was spoken into a dictaphone by Allah. Only it's worse, really, for Biblical linteralists. At least the Koran was all written in a single time period, by a single author. The paradoxes and contradictions in the Bible are too numerous to get into in a single thread.

I think it's these same paradoxes and contradictions that make Christianity such an enlightened religion, however. It's no accident that the Renaissance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance), Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment), Age of Reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th-century_philosophy) and scientific age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) all emerged from predominantly Christian nations. Lacking a coherent, singular Word of God tends to make room for debate, heresy, contemplation, dispute and progress.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

I think the bible is so completly magled by constant translation that it is hard to take anything literly. As for books of the bible and all of that, I've always heard the post gospel books are more then a how to church book then gods word. The gospel and the profets are proably the most important thing that you can take from the bible.
Yeah but they would still be teachings after jesus, even if they are regarding the management of the church



I think it's these same paradoxes and contradictions that make Christianity such an enlightened religion, however. It's no accident that the Renaissance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance), Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment), Age of Reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th-century_philosophy) and scientific age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) all emerged from predominantly Christian nations. Lacking a coherent, singular Word of God tends to make room for debate, heresy, contemplation, dispute and progress.
hmm never thought of that...

Indeed Lemer one of my main aims is to show that the bible is a library of very varied content rather then a book of equally valid teaching. This may seem obvious but a lot of people still don't seem to recognise it, for instance there are many people that see revelation as the direct words of god. But as i said earlier with jesus's statements that there would be no other prophets, it surely can't be?

[Lord Winter]

Yeah but they would still be teachings after jesus, even if they are regarding the management of the church

But wern't they also teachings from: A. those who had some contact with Jessus ethier literly or spirtiualy. Or B. were influneced to a huge degree by the holy spirt. There not derictly the word of God but more are like god influenced mannuls.

[Lemur]

For instance there are many people that see revelation as the direct words of god. But as i said earlier with jesus's statements that there would be no other prophets, it surely can't be?
Hmm, I'm not sure I agree. I can't remember Jesus saying that he was the last prophet; that was Mohammed's line. And even if he did say it, I don't see how a final prophet precludes visions and messages from God.

The best scholarship on Revelation suggests that an awful lot of it is figurative code meant for branch churches. Remember, Christianity in 95 A.D. was considered a Jewish cult, and membership was ... discouraged. You know, by incentives such as, "We won't kill you if you aren't a Jew or Christian," that kind of thing. So it makes complete and total sense that John would write in code.

The way I think of it is this: Let's say you and I need to communicate secretly. So I write an email to you, saying, "The llama barks at midnight. Touch the man with one leg and deliver the pastries." You know what I mean, I know what I mean, but anybody who intercepts the message will be left scratching their heads.

Then let's say that my email is added to a Scientology holy book two hundred years from now. And let's say that there are all sorts of people saying, "What did he mean, exactly, about the llama barking at midnight? Is the llama Xenu or the spirit of L. Ron Hubbard?"

You see where I'm going with this, right?

[Csargo]

I can't believe the Bible is God's word or is absolute truth. It doesn't make sense to me. I can't really put my thoughts into word right now, but that's basically how I feel about it.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree. I can't remember Jesus saying that he was the last prophet; that was Mohammed's line. And even if he did say it, I don't see how a final prophet precludes visions and messages from God.
yeah it wasnt exactly that, indeed it may have beena missinterpretation on my part i have looked for the part i had found in the past but not found it yet. Bassically i had thought that jesus had said somthing along the lines of there being false prophets and teaching to come and that there would be no more real teaching. Although this could just stem from my interpretation of jesus's purpose (i.e providing the definative message)


The best scholarship on Revelation suggests that an awful lot of it is figurative code meant for branch churches. Remember, Christianity in 95 A.D. was considered a Jewish cult, and membership was ... discouraged. You know, by incentives such as, "We won't kill you if you aren't a Jew or Christian," that kind of thing. So it makes complete and total sense that John would write in code.

The way I think of it is this: Let's say you and I need to communicate secretly. So I write an email to you, saying, "The llama barks at midnight. Touch the man with one leg and deliver the pastries." You know what I mean, I know what I mean, but anybody who intercepts the message will be left scratching their heads.

Then let's say that my email is added to a Scientology holy book two hundred years from now. And let's say that there are all sorts of people saying, "What did he mean, exactly, about the llama barking at midnight? Is the llama Xenu or the spirit of L. Ron Hubbard?"

You see where I'm going with this, right?
yeah and i agree, thats why i think considering word of god, or even prophesy is foolish.


But wern't they also teachings from: A. those who had some contact with Jessus ethier literly or spirtiualy. Or B. were influneced to a huge degree by the holy spirt. There not derictly the word of God but more are like god influenced mannuls.
Well it was mostly Paul right?, and most of the other christians i have questioned on this agree that paul provided new teaching, my real question is should we consider this teaching any more valid then that of other christians who have been influenced by the holy spirit?
So bassically while i agree that Paul was a great man i feel that even he would not want his teaching placed equally with that of Jesus. Lets be honest most people see bible = gods teaching. So although many people may see the seperation i am trying to make as obvious. I think there are a lot of christians who are not making this seperation, when it comes down to it what paul says is a great guide of course, but why more so then modern christian philosophers (also perhaps influenced by the holy spirit).

[naut]

A lot of it is up to interpretation. Such as Genesis, which is an early interpretation of how the world was made, much like how other cultures have their own stories of how the earth was made. Also there's a lot of symbolism in how the days parallel in it, the birds-fish/sky-water, the sky-earth/day-night and the animals/land. All of these things are worshipped as gods, demi-gods and spirits in numerous ancient religions. Now if you read it the way I interpret it, it's simply telling people not to worship those things anymore, because there's something greater that is the "designer" of them. I don't think it intended on literally meaning God created the earth in 7 days, I think it was Churchmen who interpreted it thusly, and as they were the main scholars and teachers for a long-time that's the way it has remained in a lot of people's minds. And with advances in Psychics it has become obvious that the world is approx 4.5-5 billion years old, so I can't understand why people take it literally.

[Spetulhu]

It's a book that demands you submit to a mass-murdering psycho, innit? Most of the OT is taken up with glorifying genocide on all enemies of the chosen people. Then you get to the NT where the same butcher gets a change of heart and decides to forgive mankind.

Sounds a bit like psycho alcoholic dad (the one who beats his wife and kids) being taken to family counceling - where he graciously agrees to forgive his family for their failings. :furious3:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Let me remind posters again that religion bashing is not permitted.

It is perfectly permissible to challenge beliefs and even sometimes to indulge in a little gentle mockery, but outright slanderous insults against another person's sacred god are reprehensible and will be actioned - whichever religion is the target.

Please show some respect for other members, however wrong you may consider their opinions to be.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[Byzantine Mercenary]

It's a book that demands you submit to a mass-murdering psycho, innit? Most of the OT is taken up with glorifying genocide on all enemies of the chosen people. Then you get to the NT where the same butcher gets a change of heart and decides to forgive mankind.

Sounds a bit like psycho alcoholic dad (the one who beats his wife and kids) being taken to family counceling - where he graciously agrees to forgive his family for their failings. :furious3:
errr... this is what i mean, the bible is a Library and some parts do not sit well together, i feel this is in interpretation rather then part being wrong.

For instance you have taken two very different sets of books with different agendas and purposes written under very differnt circumstances and put them together as though they would fit. I feel the current layout of the bible incourages this, even going to the point of making some of the books apear things that they arnt...

[Spetulhu]

Sorry for being a bit caustic early in the morning. I'll try to be more constructive.

Most Finns are Sunday christians, ie. they visit church for themself on four occasions, on two of which they're carried in. As we're a literate people some of us actually try to read the bible and often come to the conclusion that it's not a particularly nice book. So did I, and a quick visit to the church office solved the problem of membership.

One problem I have with our monotheistic religions is that the grand boss doesn't follow the rules he sets for the followers. Who would want to be judged by a judge who doesn't actually follow the rules himself?

Another problem with christianity in particular is the way people think everything good somehow came out of the bible. They attribute things to this religion that have no basis in it's actual holy books. "We'd have no justice system without christianity" is perhaps the most moronic comment I've ever heard. It's as if Greek philosophy, Roman and Germanic law somehow didn't exist.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

Sorry for being a bit caustic early in the morning. I'll try to be more constructive.

Most Finns are Sunday christians, ie. they visit church for themself on four occasions, on two of which they're carried in. As we're a literate people some of us actually try to read the bible and often come to the conclusion that it's not a particularly nice book. So did I, and a quick visit to the church office solved the problem of membership.

One problem I have with our monotheistic religions is that the grand boss doesn't follow the rules he sets for the followers. Who would want to be judged by a judge who doesn't actually follow the rules himself?

Another problem with christianity in particular is the way people think everything good somehow came out of the bible. They attribute things to this religion that have no basis in it's actual holy books. "We'd have no justice system without christianity" is perhaps the most moronic comment I've ever heard. It's as if Greek philosophy, Roman and Germanic law somehow didn't exist.
it wasn't my intention to create a does god exist thread, im realy talking about the bible. However, i would like to respond to what you have said, i agree that the old testament has violent imagry that i find uncomfortable and ''ungodly'' however i am focussing on the gospels at the moment as far as what to follow which is a very different message (as i believe you have said).

[Navaros]

In my view the reason the Bible is so enduring throughout the centuries, and always will be, is precisely because it is not a myth book. If it was merely a myth book then it would have fallen by the wayside long ago, just like all the actual 100% myth books have done. The Bible endures where myths have not, because much of the Bible is true.

Having said that, I've come to see how the Bible is not perfect, not complete, not clear enough, and contradictory in many ways.

The spritual teachings in the Bible are the only thing that really makes sense for why mankind is as it is. Ie: Sin nature corrupting every human to be immoral, and mortal that is sure to die; seed, time and harvest principle which pretty much always holds true; mankind inherently hating God and hating being told any immoral thing which they are doing is immoral. etc. etc. Alternate, completely man-made theories like the theory of evolution pale badly in comparison when trying to explain such things as this.

Bottom line is that that Bible, although imperfect, is the very best indication mankind has in regards to God, the origins of the Earth and mankind, and the afterlife.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think the Bible is God's message to mankind, as recorded by mankind. So in other words the good bits are his fault, the bad bits are our fault.

[rory_20_uk]

First off we have either that man has free will or not (I get to a point)

If man has free will: the Bible was cobbled together many years after events had happened many miles from where they happened. Books were removed when they didn't agree with the Party message. Less word of God, more a review into Politics through the ages.
Failure to add new works to the Bible is merely men's politicing.

If man doesn't have free will, and all is the will of God: Hmm. So why then are manuscripts found recently concerning the Early Faith? Why were they not destroyed? Or is it God's will they were kept for so long against all odds, and should now be included?


That at the time of Christ when literacy was widespread only 30ish letters were written on a subject over hundreds of years on a religion spanning most of the Mediterranean is bonkers. The Bible is a collection of some of them, and only those who place belief in the leaders of the churches rather than in God dismiss non-canonical works.

The Bible has warped so greatly through the ages with the wholesale slaughter of anyone who has a slightly different take is testimony to what extent people place on control.

To say all good is God and all bad is man is understandable for those who want to believe in something against all reason. Same way people thank God for saving them from a plane crash, not cursing the All Powerful Almighty for the crash in the first place... :inquisitive:

I fail to see how the theory of Evolution can be said to pale against a book which blunders through explanations which at best are half formed and fly in the face of all evidence.

The Bible is basically an incomplete almack. When it comes to fiction I prefer Small Gods by Terry Pratchet. It has the same bits on immorality, the emergence of a saviour, is lucid and doesn't go passive-aggressive on its message.

~:smoking:

[AntiochusIII]

I hate debating about the Bible, not because it is not an interesting book - library, whatever - but because it is such an emotionally charged topic.

You're one tilt away from being a religious fanatic and a militant atheist whenever you do so. It's exhausting.

See, when one studies the Epic of Gilgamesh, there's no need to deliver the obligatory "no offense intended to anyone's beliefs" but when it comes to Genesis this statement has to come up.

In a more academic and more detached setting, however, the Bible proves to be a very interesting collection of literature in its own right; historians benefit from the study of both its impact and its contents, theologians from its concepts, anthropologists from the values it espouses (often contradictory, though), and philosophers from what it reveals of our own nature.

But in an ordinary setting? No way. I'll be offending Heaven and Hell the moment I open my mouth. I don't believe, and I don't care. I don't want to deliver the same disclaimer over and over only to betray it in my sentiments.

[ajaxfetish]

I consider it
--a historical treasury of immense value
--probably the most influential literary work in the history of mankind
--and a mixture of myth, history, poetry, instruction, and divine revelation written by men but at least in part inspired by God (which is by no means to limit the inspiration of other works, whether religious texts of other faiths or secular works of surpassing beauty and grace).

Ajax

[Spetulhu]

it wasn't my intention to create a does god exist thread, im realy talking about the bible. However, i would like to respond to what you have said, i agree that the old testament has violent imagry that i find uncomfortable and ''ungodly'' however i am focussing on the gospels at the moment as far as what to follow which is a very different message (as i believe you have said).

The thing is, most people around here never read the bible after doing the confirmation ritual at age 15-16. The schooling for that is directed so you don't strike on any hard questions, in fact the OT is left out.

If you marry in church the priest usually gives you a bible for the new home, and it's never opened. Someone who feels really, really emotional about christmas might open his bible and read about the three wise men, but that's pretty close to being classified a religious loon. For most the book is just a symbol, no more to be used for anything than a cross on a chain.

People just assume the bible has something to do with our present-day ethics, when in fact we ignore it in order to do what's right. It's become an embarrasing ball-and-chain for the church, something they wish us to respect but not actually read. Except for the nice parts.

[naut]

I've read large sections of it, and stuff like 2 Kings 2 23-26 turn up every-now-and-then, but it's a matter of deciding for yourself what you take and ignore.

And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. And he went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria.
Your right Spetulhu that many people never read much of the bible.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The thing is, most people around here never read the bible after doing the confirmation ritual at age 15-16. The schooling for that is directed so you don't strike on any hard questions, in fact the OT is left out.

If you marry in church the priest usually gives you a bible for the new home, and it's never opened. Someone who feels really, really emotional about christmas might open his bible and read about the three wise men, but that's pretty close to being classified a religious loon. For most the book is just a symbol, no more to be used for anything than a cross on a chain.

People just assume the bible has something to do with our present-day ethics, when in fact we ignore it in order to do what's right. It's become an embarrasing ball-and-chain for the church, something they wish us to respect but not actually read. Except for the nice parts.

I think it depends on your denomination.

In respect to Rory's point I think it depends on your definition of what is good and what is bad. As early as Plato, if not earlier, the question of the apparent gap between the Good God and Bad World was a contentious one. One explanation is that just like our children we don't know what's good for us. Another is that anything endured with good humour is a good thing.

Another important point to consider is the way in which our ethics have changed. 50 years ago Homosexuality was considered to be entirely negative, now for the most part it is considered acceptable but incest is still wrong.

[naut]

Homosexuality was considered to be entirely negative, now for the most part it is considered acceptable but incest is still wrong.
That's an interesting example, as if you look at other animal species there are many cases of incest, and yet minimal cases of homosexuality. However, incest has significantly more negative health effects when compared with homosexuality.

But, back to the topic at hand:

a mixture of myth, history, poetry, instruction, and divine revelation
I think your entirely right, alot of it was written as songs and poetry, such as the psalms, which are essentially just that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's an interesting example, as if you look at other animal species there are many cases of incest, and yet minimal cases of homosexuality. However, incest has significantly more negative health effects when compared with homosexuality.

Another good example is beastiality, which is also still illegal in many countries. In Britain I believe it is also still illegal to begin a relationship with your son's ex-wife.

Incest is usually a function of restricted breeding stock though, I keep telling my father we need a new Ram.



:thumbsdown:

[rotorgun]

There have been some very intersting views represented here, but if I may comment on just one-the very different messages seemingly presented by the Old Testement, and the new. A careful consideration of both reveals, to me anyhow, that God intended a new "covenant", or rather a contract for his creation. The inclusion of the Torah, and the books of the prohets, Pslams, Proverbs, etc. is to show where faith had been in the past, and Gods relationship to the Jews. The new testament proclaims a new revelation of faith through belief in the person and works of Jesus Christ.

As for how he viewed this dicotomy himself, he claimed " I am come to fulfill the Law, not change it." Then he went on to show by his example how to live a life within the law; a new concept of mercy was displayed, which he felt that the religious authorities were leaving out of thier practice.

[Devastatin Dave]

I liked the part where Jesus found out that Darth Vader was his dad, I mean, right after He cut His fricken arm off!!! Holy crap!!! Never saw that coming...

[Samurai Waki]

If Luke Skywalker is Jesus, and Darth Vader is Jesus' Dad... then Jesus kissed his own sister. :laugh4:

[Devastatin Dave]

If Luke Skywalker is Jesus, and Darth Vader is Jesus' Dad... then Jesus kissed his own sister. :laugh4:
Thats deep man!!! LOL:laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

Incest is usually a function of restricted breeding stock though, I keep telling my father we need a new Ram.

Dare I ask why??

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Because he's tupping his grandaughters.

Not good.