The Bible, Man's book or God's Word?

reply to post by The Riley Family

they would rather worship the created things rather than the creator. When will we come to our senses?

But there's no evidence for a creator. The so-called "Created" exist all around us, animals, plants, mountains, we can see the creation and sense it and measure it as part of objective reality. But there's no evidence for the so-called creator. Why worship something for which there is no evidence? Why even believe in something for which there is no evidence?

If you think God is wrong for allowing animals to die though he can raise them up again.

I don't think death is evidence for God's negligence or absence. I think that the Bible stories depicting God engaging directly in sinful behavior such as murder are certainly not depicting a real deity, if they were that deity would be evil.

Are you that much better than a monkey?

Being a human I was raised in an anthropocentric culture, most people only care about animals similar in intelligence to us. For instance we don't think twice about doing away with a spider but when it comes to Dolphins most of us wouldn't even dream about bringing harm to them.

Am I much better than a monkey, no, in fact we evolved from them, monkeys evolved into apes and we are apes and in some sense are even still monkeys. However nature practices survival of the fittest, a lion would not have any remorse in chomping down on you if he was hungry, why should I then, also being an animal, feel bad when I bite into a cheeseburger or hear about lab animals being used help to cure cancer?

If you have that right what right do you have to judge something much greater than the difference between us and a monkey?

If God truly made us in his image than he must look like one of us, he must appear like an APE and apes aren't far from monkeys. Also, I am judging a religious doctrine, a claim made by Christians that the Bible is the Word of God. I'm not judging God, merely the stories about him as created by MEN.

[edit on 23-6-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by The Riley Family

 

Why even believe in something for which there is no evidence?

Well I knew a gentleman who was in an automobile accident. His prognosis, based on "evidence" I suppose, was he was paralyzed and would never again regain use of his limbs. So with their "evidence" they weren't even going to bother trying to see if he would be capable of walking again. Even though I had little support I helped him out and within two years he was walking again. Everyone thought I was giving him false hope and based my opinion as one with no evidence. I did not know if the person was going to walk or not but I knew I had some ideas that would give him a chance and I acted on them. My ideas were based on evidence that I saw, understood, and experienced but my family has received very little support up to this point. I would think I now have some evidence that we are capable of helping others achieve things many thought was not possible because We have continued to help a variety of others accomplish things that there seems to be evidence in the contrary. Even though we keep proving the supposed "evidence" non evident. So why do they keep putting people in a box and label it disabled? They seem to think they have the evidence but you would think they would be glad to be proven wrong and jump on board to help more. If a person maybe capable of accomplishing more than you thought why not try? Some do I hope but it isn't enough that is for sure. So if medical science says "you will never walk" was it really credible evidence in the first place if the person actually does? So then just because one may think there is evidence does it make it so? Or just because the evidence is not known or understood does it nullify the possibility?

I think that the Bible stories depicting God engaging directly in sinful behavior such as murder are certainly not depicting a real deity, if they were that deity would be evil.

Well that would boil down to ones perception and understanding of the whole scenario. If someone from another planet was raising humans for food and earth was the coop. How would you hold them anymore responsible for their actions than a cow or a chicken would hold a human? The chicken may think a human is horrible for the murder of its kind but the human thinks the chicken is tasty and bears no responsibility or feelings of being murdurous. Who would hold him accountable for eating his own chicken? Like you said here

most people only care about animals similar in intelligence to us. For instance we don't think twice about doing away with a spider but when it comes to Dolphins most of us wouldn't even dream about bringing harm to them.
Am I much better than a monkey, no, in fact we evolved from them, monkeys evolved into apes and we are apes and in some sense are even still monkeys. However nature practices survival of the fittest, a lion would not have any remorse in chomping down on you if he was hungry, why should I then, also being an animal, feel bad when I bite into a cheeseburger or hear about lab animals being used help to cure cancer?

So why judge a God for his actions? If you have no remorse for the killing of another species why should he? You claimed that he said he made man in his image.

If God truly made us in his image than he must look like one of us, he must appear like an APE and apes aren't far from monkeys.

Sounds like Doctrine and not scripture. Besides a clay image of someone is still clay isn't it? It wouldn't make the artist nor the subject clay would it? I think you could be more scientific about it. It seems your being rather biased yourself when it comes to looking at the scriptures.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by The Riley Family

 

I am judging a religious doctrine, a claim made by Christians that the Bible is the Word of God. I'm not judging God, merely the stories about him as created by MEN.

Yes you are judging the religious doctrine however you are judging the scriptures based on the interpretations made by the same religions that can't even agree amongst themselves on the interpretations. Are their interpretations even remotely credible or reasonable any way?

Do you interpret the bible the same way they do? Or do you interpret it more scientifically?

[edit on 23-6-2010 by The Riley Family]

reply to post by The Riley Family

Do you interpret the bible the same way they do? Or do you interpret it more scientifically?

Neither. I interpret it as a collection of myths and stories that contain elements of philosophy (Proverbs, Jesus's teachings), morals (Ten Commandments), and poetry (Psalms, Song of Solomon) as well as an attempt to give the Hebrews a comprehensive history (the 5 books of Moses).

To me the Bible is no more valid than Norse Myth, Egyptian Myth, Hindu Myth, Greek Myth, etc.

Don't get me wrong though I do use the claims they make about the Bible to debunk it and my evidence based view of the world does come into play. More often than not though I use the Bible itself, the words contained within it, to debunk it. It really is that simple, the Bible defeats itself when it comes to the question I put forward in the title of the OP.

[edit on 23-6-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by The Riley Family

 

Don't get me wrong though I do use the claims they make about the Bible to debunk it

Yes you do attempt this and it does debunk their claims they make but all your proving is their claims are debunkable. That does not disprove the Bible. Instead it rather supports the fact that the bible already debunks their claims. The bible states they would be making the claims they make. Your a little behind.

and my evidence based view of the world does come into play.

You haven't answered my question on evidence yet. But if you applied your evidence based view scriptuarally instead of the church doctrines view to interpret the bible you might be onto something. Seems to be a better scientific method?

More often than not though I use the Bible itself, the words contained within it, to debunk it. It really is that simple, the Bible defeats itself when it comes to the question I put forward in the title of the OP.

I haven't seen that yet all I have seen is debunking it from a Christian point of view. Would that be evidence you may be a Christian?

[edit on 23-6-2010 by The Riley Family]

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


What your saying is that the Bible has defeated you. You dont have the knowledge to see the nonsense and the truth. You just see the nonsense. And that is your conclusion.

The Bible is full of nonsense and truths. But that does not make the bible total nonsense. But the question is, what truth have you been looking for, and what truths have you being comparing it to?

If nonsense is the truth you have been looking for. Than you have found it, because that is there as well. So at least you have found one set of facts.

Do you think you have the knowledge to find the truth? If you have found the nonsense, you have only completed a part of it. You still have to find the truth you base the nonsense on.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by spy66

The Bible is full of nonsense and truths. But that does not make the bible total nonsense.

Not all of it. Certainly there are handfuls of wisdom scattered within it. Many of the Proverbs and certainly much of Jesus's teachings contain actual wisdom.

The area in which it defeats itself is the claim that it is the Word of God. I never said that makes the entire book junk, in fact I said I consider it just as worth while as other forms of myth. I didn't mean that as an insult to the Bible, I like myth - my issue is just when people claim its something MORE than myth, something perfect or divine.

Romans 1:18-22

Pretty much sums it up.

Gday TS,

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
The Bible does identify itself as God's Word though.

2nd Timothy 3:16-17 says all scripture is "God-Breathed".

The Bible doesn't need to actually make the claim in order to question it because the Believers are claiming it. The Bible speaks for itself and I think it resoundingly fails to be the Word of God as believers claim it is.

But you probably know there are problems with that passage :

(2 Tim 3:16 KJV)
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


Christians love to quote this passage as if it proves the Bible is inpired, but there are several serious problems with this passage :

2 Tim 3:16 is ambiguous

The meaning of 2 Tim 3:16 is ambiguous in the Greek because the "is" is not found in Greek.

Here is Young's literal translation, which hedges it's bets by including "is" not found in the original :

16 every Writing ('is') God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that ('is') in righteousness,

Here is the literal translation without the fudged "is" :

16 every Writing God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that in righteousness,


Here is what essay on bible.org says about the variant translation :
"Such a translation is possible, but not required. Actually either translation can claim to be accurate. Both translations have to supply the word is since it does not appear in the original."
www.bible.org...


Some Bible versions do have the variant :

(2 Tim 3:16 REB) All inspired scripture has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, or for reformation of manners and discipline in right living,

(2 Tim 3:16 Lamsa) All scripture written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness;

(2 Tim 3:16 NEB) Every inspired scripture has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, or for reformation of manners and discipline in right living,

(2 Tim 3:16 ASV) Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.

(2 Tim 3:16 YLT) every Writing [is] God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that [is] in righteousness,

(2 Tim 3:16 Darby) Every scripture [is] divinely inspired, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;

(2 Tim 3:16 WYC) For all scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to chastise, [for] to learn in rightwiseness,

(2 Tim 3:16 Douay-Rheims) All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:

(2 Tim 3:16 Webster's) All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

(2 Tim 3:16 Inspired Version) And all scripture given by inspiration of God, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;

(2 Tim 3:16 Brown and Comfort Interlinear) ALL SCRIPTURE [IS] GOD-BREATHED AND USEFUL FOR TEACHING, FOR REPROOF, FOR CORRECTION FOR TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS,

GNT's note at 2 Timothy 3:16 that gives "Every scripture inspired by God is also useful" as a valid translation (and one that implies that not all scripture is inspired).

Note that apologists never quote this version of the translation, because it doesn't say what they want it to.


New Testament didn't exist when Timothy was written

It is basic Christian history that the NT did not exist when Timothy was written. Timothy was written in early-mid 2nd century (mid 1st according to Christian stories though) But the NT did not exist as a collection until 4th century.

Timothy could not possibly have been cailling ITSELF "scripture" as it was being written, could it ?


Timothy is a forged letter

It is a well known consensus of NT scholars that the Pastorals were forged letters, not by Paul. You can read some details here as to why :
earlychristianwritings.com...
An excerpt follows :

2 Timothy is one of the three epistles known collectively as the pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). They were not included in Marcion's canon of ten epistles assembled c. 140 CE. Against Wallace, there is no certain quotation of these epistles before Irenaeus c. 170 CE.

Norman Perrin summarises four reasons that have lead critical scholarship to regard the pastorals as inauthentic (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 264-5):

Vocabulary. While statistics are not always as meaningful as they may seem, of 848 words (excluding proper names) found in the Pastorals, 306 are not in the remainder of the Pauline corpus, even including the deutero-Pauline 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. Of these 306 words, 175 do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, while 211 are part of the general vocabulary of Christian writers of the second century. Indeed, the vocabulary of the Pastorals is closer to that of popular Hellenistic philosophy than it is to the vocabulary of Paul or the deutero-Pauline letters. Furthermore, the Pastorals use Pauline words ina non-Pauline sense: dikaios in Paul means "righteous" and here means "upright"; pistis, "faith, " has become "the body of Christian faith"; and so on.

Literary [myspace]style[/myspace]. Paul writes a characteristically dynamic Greek, with dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts, and the introduction of real or imaginary opponents and partners in dialogue. The Pastorals are in a quiet meditative [myspace]style[/myspace], far more characteristic of Hebrews or 1 Peter, or even of literary Hellenistic Greek in general, than of the Corinthian correspondence or of Romans, to say nothing of Galatians.

The situation of the apostle implied in the letters. Paul's situation as envisaged in the Pastorals can in no way be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul's life and work as we know it from the other letters or can deduce it from the Acts of the Apostles. If Paul wrote these letters, then he must have been released from his first Roman imprisonment and have traveled in the West. But such meager tradition as we have seems to be more a deduction of what must have happened from his plans as detailed in Romans than a reflection of known historical reality.

The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholocism. The arguments presented above are forceful, but a last consideration is overwhelming, namely that, together with 2 Peter, the Pastorals are of all the texts in the New Testament the most distinctive representatives of the emphases of emergent Catholocism. The apostle Paul could no more have written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter.


Kap

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Certainly you can not, with a clear conscious, and a mind free of Cognitive Dissonance, believe in a God who kills, or condones the killing of, innocent people and yet is equated with Love and Righteousness and Mercy.

How can a merciful, loving God kill or condone the killing of innocents? This is a question posed by many throughout history. The short answer is, He doesn’t. The long answer can only be found by a thorough reading and understanding of the Bible.

The Bible: A Novel Idea

Have you read a good novel lately? When you did, did you jump around choosing chapters by random, or did you start at the beginning and read to the end? Most of us would never entertain the idea that a book can be understood by reading only parts, yet that is exactly what we do with the Bible. We start with the flood and wonder how the main character (God) could destroy the world. Yet, when we read from the beginning of the book and understand what takes place up to that point, it makes better sense. Like a novel, the Bible tells a complete story. Unlike a novel, the Bible cannot be completely understood with one casual reading. Many men and women spend their lives studying and trying to understand this book.

One of the hardest parts of understanding the Bible is to understand the main character, God. Who or what is the God of the Bible. We as finite beings are limited by our own understanding. We try to understand concepts such as holy, infinite, or multidimensional, when we are none of these. We long to understand concepts such as quantum physics or spirituality. Yet we are bound in a physical body in a three (or four) dimensional existence.

We are spoiled by our choices of entertainment. Most television programs tell a complete story in about 45 minutes, and a movie takes about two hours. However, we know that in real life, these stories would take place over months or years. If we don’t have time to read a novel, we read the Cliff notes or find a synopsis on the internet. One of my favorite novel series is The Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan (and Brandon Sanderson.) Book 13 is due to be released in November of this year. Book one was released in 1990 about twenty years ago and the whole series covers a time period of only a few years. The Bible is a collection of writings which were penned over a few thousand years and covers a time period of over 6,000 years.

So to answer your question in depth and detail would take more time and space than either of us have. My challenge to you and others who would pose these questions is; read the book. Start at the beginning with a Strong’s Concordance or use a free Strong’s on the net. The Bible was not written in English, it was written in Hebrew. It is only through understanding the original language that you learn such gems like the words translated as night and day also mean chaos and order. Keep in mind that what isn’t said can be as important as what is said. And don’t expect to find your answer in 45 minutes with no commercial interruptions.


[edit on 6/24/2010 by darkelf]

Originally posted by darkelf
Have you read a good novel lately? When you did, did you jump around choosing chapters by random, or did you start at the beginning and read to the end? Most of us would never entertain the idea that a book can be understood by reading only parts, yet that is exactly what we do with the Bible. We start with the flood and wonder how the main character (God) could destroy the world. Yet, when we read from the beginning of the book and understand what takes place up to that point, it makes better sense. Like a novel, the Bible tells a complete story. Unlike a novel, the Bible cannot be completely understood with one casual reading. Many men and women spend their lives studying and trying to understand this book.

I am curious if you have ever read the bible. You might note that it is not one continuous narrative laid out over multiple chapters. It is a collection of related and unrelated separate stories. The bible is an anthology, not a novel.

Well you could say the bible is the first book of the elite. The Levites had a pretty good thing going in the OLd Testament. They sat around in there holy robes and got the best ten percent of the other 11 tribes. That would be ten percent more then any other tribe and the best of them all. Levites even got to make the rules that every body else had to follow. So were the Levites the elite?

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


how about origianl stories told by men who lived with aliens who had tricked man into believing they were gods..so in all actuality mans book aliens word!

reply to post by darkelf

When you did, did you jump around choosing chapters by random, or did you start at the beginning and read to the end?

It doesn't matter the novels I read do not claim to be the Word of God. If the Bible were the word of God EVERY sentence and statement would be true. However do not think for a second that I am taking these stories out of context, far from it, I am saying that even IN context they don't make sense. I also noticed, back when I was a Christian, that it was typically priests and pastors who jumped around a lot and they almost never brought up the problematic passages I mention in the OP (especially Deuteronomy 22).

Yet, when we read from the beginning of the book and understand what takes place up to that point, it makes better sense.

No it doesn't. What part of a loving God revoking mercy from all human and animal life in order to drown them in a flood makes sense? If God is merciful he might have considered other options, perhaps sending in Jesus right away to wash away sins - sending in Jesus that early also increases the chance that everyone on Earth will be converted because the religion has a longer time to spread before Jesus "return".

Its just a story and it shows itself as such, even in context.

Like a novel, the Bible tells a complete story.

If the Bible is a novel than it has one of the most evil main characters ever. The God of the Bible is a bipolar tyrant - one moment killing and smiting and the next offering everlasting mercy. If the Bible is a novel it is one of the most incoherent novels I've ever read. What it IS is a collection of scattered ancient texts decided upon by a series of committee decisions after it was co-opted by the Romans.

Who or what is the God of the Bible

I think this one is pretty obvious, he's just another deity that we humans made up. He's a fictional character and he's being portrayed by dozens of different authors so it makes sense for their to be discrepancy in his characterization.

My challenge to you and others who would pose these questions is; read the book.

I've done that and there is NOTHING that made more a difference in me losing my faith than reading the whole book (though I did skip over the begat begat begat genealogy parts). The book is a real mess when taken as a whole.

It is only through understanding the original language that you learn such gems like the words translated as night and day also mean chaos and order.

The thread is about it being the Word of God and I think I've shown that it is most certainly not. I've gotten all the wisdom I care to from the book and have no real desire to read it in the original languages.


reply to post by metalholic



I've heard of the ancient astronaut theory. The issue there is that we must then also assume that EVERY ancient deity we see mentioned in the Bible and elsewhere in the ancient world is an extraterrestrial. This doesn't make sense because many are given characteristics specific of EARTHLY phenomenon (such as lightning, volcanoes, etc).

Its a fun idea but there just isn't any evidence for it.

[edit on 24-6-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

reply to post by K J Gunderson


I have been reading and studying the Bible for years. Although it was written by a number of different people, there is a continuous thread that runs through it. If you don't know the back story, you might not understand the random story you are reading.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


How can you determine if it is the Word of God or the word of man without a thorough indepth study of the Bible? Have you read the Bibile from cover to caover? Have you studied the Bible in depth? Men and women spend their entire lives studying this work. And many of them disagree with each other as to what it actually says and what it actually means. It all boils down to perspective. I believe that the Bible is God inspired and some of it may actually be the exact words of God. But I but my faith and trust in God, not the book.

reply to post by darkelf

Have you read the Bibile from cover to caover?

Yes.

However in determining whether it is really the perfect Word of God one does not need to be in depth. What an absurd statement. If it were perfect and divine it would be OBVIOUS, every story within its pages would be there to teach us a valuable lesson or strengthen our connection with the divine. There would be no absurdities, no historical or scientific inaccuracies, it wouldn't be open to interpretation or mistranslation. It would be, by definition, inerrant and that is precisely what proponents CLAIM it is.

I read the book all the way through once in my late teens and since then I have never stopped looking at it. Just look at how long this thread is, and how old it is. I read more Bible verses on a daily basis than the average Christian.

It all boils down to perspective.

If it were God's word there would be but one perspective - GODS.

But I but my faith and trust in God, not the book.

I'm glad to hear you didn't fall into the trap of confusing a book for your deity. Unfortunately others in the Christian faith are not so lucky, they defend this idol, this book, as if it were God himself and I suspect that if God himself descended and rebuked the Bible they would defend it even then!

Originally posted by darkelf
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

I have been reading and studying the Bible for years. Although it was written by a number of different people, there is a continuous thread that runs through it. If you don't know the back story, you might not understand the random story you are reading.

That is just silly double talk. If you have read even a little bit of the bible, you know it in no way shares structure or form with a coherent novel. It has contradictory stories as well as multiple versions of the same events. Chapters end with no correlation to where the next begins. It is not a novel.

I do not disagree reading the entire book helps but it is still not one cohesive story. Sorry but it is not. You cannot demonstrate or even argue that it is so please do not use false analogies. The only thing worse than a blind zealot is ANY religious person that uses distortion to get me closer to their god.

I have read the bible. You are not going to talk down to me as some ignorant plebe and expect me to humble take your word. I read it. It is not a novel. Trying to use it as such in an analogy is a poor attempt. There is not one singular thread that runs through the entire book, there are many. You just really like one.

The bible is the greatest actuality book of mankind,If you put aside the spiritual stuff there's good stories in there.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
However in determining whether it is really the perfect Word of God one does not need to be in depth. What an absurd statement. If it were perfect and divine it would be OBVIOUS, every story within its pages would be there to teach us a valuable lesson or strengthen our connection with the divine. There would be no absurdities, no historical or scientific inaccuracies, it wouldn't be open to interpretation or mistranslation. It would be, by definition, inerrant and that is precisely what proponents CLAIM it is.

Which is why I suggested the Strong's Concordance. Much of the descrepancies have to do with improper translation. I don't believe any translation is perfect and I don't believe that the translations are divinly inspired. I believe much of the inacuracies have to do with the translators trying to decide which meaning of a Hebrew word fits with the context.