How literal do you take the bible?

dlofnep

I was born into a Roman Catholic family. I guess I fit into the "non-practicing roman catholic" group. What does that entail? Basically, I'll get married in a catholic church, I believe in some of it while not others and go by the church holidays. It suits me.

The reason I'm asking this question is because I've often seen catholic preachers in town splurting off about things that are now no longer relavant in these days and ages. I'm skeptical in nature, but also open-minded so I do take onboard some of the things the bible has for us, but not others. In truth, it's really just a long winded Aesop's Fables.

Back to one of the preachers down town - I argued with him that what he was saying may or may not be true. His response was "It's the word of the lord, of course it's true". I tried to tell him that what he was preaching is a series of chinese whispers that has gone on now for 2000 years and even longer and that alot of it is going to be fabricated and misinterpreted. He didn't buy into this saying that it's the most widepsread religion in the world and that all these people can't be wrong. While his arguments were infact really poor and not level headed, it made me begin to think - How many people actually take the bible literal like this? Do you just read it and say "Yip.. that's what happened" or take for granted that probably the majority of it is either blown out of proportion and fabricated? Do you think outside the box and challenge everything you read?

Excelsior

It would be good for you to lay out which parts are Aesop Fable-esque and which parts have been affected by Chinese Whispers. I am just an amateur but I don't think you'll find any expert willing to side with such a description of the Bible.

The Christian position down through the centuries has been that the Bible is inspired by God and written by men. It was Moses (traditionally the author) who wrote Genesis. His personality, his wording, his decisions. But Christians believe the ideas he had were serving the higher purpose of God.

Scripture itself describes itself as "God-breathed". This is a deliberatlely ambiguous phrase. Air flows over the larynx to make noise and so it is with the Bible- the living breath of God informing every word but actually writing none of them. This makes the Christian idea of Revelation very different to the Islamic interpretation which holds that the Koran is the perfect word of God.

So I hold to that traditional position. No parts of Scripture can be discredited because some parts of society consider it "irrelevant" or "old fashioned". Fashion is not a good basis for disregarding the Bible. But at the same time I have no truck with folks who tell me we should somehow read the Bible "literally" when it tells us no such thing.

fade2black

My ex girlfriend is a born again christian and believes that there was an Adam and Eve...and there was a Noah who made an Ark, and there was a parting of the seas by moses...

This is surely madness?

Excelsior

Why is it madness? So often we get these vague and massive dismissals of people's beliefs without so much as an argument to butress it?

I don't think that hers views are supportable but are there any reasons beyond "what everyone else believes" to back you up in your position?

©® CB

This is a loaded question. I'll start by saying that I was raised in a Christian, however non-denominational, home. We did a lot of church hopping trying to avoid doctrines of man. Currently I attend no services, I haven't picked up my Bible in probably two years (since my divorce) but prior to that had OFTEN dug in to find out for myself when I had questions.

I believe the Bible can best be described as a guide. If you have a question in life I can guarantee you can find the answer there whether it concern diet, lifestyle, politics, love, history, etc...

I do NOT take the words at face value. As stated before, the words were scribed by MEN. These words were then translated by MEN centuries later into our language. These men applied what they knew to what they were reading so that it made sense to them. Think of it this way: the word "gay" today means an entirely different thing than it did just a few decades ago. That's just one example of how language is organic and changes not only over time, but accross distance. I can say "bloody" in my mother's house without having to worry about dirty looks - wouldn't be so if we were from Britain.

Here's an example of my point:

Noah built an ark in preperation for a flood where the water rose less than the height of the ark. For that flood to have covered the whole world, that would've had to have been a VERY tall boat. My current home is at an elevation of about 2800 feet above sea level. In my youth, in Leadville, Colorado, I lived in a house that was over 10,500 feet above sea level. It is literally impossible for the whole world to have flooded, but because of tradition and misinterpretation many people believe it did. I would say there was a devastating regional flood.

Look it up. Do the math. It just couldn't have happened. God is not the author of confusion. Man is. Go back to the original Hebrew. If something doesn't make sense it's usually because of all of the accumulated bias it has picked up through the various translations and versions.

robindch

> This is surely madness?

No, just a lack of thought, which can be sorted out with a blackboard, a piece of chalk and a student who's willing to put in a bit of effort to learn which way is up. Madness is where the hardware's kaput, or, subjectively, where the student's already learnt what's "right" and is unwilling to abandon their simplistic, but comforting, beliefs for some real ones.

patzer117

Just a quick thought on this. Does the Catholic Church not hold the primacy of the Bible to be only in the new testament? Or is that just something i made up to beat my friends in arguements? it'd solve a lot of those problems, but i was almost sure the infallabliity held only for the new testament?

patzer

Excelsior

No. All scripture is god-breathed and the OT and NT are held in equal stature by the Catholic Church. Sorry Patzer.

Excelsior

robindch wrote:

Madness is where the hardware's kaput, or, subjectively, where the student's already learnt what's "right" and is unwilling to abandon their simplistic, but comforting, beliefs for some real ones.

Will we get together to relieve each other of our fundamentalism Robin?

patzer117

Excelsior wrote:

No. All scripture is god-breathed and the OT and NT are held in equal stature by the Catholic Church. Sorry Patzer.

So all that Leviticus stuff is supposed to be true? Right, That's It, I'm definitely no longer a Catholic...

robindch

> Will we get together to relieve each other of our fundamentalism Robin?

Looking forward to it; the first beer's on me.

> Air flows over the larynx to make noise and so it is with the Bible

The finest metaphors rarely halt after a single meaning

Excelsior

Leviticus is held to be equally inspired by God as other works. Its not like with some books God was the only input and for others he was just one of a committee.

But many of the rules and laws of the Levitical Code are overhauled and expanded by the Sermon on the Mount and other events in the New Testament. Leviticus has some great stuff in it (Jubilee for example) but it is shocking to the modern mindset. The Law was never meant to bring you to God but to show up how impossible it is for Man to rise to the level of God. It pointed the way to Grace. When you remember this, the stuff those Levites pushed comes into focus.

wolfsbane

©® CB said:

Noah built an ark in preperation for a flood where the water rose less than the height of the ark. For that flood to have covered the whole world, that would've had to have been a VERY tall boat. My current home is at an elevation of about 2800 feet above sea level. In my youth, in Leadville, Colorado, I lived in a house that was over 10,500 feet above sea level. It is literally impossible for the whole world to have flooded, but because of tradition and misinterpretation many people believe it did. I would say there was a devastating regional flood.

Less than the height of the ark? I think you may misunderstand what the text says: Genesis 7:17 Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.

The 'fifteen cubits upward' was not from the base of the ark, but from the top of the highest hill.

See http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/flood.asp especially: 'Note that the Bible talks about mountains rising (in connection with God’s rainbow promise, so after the Flood): see CEN Technical Journal 12(3):312–313, 1998. Everest has marine fossils at its peak. Therefore, the mountains before the Flood are not those of today. There is enough water in the oceans so that, if all the surface features of the earth were evened out, water would cover the earth to a depth of 2.7 km (1.7 miles). This is not enough to cover mountains the height of Everest, but it shows that the pre-Flood mountains could have been several kilometers high and still be covered.'

©® CB

I'm afraid that I'd have to say that your argument is derived. The problem is that it is an explanation for a presupposed event. It is presupposed that the entire earth was covered with water, so the text is read in such a way and explained in such a way as to verify the presupposition.

However, if one were to approach the text from the viewpoint that the aforementioned presupposition is in violation of the laws of nature, the laws of God's perfect creation, one would be required to dig a little further. Believe you me, I have done this.

Please keep in mind that, as I said before, language is organic. If I translated the German for "What are you doing?" directly into English, for example, it would read: "What make you?" So to translate any language, one must add or detract words in order that the audience may comprehend the material. Unfortunately, the translator all to often lets his or her own presupposition influence the translation.

Now, knowing that translations are fallible and that a flood covering the whole earth is in violation of the laws of God's creation, I dug into the original Hebrew. Please excuse me, as I previously stated it's been a while since I studied, but I'll tell it as I best recall.

The Hebrew word translated as "high" in verse 19 means "haughty." When was the last time you came across an arrogant hill? Doesn't make sense. So that means that the word translated as hill or mountain must mean something else. Look it up. Ahhhh.... it also means nations. Now the Word is replete with instances of God's wrath against arrogant peoples so one must conclude that this is the actual meaning of the story.

God never gave the breath of life to rocks or soil so I doubt that he'd have much interest in destroying them. On top of that, it is further impossible to have carried all of the known species of mammals on an ark of the stated size let alone all the insects, reptiles, amphibians, birds and the like. The presupposition just does not stand up to common sense and I personally believe that God gave us minds so that we might think.

This is the perfect example of why atheists, agnostics, pagans, etc. find Christians to be a laughing stock. All too often we place our faith in the works and traditions of man rather than place our faith in God. We arrogantly try to mold God's wondrous creation to fit what we are told rather than accept that what we're told may be askew from truth.

wolfsbane

©® CB said:

Now, knowing that translations are fallible and that a flood covering the whole earth is in violation of the laws of God's creation, I dug into the original Hebrew.

...

The Hebrew word translated as "high" in verse 19 means "haughty." When was the last time you came across an arrogant hill? Doesn't make sense. So that means that the word translated as hill or mountain must mean something else. Look it up. Ahhhh.... it also means nations.

1. How is a world-wide flood in violation of the laws of God's creation any more than a local flood? One is just bigger than the other.

2. Certainly translations are fallible, but to make the high mountains into nations would mean you alone of all the translators and commentators of the Jews and Christians have got it right. No, the same Hebrew word for high is used to describe something 50 cubits tall in
Esther 5:14 Then his wife Zeresh and all his friends said to him, “Let a gallows be made, fifty cubits high, and in the morning suggest to the king that Mordecai be hanged on it; then go merrily with the king to the banquet.”
And the thing pleased Haman; so he had the gallows made.

When was the last time you saw an arrogant gallows? Or measured arrogance in cubits?

God never gave the breath of life to rocks or soil so I doubt that he'd have much interest in destroying them. On top of that, it is further impossible to have carried all of the known species of mammals on an ark of the stated size let alone all the insects, reptiles, amphibians, birds and the like.

1. He never said that was His purpose - rather it was:
Genesis 6:7 So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
2. How did all the animals fit on noah's Ark? See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp

©® CB

Which puts us right back to the question of how one translates what. Being that language is organic, one can't ever be certain.

So we have a multitude of possible translations. How do we go about discerning which is most likely correct (I say most likely because, until He comes back and we can ask Him, nobody will ever know the truth)? We can best guess it by observing the natural world - the order of things as God created them. Which brings me to my next point:

Dinosaurs on the ark? Wow! And Christians wonder why non-Christians think we are ignorant. Dinosaurs did NOT exist in the time of Noah. That can be scientifically proven. The problem here is one of trying to make the world fit into a tradition rather than basing our traditions on what we can see in God's creation around us. Someone a long time ago read something and took it at face value rather than digging deeper and truely understanding it. Then he/she passed down their misinterpretted version of truth. Those who received that interpretation passed it along in turn and so forth. Soon you have tens of thousands of people believing something that isn't true. But because so many believe it's the truth, a tradition is born.

Believe you me, I don't know the truth. I will never claim to know the truth. What I will claim is that a world wide flood scenario doesn't stand up to scientific investigation so it must not have happened as tradition teaches us. How it happened I can't tell you. But there is nothing any man can do to convince me that things occurred as tradition ascribes. The article at the link above is a perfect example of trying to make God's creation conform to man's traditions. The glaring problem I see with that article is one of physics. Note that in order for a ship to float, the water it displaces must weigh more than the ship and it's contents. Having to stuff that many animals in the ark would have very detrimental effects on sea-worthiness.

On top of that the volumes listed in the article do not account for the necessary structural elements of the ark. They take up space, too. The article takes the given dimensions and makes a big empty box out of them as the available volume. What about the volume of the materials used for construction? Is it safe to assume that Noah just built a big rectangular box? No other boat of antiquety ever discovered had been in the shape of a box. Subtract the volume of the radii of the hull. Now we have even less space. Mulitple decks to accomodate all the cages? Subtract the volume of the the floor material, the beams and the columns to support the floor. Stacked cages on deck? Better have space for medical supplies to address exposure for those animals or many will become very ill and probably die.

There's just too many problems that can't be explained, too many holes in a world wide flood tradition. Enough water to cover the whole world if it was flat? But it wasn't flat. If it were flat, or relatively so, then why do archeological evidence show population centers existing in the same locations that they are today? Wouldn't a relatively flat earth, or just one that was flat enough to accomodate a world flood have a vastly different geography making shorelines, seas, rivers, lakes and the like vastly different then they are today? And if they were vastly different then they are today, why would ancient fishing villages be located on present day sea-side locations?

If the world were flat enough to accomodate world flooding, how come we don't have records, written or oral, of the cataclismic events necessary to create the geography we have today?

You see, there's just too many holes in any story or line of thought trying to prove world flooding and fitting every species of animal on earth in the ark. God's creation is too vast. Use the world that God gave us and you'll see that it's just to impossible. I prefer to put my faith in God rather than the traditions of man.

dlofnep

I don't think anyone would of being in a position to describe anything as worldwide back then. As far as they were aware, Europe existed and Asia was a far off land rarely ventured. The flood idea comes from the idea that there was a retreating Ice Age and the melting ice caused the sea levels to rise. This is perfectly plausible.. It's the bringing animals two by two on the ark that gets me.

Here's another possible explanation. One year there wasalot of rainfall and caused Noah's city to flood.. The river banks burst.. Or even a tsunami brought mass amounts of water.. Noah had a farm and possibly managed to get a couple of his livestock onto a boat. he told it to his kids, they told it to their kids of the day the city flooded. Decades later it was exagerated beyond belief.

Which brings me back to my original point.. How literal do you take the bible? I fail to see how some people can't be open minded and challenge their own faith when a book has been rewritten and translated many times over the duration of 2000 years, and then longer if you consider the old testament.

wolfsbane

©® CB said:

Dinosaurs did NOT exist in the time of Noah. That can be scientifically proven.

That is the matter in dispute. Scientists who hold to the creation account say the contrary.

And if they were vastly different then they are today, why would ancient fishing villages be located on present day sea-side locations?

Because any ancient sites existing today are post-Flood.

If the world were flat enough to accomodate world flooding, how come we don't have records, written or oral, of the cataclismic events necessary to create the geography we have today?

We do. In the Bible and in a corrupted form in the other Flood myths.

Those who received that interpretation passed it along in turn and so forth. Soon you have tens of thousands of people believing something that isn't true. But because so many believe it's the truth, a tradition is born.

Here is the crux for a Christian. You dismiss the Bible record as an erroneous tradition, rather than the God-inspired truth the Lord Jesus claimed it to be.

I prefer to put my faith in God rather than the traditions of man.

Where do you find this God? How do you know He exists or what He is like? Christians find Him revealed in the Bible, His word to man. If the Bible is merely the traditions of men, how can you speak of Him? Is He a god of your imagination or do you look to the Koran or other religious text as holding the true revelation of God?

As to the physical problems with the ark, you can find more details at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp and the links there.

I fear even Christians are willing to interpret Scripture in the light of the current accepted 'truths' of science. We shouldn't be so gullible - the scientists of this world are only men like ourselves, open to prejudices and unfounded presuppositions than bar us from looking at the truth. 'Trust me, I'm a scientist' should not wash with us. All should be tested by the Scripture, if we are true Christians, not Scripture by man's opinions.

Cantab.

Well, unlike Protestants who regard the Bilbe, the written word, as the only source of divine revelation, the Catholic Church considers the written word and spoken word as coming from one and the same source, namely, God Himself.

Anyway the question was, how literal do I take the Bible? Well, as a Catholic I cherish the Bible as the inspired, inerrant, infallible and revealed Word of God. And as was mentioned above, if we didn't believe that, then we might as well put the book back on the shelf (perhaps alongside one of my Roddy Doyle or Meave Binchy books that I got for Christmas).

wolfsbane

dlofnep said:

Which brings me back to my original point.. How literal do you take the bible? I fail to see how some people can't be open minded and challenge their own faith when a book has been rewritten and translated many times over the duration of 2000 years, and then longer if you consider the old testament.

That is the exact point: either one accepts the Bible as the word of God or one takes it as no more than a work of man's imagination, as Cantab points out. If the former, one believes all it asserts; if the latter, treat it as a fairy-story. But in that case it is non-sensical to claim one's faith is based on it.

The Christ of the Bible says 'Scripture cannot be broken', ie., it is God's word and therefore its promises must come to pass. One cannot have Him as Lord and at the same time question His word.

BrianCalgary

Happy New Year All.

To answer the original question. I take the Bible as the inspired word of God. Some of it is historical narrative, some is metaphor, some is poetry and some is life lessons. When reading one has to be aware of the context in which it is written. I have a kid in my Sunday School class that insists on 'King James Only'. Any scholar, I think should be going and researching the original hebrew, greek and aramaic words used before coming to any conclusion.

The Translations are as true as we can get. Our English translations fall into different categories: word for word, idea for idea as examples. Also differences in speaking to cultures. The King James was written to a 17th century audience. Words and expressions are in it that we don't comprehend in our time. Hence the newer translations. When I teach on this I use the phrase "go raith maith agat", word for word to english it doesn't make sense to those with no Irish descent, so we translate it as an idea.

dlofnep

wolfsbane wrote:

dlofnep said:

That is the exact point: either one accepts the Bible as the word of God or one takes it as no more than a work of man's imagination, as Cantab points out. If the former, one believes all it asserts; if the latter, treat it as a fairy-story. But in that case it is non-sensical to claim one's faith is based on it.

That's not under dispute.. It's the possibility of exagerations, misinterperations and mistranslations that you should keep your mind open to. If you see a paragraph that does not sit well with you, don't skip past it.. Read it again and challenge it. I think humans have come far enough now not to believe everything that is thrown at us and to think for themselves while others would be more than happy to have others think for them.

I take the bible as an idea but not completely literal. Just to answer me own question

dlofnep

BrianCalgary wrote:

Happy New Year All.

Happy new year to you too Brian.

Vangelis

Which parts do people take literally and which not?
Is it right to make a selection of parts that you can agree with while dismissing others as humbug/unscientific/unfair etc?
Does it matter to God, you think, which parts you believe in?

©® CB

It's not that one should take parts of the Bible at face value and dismiss others. It's that the Bible as we know it is a compilation of various original inspired works translated into various languages. It is a work of man. The works of man are fallable. So the Bible is rooted in truth, but that truth isn't necessarily easily understood. Because it isn't necessarily easily understood, the vast majority rely on tradition or the interpretation of others. Hence their faith is actually in the works of man which may or may not be in line with God's truth.

BrianCalgary

Hey Vangelis
When reading the Bible ask questions of what you are reading. History is pretty simple to distinguish. Kings, Chronicles, Acts etc. Poetry is easy Psalms, Proverbs, Son of Solomon. The gospels are historical with the teachings of Christ and His ministry. John's gospel focusses more on Christs ministry whereas Luke is big on historical detail. Daniel is prophecy but also history. Mose's books are history and law combined. The Epistles in the New Testament are writings that are generally meant to clear up theological questions posed by various new Christians in new churches.

Figures of speech come into play, Jesus says "I am the door" doesn't mean that He is a brown wooden thing, that is a metaphor for a lesson He is about to teach.

The entire Bible is God's word penned by man. It is infallable, where the infallability lies is in man's interpretation of it. We tend to interpret phrases to suit our own biases or to suit what we want our morality to be. We have a penchant for taking things out of context and ignoring what the writer intended to say and who intended it for.

I think it does matter to God. I have a good friend who is a Christian who takes the first six days of Genesis to be symbolic of six time periods, I lean to the six literal days. i don't think God worries about that. However I know a Jehovah's Witness who can not see Jesus as God. That is something that God does care about. Do you know who He is? I think He also cares about sin and morality, where His is the view that counts, not mine.

He also desires a relationship with mankind. That is part of the unfolding theme of the Bible: Gods redemptive work in the affairs of man. We choose to accept that redemption or reject it. God also gives us the result of our decision ahead of time. Bur He has shown us that there is always hope.

Here endeth the lesson.:)

I hope this answers your question.

UU

Hmmmm...it all seems very interesting - getting different sides to the discussion. As a Unitarian, I take the Bible to be mostly metaphorical and just as an inspiration and guidelines for life. It amazes me how people believe in it literally, looking past the hidden meanings, and believing in fables. Sure couldn't I literally in the ancient Irish fables of Cuchulain, the leprechauns, etc. but I'd be downright mocked!

All the inaccuracies of the Bible and so on, and so forth until you feel as though your head is about to pop and want to throw the Bible into the fire! Enough historical conundrums to keep the scholars in doctoral topics and the rest of us in confusion until the end of time!

Why? Because the gospel stories are full of inaccuracies, logical contradictions and scientific implausibilities. But these aren't present in the text because of unreliable sources, defective memories or mistaken observations; they are there to stop us taking the stories literally. I once read a text by the Great Father Origen from the third century, and it bears repeating here: Absurdities and contradictions appear in the text to force us to look beneath the surface to find the real meaning of the story. This statement should be printed in block capitals on the front cover of every Bible, and it should be tattooed on the forehead of every student of scripture. Unless we take Origen's statement seriously we're at the mercy of squabbling historians and that, ladies and gentlemen, is a terrifying situation to be in as whenever religion falls into the hands of historians it has the life sucked out of it.

Although, I won't condemn historians completely as they have found evidence which really makes one think further. After reading the Da Vinci Code, I couldn't stop thinking! Even though this theory is uncertain, it still makes one think. When historians go over-board, it is dangerous!

006

Excelsior wrote:

Leviticus is held to be equally inspired by God as other works. Its not like with some books God was the only input and for others he was just one of a committee.

But many of the rules and laws of the Levitical Code are overhauled and expanded by the Sermon on the Mount and other events in the New Testament. Leviticus has some great stuff in it (Jubilee for example) but it is shocking to the modern mindset. The Law was never meant to bring you to God but to show up how impossible it is for Man to rise to the level of God. It pointed the way to Grace. When you remember this, the stuff those Levites pushed comes into focus.

Leviticus condemns people who are superficially disfigured and take part in religious ordinance
Children who annoy their parents ,Leviticus says these children should, quite literally, be stoned to death....

wolfsbane

UU said:

I once read a text by the Great Father Origen from the third century, and it bears repeating here: Absurdities and contradictions appear in the text to force us to look beneath the surface to find the real meaning of the story. This statement should be printed in block capitals on the front cover of every Bible, and it should be tattooed on the forehead of every student of scripture.

Origen would not be regarded as a good theologian. His allegorizing of Scripture is scandelous to historic Christianity.

Unless we take Origen's statement seriously we're at the mercy of squabbling historians and that, ladies and gentlemen, is a terrifying situation to be in as whenever religion falls into the hands of historians it has the life sucked out of it.

Quite the contrary: if we took Origen's line, Scripture can mean anything we want it to. But taking it as it was meant to be taken - a sober communication employing the normal literary forms - we can have reasonable hope of understanding it. We may differ in our interpretation in places, but we will try to justify them on the basis that it is God's communication to us, meant to be understood and obeyed by those it applies to.

archdukefranz

006 wrote:

Leviticus condemns people who are superficially disfigured and take part in religious ordinance
Children who annoy their parents ,Leviticus says these children should, quite literally, be stoned to death....

can I get a quote from the bible on that?

archdukefranz

UU wrote:

Hmmmm...it all seems very interesting - getting different sides to the discussion. As a Unitarian, I take the Bible to be mostly metaphorical and just as an inspiration and guidelines for life. It amazes me how people believe in it literally, looking past the hidden meanings, and believing in fables. Sure couldn't I literally in the ancient Irish fables of Cuchulain, the leprechauns, etc. but I'd be downright mocked!

Irish fables present themselves as fables, never presented as anything else
there is historical evidence to say that events in the Bible actually happened.

UU wrote:

All the inaccuracies of the Bible and so on

I don't know of any inaccuracies, I'm sure all us Christians would be ever so greatful if you a good Unitarian would enlighten us as to our 2000 year old folly.

UU wrote:

Although, I won't condemn historians completely as they have found evidence which really makes one think further. After reading the Da Vinci Code, I couldn't stop thinking! Even though this theory is uncertain, it still makes one think. When historians go over-board, it is dangerous!

you do realise that the Da Vinci Code is not only a work of fiction but even the parts that are presented as truth aren't?

006

archdukefranz wrote:

can I get a quote from the bible on that?

Below are the relevant passages.

Lev 24:10 And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father [was] an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish [woman] and a man of Israel strove together in the camp;

Lev 24:11And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name [of the LORD], and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mother's name [was] Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan)


Lev 24:12 And they put him in ward, that the mind of the LORD might be shewed them.


Lev 24:13 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,


Lev 24:14 Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard [him] lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.


Lev 24:15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.


Lev 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, [and] all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name [of the LORD], shall be put to death.


Leviticus 21.Rules for Priests

Lev 21:18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. 22 He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; 23 yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the LORD, who makes them holy. [e] ' "

24 So Moses told this to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites.

Dades

archdukefranz wrote:

I don't know of any inaccuracies, I'm sure all us Christians would be ever so greatful if you a good Unitarian would enlighten us as to our 2000 year old folly.

Inaccuracies do not make the bible a 2000 year old folly. It might be well to drop that notion before you are offered a few choice ones, as no doubt you will by some other regulars here.

Asiaprod

archdukefranz wrote:

Irish fables present themselves as fables, never presented as anything else
there is historical evidence to say that events in the Bible actually happened.

Ok, you made your statement, now prove it. What historical evidence?

robindch

> [archdukefranz] I don't know of any inaccuracies,
> I'm sure all us Christians would be ever so greatful
> if you [...] would enlighten us

Here's a list of 370 contradictions:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

Other sites will have other contradictions for you, if you need more -- google for 'biblican contradictions' and variations.

> [The Atheist] you are offered a few choice ones,
> as no doubt you will by some other regulars here

We aim to please

archdukefranz

006 wrote:

Below are the relevant passages.

Lev 24:10 And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father [was] an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish [woman] and a man of Israel strove together in the camp;

Lev 24:11And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name [of the LORD], and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mother's name [was] Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan)


Lev 24:12 And they put him in ward, that the mind of the LORD might be shewed them.


Lev 24:13 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,


Lev 24:14 Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard [him] lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.


Lev 24:15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.


Lev 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, [and] all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name [of the LORD], shall be put to death.


Leviticus 21.Rules for Priests

Lev 21:18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. 22 He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; 23 yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the LORD, who makes them holy. [e] ' "

24 So Moses told this to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites.

ok you said that children who piss off their parents should be stoned
while this passage has a person who cursed God?

the second part doesn't condemn them but rather forbids them from entering the presense of God, this is no punishment, its just a requirement that the very few people who do enter God's presense are the most able bodied of the group.

archdukefranz

The Atheist wrote:

Inaccuracies do not make the bible a 2000 year old folly. It might be well to drop that notion before you are offered a few choice ones, as no doubt you will by some other regulars here.

he/she implied the Bible was meant to be taken metaphorically, that inaccuracies where put there for the sole purpose of showing people that, it rubishes some of the most basic parts of my belief.

archdukefranz

Asiaprod wrote:

Ok, you made your statement, now prove it. What historical evidence?

I spent 5 seconds of googling

http://www.billpetro.com/HolidayHistory/hol/APPENDIX.html

archdukefranz

robindch wrote:

> [archdukefranz] I don't know of any inaccuracies,
> I'm sure all us Christians would be ever so greatful
> if you [...] would enlighten us

Here's a list of 370 contradictions:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

Other sites will have other contradictions for you, if you need more -- google for 'biblican contradictions' and variations.

> [The Atheist] you are offered a few choice ones,
> as no doubt you will by some other regulars here

We aim to please

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain why each one of those is not a contradiction, please pick your favorites and I will do my best to show you how each one is not a contradiction but rather a misunderstanding by the reader (most likely due to cultural differences) or a mistranslation.

Thorne

archdukefranz wrote:

Irish fables present themselves as fables, never presented as anything else
there is historical evidence to say that events in the Bible actually happened.

Events in the Old Testament, not the New Testament.
The events confirmed are also just historical ones, i.e. nothing especially to do with God.

Excelsior

Thanks 006 for the Levitical quotes. Maybe some quiet rainy day on Boards.ie I'll start a thread on The Gospel in Leviticus. But what you (and our esteemed skeptic Robin) have done is quote a whole bunch of quotes out of context like fundamentalists.

We all bring assumptions to a text. Most people (including fundamentalist Christians) bring an assumption to the Bible that the truth claims made by it and for it must mean that it is written in a modern historical genre. (Modern in the strict sociological sense).

Then it comes to Genesis 1 and they expect the Bible to be of the modern scientific genre. Then they get to Leviticus and they expect it to be a modern legal tract.

All of these assumptions ground a huge amount of the conversation that takes place on this board and they are all utterly faulty. The Bible claims to be true and I believe it to be true but I do not think that truth equates to "from the post-Enlightenment modernist perspective". There was truth before Newton.

So today Torah is often translated to mean "Law" by a modern mindset who is familiar with the idea. (Leviticus is part of Torah). In fact, its historical meaning functions closer to "guideline". This slight contextualisation brings the whole study of Scripture in to focus much more sharply and that little bit of careful open minded work saves you from dismissing a hugely rich document out of hand because lo and behold, Jews 3000 years ago didn't think the same way you do now.

On the issue of the historicity of the Old Testament, I like CS Lewis' offhand comment that the Hebrew Scriptures become increasingly more historic until the New Testament when that which they point to literally becomes historic in the form of a temporal man, Jesus.

When UU and CB and co talk eloquently about the formation of Canon and how the books of the Bible were not couriered from heaven to man they conclude that therefore we should have a hyper suspicion about their claims to divinity. It is certainly true that the Old Testament is often a collation of a number of works into one Canonical form that has drawn heavily from the traditions and stories of other regions and peoples. But why do you conclude out of hand that therefore the Old Testament can't have been inspired by God?

I can understand why Robin, who does not hold to the idea of God in the first place does that and I admire the rigour with which he has formed his opinions. But I can't quite grasp how the agnostics and the unitarians and so on can be so flippant about a claim that I think, particularly through the lens of the New Testament and the historic church, holds a fascinating substantial appeal.

Vangelis

For historical "evidence" if it can be called that, Josephus and Tacitus are the examples I know of, two historians who have both mentioned Jesus in their writings.

Tacitus has written thousands of pages - so searching may take a long time! - and is regarded as a highly reliable source on European history(Romans, Gallicians etc). Whether anyone finds them credible is up to them, but at least they mention Jesus Christ and tell us about his life.

Josephus wrote about the history of the Jews and Israel.

Vangelis

robindch wrote:

Here's a list of 370 contradictions:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

I have checked more than half of the statements on that page with my Bible and find there are no contradictions. There appears to be so however to someone who doesn't know the passages in question because every verse is taken out of context - selectively, I suspect. It's a ridiculous site. It swarms with misquotation and that's embarrassing on behalf of Bible-critics.

archdukefranz

Thorne wrote:

Events in the Old Testament, not the New Testament.
The events confirmed are also just historical ones, i.e. nothing especially to do with God.

I'm not sure what you are refering to?
You are saying there is no evidence for the event in the NT
or that you wish for evidence for the events in the OT?

Yes these are to prove that the Bible is a valid historical document...

robindch

> what you (and our esteemed skeptic Robin) have done is quote
> a whole bunch of quotes out of context like fundamentalists.

I disagree that I quote out-of-context. While some of the stuff up on the skepticsannotatedbible is complete tosh, there are still plenty of serious questions which raised by it which have not yet found answers -- see the other thread.

> I can understand why Robin, who does not hold to the idea of
> God in the first place

Clearing up this briefly again -- I don't deny the existence of god any more than I deny the existence of anything else for which there is no good evidence one way or the other. The old adage that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is worth bearing in mind here.

However, I do believe that (a) religions are explicable as cultural artefacts; (b) any god would be a rather more intelligent and less belligerent creature than what's portrayed in the OT; and (c) if the creator of the universe was going to send a messenger, I think he'd be far more intelligent than Christ is portrayed as (whose 'biography' in the NT I find dismally witless).

Excelsior

Dismally witless? I love it. I am also fascinated by how you come to that conclusion. But that is for another day...

I think your question about how many Gods there are has been very adequately treated in the other thread. Are there other questions that thou would endeavour to elevate from the Annotated Bible of Skeptics, yea verily?

wolfsbane

Excelsior said:

We all bring assumptions to a text. Most people (including fundamentalist Christians) bring an assumption to the Bible that the truth claims made by it and for it must mean that it is written in a modern historical genre. (Modern in the strict sociological sense).

Then it comes to Genesis 1 and they expect the Bible to be of the modern scientific genre. Then they get to Leviticus and they expect it to be a modern legal tract.

I'm certainly confused as to what you mean by this. When I come to Genesis I read what I take to be an historical account of creation. When I come to Revelation I read what I take to be a symbolic and metaphorical fore-telling of things to come. When I come to Leviticus I read what I take to be a legal and ceremonial code that was given to the nation.

I know you believe we should take the Genesis account of creation as metaphor. Are you also saying the Levitical laws were not meant to be understood and enforced by Israel as their legal code? That idolaters were not to be executed? That adulterers were to be ignored? How do you think the people of Moses' day were to understand Leviticus?

Vangelis

robindch wrote:

(b) any god would be a rather more intelligent and less belligerent creature than what's portrayed in the OT;

Oh, had you known how intelligent he really is!

and (c) if the creator of the universe was going to send a messenger, I think he'd be far more intelligent than Christ is portrayed as (whose 'biography' in the NT I find dismally witless).

Why was Jesus unintelligent? Did you give him an IQ test? No?

archdukefranz

robindch wrote:

> what you (and our esteemed skeptic Robin) have done is quote
> a whole bunch of quotes out of context like fundamentalists.

I disagree that I quote out-of-context. While some of the stuff up on the skepticsannotatedbible is complete tosh, there are still plenty of serious questions which raised by it which have not yet found answers -- see the other thread.

> I can understand why Robin, who does not hold to the idea of
> God in the first place

Clearing up this briefly again -- I don't deny the existence of god any more than I deny the existence of anything else for which there is no good evidence one way or the other. The old adage that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is worth bearing in mind here.

However, I do believe that (a) religions are explicable as cultural artefacts; (b) any god would be a rather more intelligent and less belligerent creature than what's portrayed in the OT; and (c) if the creator of the universe was going to send a messenger, I think he'd be far more intelligent than Christ is portrayed as (whose 'biography' in the NT I find dismally witless).

what makes you think Jesus was witless?

robindch

> what makes you think Jesus was witless?

I didn't say that he was witless. I said that his portrayal in the NT is witless.

To which I should add that I find it, at best, two-dimensional as well, but, with the exception of Plato's biopics, that was how biographies were generally written at the time, so it's to be expected.

Though I always rather liked what I think are the only two jokes in the NT, both attributed to Christ, namely the "leave the dead to bury the dead" gag (what a pure expression of Cynic philosophy!), and the slightly laboured "Tu es petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo..." line. So perhaps witless is inaccurate and "almost completely witless" might be closer.

archdukefranz

robindch wrote:

> what makes you think Jesus was witless?

I didn't say that he was witless. I said that his portrayal in the NT is witless.

To which I should add that I find it, at best, two-dimensional as well, but, with the exception of Plato's biopics, that was how biographies were generally written at the time, so it's to be expected.

Though I always rather liked what I think are the only two jokes in the NT, both attributed to Christ, namely the "leave the dead to bury the dead" gag (what a pure expression of Cynic philosophy!), and the slightly laboured "Tu es petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo..." line. So perhaps witless is inaccurate and "almost completely witless" might be closer.

I don't speak latin... mind translating?

Actually even when you are speaking in English I have difficulty understanding you, how is this answering my question?
Perhaps I should rephrase the question, what in the NT makes you think Jesus was almost completely witless?