Why is the Bible so imperfect?

Standman

If god created the universe, matter, all the stars and planets and complex molecules and elements and beautiful things such as flowers and trees and the perfect harmony of nature, does the vastly inferior way in which the bible was written not raise any Christians suspicion's that just maybe it is not the "word of the lord"?

Would a book written by such an awesomely, incomprehendably omniscient and omnipotent being not be the most amazing and mind-blowing book ever written? Or, at least should it not be so confusing that countless wars and murders and injustices have come out of the "mis-interpretation" of its texts?

How could a book written by such a being even be open to mis-interpretation?

Why did god even need a holy book? Could he not have just programmed it into our brains so we would all know the truth from the day we were born?

SlickRic

Standman wrote: »

If god created the universe, matter, all the stars and planets and complex molecules and elements and beautiful things such as flowers and trees and the perfect harmony of nature, does the vastly inferior way in which the bible was written not raise any Christians suspicion's that just maybe it is not the "word of the lord"?

Would a book written by such an awesomely, incomprehendably omniscient and omnipotent being not be the most amazing and mind-blowing book ever written? Or, at least should it not be so confusing that countless wars and murders and injustices have come out of the "mis-interpretation" of its texts?

How could a book written by such a being even be open to mis-interpretation?

Why did god even need a holy book? Could he not have just programmed it into our brains so we would all know the truth from the day we were born?

with all due respect you obviously haven't read it through...it's a superbly put together series of books, letters and poems. Yes it's confusing, and yes it takes a LOT of work in interpreting, reading back, looking for contexts and meanings. Its going to get complicated for our inferior minds without further study.

Reading stories here and there will not enable you to understand the entire Bible unfortunately. It's too vast. It takes years of study to understand fully...and before you ask, I'm nowhere near understanding it fully.

Oh, and in response to your last point...if He were to do that we'd ultimately have no free will. He's given us more credit than perhaps we're due and trusts us to discover and respond to the truth

iUseVi

SlickRic wrote: »

with all due respect you obviously haven't read it through...it's a superbly put together series of books, letters and poems. Yes it's confusing, and yes it takes a LOT of work in interpreting, reading back, looking for contexts and meanings. Its going to get complicated for our inferior minds without further study.

Reading stories here and there will not enable you to understand the entire Bible unfortunately. It's too vast. It takes years of study to understand fully...and before you ask, I'm nowhere near understanding it fully.

Oh, and in response to your last point...if He were to do that we'd ultimately have no free will. He's given us more credit than perhaps we're due and trusts us to discover and respond to the truth

You telling me you enjoyed the genealogies?!! :D

DISCLAIMER: This is a joke. END DISCLAIMER

SlickRic

pure torture, i'll give ya that :pac:

Standman

SlickRic wrote: »

Oh, and in response to your last point...if He were to do that we'd ultimately have no free will. He's given us more credit than perhaps we're due and trusts us to discover and respond to the truth

Not neccessarily, we could still know it and then choose not to believe it.

PDN

Standman wrote: »

Would a book written by such an awesomely, incomprehendably omniscient and omnipotent being not be the most amazing and mind-blowing book ever written?

Yes. I think it is the most amazing and mind-blowing book ever written. That is why it is the best selling book ever.

countless wars and murders and injustices have come out of the "mis-interpretation" of its texts?

I'll give you injustices, but not countless wars and murders. The wars and murders come from man's greed and lust for power. Religion is sometimes used as a flag of convenience for war or murder, but in order to do so you have to ignore bits of the Bible that are clear and unambiguous.

SlickRic

Standman wrote: »

Not neccessarily, we could still know it and then choose not to believe it.

absolutely...at no point did i say that wasn't your prerogative. I'm giving you my perspective as a Christian who believes that it's 'truth'. The term wasn't meant to sound preachy, just a way of communicating my perspective

Akrasia

PDN wrote: »

Yes. I think it is the most amazing and mind-blowing book ever written. That is why it is the best selling book ever.


I'll give you injustices, but not countless wars and murders. The wars and murders come from man's greed and lust for power. Religion is sometimes used as a flag of convenience for war or murder, but in order to do so you have to ignore bits of the Bible that are clear and unambiguous.

like the book of joshua?

PDN

Akrasia wrote: »

like the book of joshua?

At the time of the events described in the book of Joshua the Bible didn't exist, so you can hardly claim that those events were caused by the misinterpretation of the Bible.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

The wars and murders come from man's greed and lust for power. Religion is sometimes used as a flag of convenience for war or murder, but in order to do so you have to ignore bits of the Bible that are clear and unambiguous.

To continue from earlier on -- ...except for those wars and murders which were in the bible and which were clearly either carried out by god, or done with his blessing.

Either god approves of killing (as we can see from the text) or he disapproves of it (as you claim). He can't do both, unfortunately.

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

Yes. I think it is the most amazing and mind-blowing book ever written. That is why it is the best selling book ever.

Umm, no, I'll say the bible has some merit but I have to call you on this point.

It's the best selling book ever not because it's such a great read but because every Christian has one because it is "canon".

There are a lot of Christians. Hence lots of bibles.

Now if only they all read them.

StanMcConnell

robindch wrote: »

Either god approves of killing (as we can see from the text) or he disapproves of it (as you claim). He can't do both, unfortunately.

The difference is that the deaths in Joshua were directly mandated by God.
God telling his people to kill isn't the same as giving them permission to kill.

If God is really God, then he has the right to kill or give life.

Also, the word war is being used in this thread as if war is some great evil. It's sometimes necessary. That being said, religion shouldn't be a reason for war.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Yes. I think it is the most amazing and mind-blowing book ever written. That is why it is the best selling book ever.

Well the second best selling book ever is Chairman Mao's "Little Red Book", one of the most evil men in history, and the best selling UK single ever is "Candle In The Wind" by Elton John. Sales does not neccesarily equal quality.

Also despite everyone owning a Bible very few actually read it. I'd say most Christians who actually do read it completely skip the Old Testament and read the Nativity and Passion of Jesus and skip all the boring middle bits.

Zombrex

StanMcConnell wrote: »

The difference is that the deaths in Joshua were directly mandated by God.
God telling his people to kill isn't the same as giving them permission to kill.

If God is really God, then he has the right to kill or give life.

Also, the word war is being used in this thread as if war is some great evil. It's sometimes necessary. That being said, religion shouldn't be a reason for war.

Possibly not, but the men PDN referred to lusting after money and power often using the claim that God told them to kill (as he told Moses etc), and this was believed by the followers. The Popes are a good example of this.

So you have many places in the Bible where God, though a representative on Earth, tells his followers to go out and kill, destroy, genocide, "enemies" or people who displease God.

Then you have many examples of later people claiming to be representatives of God on Earth claiming that God has told them go and kill, destroy, genocide etc etc.

Most of the time the Hebrew soldiers were not directly told by God anything, they were told through their leaders, who claimed direct communication with God (as leaders often do). And they followed their leaders because the soldiers believed they did have communication with God (and wouldn't you follow God's representatives on Earth? This is a perfectly acceptable way to wage war in the Old Testament.

StanMcConnell

Wicknight, I completely agree.

The issue is really whether the men in power really have the authority they claim. While wars are generally not waged in the name of Christianity (Iraq was more about fear and just happened to be from a "Christian" nation), it's still common to see teacher and pastor s misuse scripture to justify and encourage greed.

Zombrex

StanMcConnell wrote: »

The issue is really whether the men in power really have the authority they claim.

Well this issue is that since God has used this method so much in the past, it certainly opens the door to the idea that he would use it again.

Being an atheist I don't think Moses or Joshua were talking to God any more than the warring Popes were. I imagine most Christians accept that they were because it is in the Bible, and they believe the Bible is infallible.

But the Hebrew soldiers at the time didn't have the Bible to go one. Assume these stories are factual, they must have decided themselves that their leaders were the real deal, and that what their leaders were asking them to do was in line with God.

So the question is how does one determine that God would not use this method again, and therefore stop present day "soldiers of God" concluding what the Hebrews (rightly) concluded for themselves.

Some Christians that this has been discussed with would say that their interpretation of the New Testament is clear that God no longer punishes people here on Earth, that punishment is reserved for the afterlife. So while he may have sent his armies out in the Old Testament, since Jesus he would not do that any more. He may approve of just wars, wars fought by humans to prevent atrocities by other humans, but he would not start one himself.

That is as valid an interpretation as anything else, the issue is that it is clearly not shared by all Christians, may how in the past (and possibly still) believe that this is a practice that God would still continue to use. Couple that with a religious leader preaching the same message, and it is not hard to see how people could go to war not for money or greed or power, but simply to fulfil what they see as their Christian duty, as the Hebrew soldiers no doubt did.

So ultimately this ties back the OP's question, why is the Bible (and God) not clearer about these things.

Why did God use representatives and armies to do his wishes in the Old Testament only out state that he would no longer do that after Jesus (if that is the case) given that such a position can be so wrongly misinterpretations?

Flamed Diving

StanMcConnell wrote: »

If God is really God, then he has the right to kill or give life.

So obviously morals don't apply to him then?

JC 2K3

PDN wrote: »

Yes. I think it is the most amazing and mind-blowing book ever written. That is why it is the best selling book ever.

Ah now, what about Harry Potter?

Galvasean

I don't really like this whole "God created you, he can kill you if he likes" line of thinking. Imagine if parents took that line of thinking to their children.

MooseJam

is the bible copyrighted ? where does the master copy lie, if it's not copyrighted could I publish my own version of the bible, is it OK to make money selling bibles, surely selling the word of god is a big no no.

PDN

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Ah now, what about Harry Potter?

The best selling Harry Potter book, Deathly Hallows, has sold somewhere in the region of 77 million copies, well behind Tolkiein's The Lord of the Rings (150 million copies).

The Bible sells 100 million copies every year with total cumulative sales of 5 or 6 billion.

JC 2K3

PDN wrote: »

The best selling Harry Potter book, Deathly Hallows, has sold somewhere in the region of 77 million copies, well behind Tolkiein's The Lord of the Rings (150 million copies).

The Bible sells 100 million copies every year with total cumulative sales of 5 or 6 billion.

Should have appended your quote, I was talking about the sentence preceeding that.

Oh the perils of misinterpretation!

PDN

MooseJam wrote: »

is the bible copyrighted ? where does the master copy lie, if it's not copyrighted could I publish my own version of the bible, is it OK to make money selling bibles, surely selling the word of god is a big no no.

It depends which translation you want to sell. I understand that copyright law says the copyright expires 50 years after the death of an author. Assuming that applies to translators as well, you are safe enough to print and sell the King James Version, but not modern translations like the NIV where many of the translators are still alive.

I see no problem with making money out of selling Bibles. I'm sure it's better in God's sight than selling porn.

Galvasean

So what you are saying PDN is... God is dead?

PDN

Galvasean wrote: »

So what you are saying PDN is... God is dead?

No, but the translation committee of 1611 probably are by now.

Zombrex

Galvasean wrote: »

So what you are saying PDN is... God is dead?

Not sure Christians ever claimed God physically wrote the Bible :pac:

Pompey Magnus

Wicknight wrote: »

Not sure Christians ever claimed God physically wrote the Bible :pac:

No, but some believe he employed ghostwriters to do it for him.

iUseVi

Wicknight wrote: »

Not sure Christians ever claimed God physically wrote the Bible :pac:

AFAIK only the ten commandments on the stone tablets. But not the bible.

kowloon

I know the Jehovas Witnesses say the bible was written by god through the medium of men.

PDN

The Christian position is that God inspired the Biblical writers but that their different personalities are recognisable - ruling out any idea of mechanical dictation.

Akrasia

PDN wrote: »

The best selling Harry Potter book, Deathly Hallows, has sold somewhere in the region of 77 million copies, well behind Tolkiein's The Lord of the Rings (150 million copies).

The Bible sells 100 million copies every year with total cumulative sales of 5 or 6 billion.

How many copies of 'the dictionary' are sold every year?

(I'd say just as many people read it cover to cover as read the bible)

There are loads of different versions of dictionaries, but there are loads of different versions of the bible too, and all are included in the '100 million a year' figure.

PDN

Akrasia wrote: »

How many copies of 'the dictionary' are sold every year?

(I'd say just as many people read it cover to cover as read the bible)

There are loads of different versions of dictionaries, but there are loads of different versions of the bible too, and all are included in the '100 million a year' figure.

Or how many copies of 'the newspaper'?

The best selling dictionary is Chinese - Wei Jiangong's Xinhua Dictionary. It has sold 400 million copies in total over the last 50 years.

(I'd say just as many people read it cover to cover as read the bible)

You'd say wrong.

Thousands of Christians follow reading plans to read the Bible cover to cover in a year. I've not heard of too many people who follow a plan to read a dictionary cover to cover in a year.

There are loads of different versions of dictionaries, but there are loads of different versions of the bible too, and all are included in the '100 million a year' figure.

Is this a serious point? Or is it a case of too much alcohol consumed on a Saturday afternoon?

The different versions of the Bible are different translations of one text.

The different dictionaries (hardly 'versions) are different texts.

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

The Christian position is that God inspired the Biblical writers but that their different personalities are recognisable - ruling out any idea of mechanical dictation.

Apologies if this is already covered recently, but what's the basis for the idea of divine inspiration? I mean, clearly the career of Jesus (for the sake of argument) would have to be something deemed to involve God pretty directly. But presumably it could be said that the record of that career was just up to folk to record as best they could, without any particular divine inspiration or guidance. That might even fit in with why the written records available to us date to a few decades after than time.

Is the position that the Biblical writers were divinely inspired based on an assumption that God must have wanted an accurate record of events? Or is there some particular ground taken as support for this belief?

Black Swan

There appears to be a lot of inconsistency between the mood, spirit, and intent of the Old and New Testament. Of course, the New is informed by Christ? The Old is so violent, angry, and vengeful in parts, that I find it hardly consistent with the Christ ethic exhibited in the New. Vaporizing an entire city, claiming that there was not one innocent person to be found, not even infants? That sounds more like the anthropomorphic justification used to A-bomb two cities in Japan by the US, where there were thousands of innocent infants vaporized? Before I drifted off from my Catholic upbringing, I found that I would avoid the often capricious and inexplicable violence of the Old Testament; although being younger, I could not articulate why (and still can't with any confidence today). There is some beauty in the Christ ethic, in terms of how we should treat each other, hence I find parts of the New Testament having value, even to one who no longer belongs to a religion or systematic belief system.

iUseVi

Schuhart wrote: »

Apologies if this is already covered recently, but what's the basis for the idea of divine inspiration? I mean, clearly the career of Jesus (for the sake of argument) would have to be something deemed to involve God pretty directly. But presumably it could be said that the record of that career was just up to folk to record as best they could, without any particular divine inspiration or guidance. That might even fit in with why the written records available to us date to a few decades after than time.

Is the position that the Biblical writers were divinely inspired based on an assumption that God must have wanted an accurate record of events? Or is there some particular ground taken as support for this belief?

This is actually a really good question so I'll just +1 and wait for the answer.

PDN

Schuhart wrote: »

Apologies if this is already covered recently, but what's the basis for the idea of divine inspiration? I mean, clearly the career of Jesus (for the sake of argument) would have to be something deemed to involve God pretty directly. But presumably it could be said that the record of that career was just up to folk to record as best they could, without any particular divine inspiration or guidance. That might even fit in with why the written records available to us date to a few decades after than time.

Is the position that the Biblical writers were divinely inspired based on an assumption that God must have wanted an accurate record of events? Or is there some particular ground taken as support for this belief?

The basis would be the claims of Scripture itself.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:16)

"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20-21)

We know that the NT use of the word Scripture applies to more than just the Jewish Scriptures when Peter applies it to the writings of Paul:

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

philologos

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Also despite everyone owning a Bible very few actually read it. I'd say most Christians who actually do read it completely skip the Old Testament and read the Nativity and Passion of Jesus and skip all the boring middle bits.

Now is that based on assumption or fact?

I personally found the "boring middle bits" to be facinating, and bring a connection between the Jewish Tanakh and the New Testament.

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

The basis would be the claims of Scripture itself.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:16)

"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20-21)

We know that the NT use of the word Scripture applies to more than just the Jewish Scriptures when Peter applies it to the writings of Paul:

Little bit of circular reasoning there.

-Why is bible God's inerrant word?
-Because the bible says so.
-So what?
-God wrote the bible so it must be true.

Besides, when these verses that you quote were written, the writer had no idea what scripture would be in our bibles. Especially things that were written afterwards.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Also despite everyone owning a Bible very few actually read it. I'd say most Christians who actually do read it completely skip the Old Testament and read the Nativity and Passion of Jesus and skip all the boring middle bits.

I had missed this. Thanks, Jakkass, for highlighting it!

Undoubtedly many people do own a Bible and don't read it. The same would be true of many books. For example, I often see surveys listing James Joyce's Ulysses as one of the best books ever written. Yet how many people who have a copy of Ulysses have spent the necessary hours wading through 900 pages of literary crap from cover to cover? (I did, and at the end of time I'm going to ask God to give me back the two days I wasted reading it)

Also, in many parts of the world Bibles are hard to come by. I visited a Chinese village where they only had one Bible between 100 villagers. I wondered why all the pages were ripped out until I realised that each family would take a few pages home each week and commit them to memory. I had smuggled a suitcase of Chinese Bibles in with me and you should have seen the joy when they were handed out!

PDN

iUseVi wrote: »

Little bit of circular reasoning there.

-Why is bible God's inerrant word?
-Because the bible says so.
-So what?
-God wrote the bible so it must be true.

Besides, when these verses that you quote were written, the writer had no idea what scripture would be in our bibles. Especially things that were written afterwards.

We have gone into this in more depth in other threads. The Bible makes claims about itself regarding inerrancy and inspiration. That, of course, will be totally unconvincing, and circular, to those who think the Bible is a heap of junk anyway. But for those of us who have found the Bible to be a suitable guide for life then such claims will be more convincing because they come from a source that has proved itself good and helpful.

Think of it this way. Imagine that a man claims to be totally honest and to always tell the truth. If he is a stranger to you, then you may well say, "Why should I believe in his honesty purely on his own say so?" But what if you live alongside the man for years and you never hear him saying or doing anything dishonest? What if all your friends have the same impression of him? It would become increasingly hard for you to believe that such an honest person would make a false claim concerning himself.

So, not so much a circle as a spiral.

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

We have gone into this in more depth in other threads. The Bible makes claims about itself regarding inerrancy and inspiration. That, of course, will be totally unconvincing, and circular, to those who think the Bible is a heap of junk anyway. But for those of us who have found the Bible to be a suitable guide for life then such claims will be more convincing because they come from a source that has proved itself good and helpful.

Think of it this way. Imagine that a man claims to be totally honest and to always tell the truth. If he is a stranger to you, then you may well say, "Why should I believe in his honesty purely on his own say so?" But what if you live alongside the man for years and you never hear him saying or doing anything dishonest? What if all your friends have the same impression of him? It would become increasingly hard for you to believe that such an honest person would make a false claim concerning himself.

So, not so much a circle as a spiral.

Fair enough, I see what you getting at.

MooseJam

All the letters in the bible, are they like letters as we know them today ? there were no postmen in those days so who delivered them, also they were addressed to whole piles of people, like Johns letter to the Irish, of course in the bible it's not the Irish but some group of eastern chappies, did they actually get the letters and how did all of them read it, did they pin it up on a noticeboard ?

PDN

MooseJam wrote: »

All the letters in the bible, are they like letters as we know them today ? there were no postmen in those days so who delivered them, also they were addressed to whole piles of people, like Johns letter to the Irish, of course in the bible it's not the Irish but some group of eastern chappies, did they actually get the letters and how did all of them read it, did they pin it up on a noticeboard ?

They were real letters, probably carried by messengers.

The Cursus publicus, founded by Augustus, carried the mail of officials by relay throughout the Roman road system. The vehicle for carrying mail was a cisium with a box, but for special delivery, a horse and rider was faster. A relay of horses could carry a letter 500 miles in 24 hours. The postman wore a characteristic leather hat, the petanus. The postal service was a somewhat dangerous occupation, as postmen were a target for bandits and enemies of Rome.

Private mail of the well-to-do was carried by tabellarii, an organization of slaves available for a price. http://www.crystalinks.com/romeroads.html

We know that the people did actually get the letters as we see follow ups. For example, Second Corinthians and Second Thessalonians address issues and questions arising from First Corinthians and First Thessalonians.

Many people were illiterate, so churches had a lector, or 'reader', who would read the letters to the church when they were gathered together.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

We have gone into this in more depth in other threads. The Bible makes claims about itself regarding inerrancy and inspiration. That, of course, will be totally unconvincing, and circular, to those who think the Bible is a heap of junk anyway. But for those of us who have found the Bible to be a suitable guide for life then such claims will be more convincing because they come from a source that has proved itself good and helpful.

Think of it this way. Imagine that a man claims to be totally honest and to always tell the truth. If he is a stranger to you, then you may well say, "Why should I believe in his honesty purely on his own say so?" But what if you live alongside the man for years and you never hear him saying or doing anything dishonest? What if all your friends have the same impression of him? It would become increasingly hard for you to believe that such an honest person would make a false claim concerning himself.

So, not so much a circle as a spiral.

Well its still circular reasoning.

The assumption is that the Bible would only really be helpful and lead to a profound change in a persons life if it is accurate in it's claims of being from a supernatural source. This is an idea re-enforced by the Bible itself.

If one works on the idea that this effect could only be produced through a supernatural source of information (ie God), then the effect is then used as reverse confirmation of this claim.

Using your analogy of the motor bike from an earlier post, it is the assumption that without knowing the inner workings of the motor bike in question the manual could not have produced information that would help you get the bike working.

Derren Brown has done some very interesting TV programs about this psychological phenomena, such as when he wrote out a personal description of 10 people in a room, which the 10 were totally amazed at how accurate it was, until they swapped them around and found that the 10 descriptions were exactly the same.

Pompey Magnus

Jakkass wrote: »

Now is that based on assumption or fact?

I personally found the "boring middle bits" to be facinating, and bring a connection between the Jewish Tanakh and the New Testament.

This is based on personal experience as a one time Christian myself and through observing the attitude that people I know who are Christian have towards the Bible. One of my best friends considers himself a fairly strong Catholic (no sex before marriage, drinks alcohol very rarely, mass every Sunday, prays every night etc etc) yet he has only a very basic knowledge of the Bible. He doesn't know who wrote the Gospels or when, and has just a vague knowledge of what Jesus actually said and did apart from the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection and some of the more well known miracles. He has never read the Bible and has no intention to, even though I try to get him to read it.

I believe he is no different to the majority of Christians today in his knowledge of the Bible. I was exactly the same up to a few years ago and it wasn't until I became an atheist that I began to take an interest in the book. It would be interesting if lay Christians were given a general knowledge test on the Bible to see just how well average Christians know about this book that they supposedly revere. For example:

(1) What language were the Gospels originally written?
(a) Hebrew (b) Greek (c) Aramaic (d) Latin

(2) How long after Jesus' death was the first Gospel written?
(a) 0 - 15 years (b) 16 - 30 years (c) 30+ years

(3) Which was the first Gospel written?
(a) Matthew (b) Mark (c) Luke (d) John

(4) Fill in the blank with either love or hate: "If anyone comes to me and does not ____ his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-yes, even his own life-he cannot be my disciple."

etc

I may be wrong but I have a suspicion that most Christians would struggle when quizzed on their faith.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

This is based on personal experience as a one time Christian myself and through observing the attitude that people I know who are Christian have towards the Bible. One of my best friends considers himself a fairly strong Catholic (no sex before marriage, drinks alcohol very rarely, mass every Sunday, prays every night etc etc) yet he has only a very basic knowledge of the Bible. He doesn't know who wrote the Gospels or when, and has just a vague knowledge of what Jesus actually said and did apart from the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection and some of the more well known miracles. He has never read the Bible and has no intention to, even though I try to get him to read it.

I believe he is no different to the majority of Christians today in his knowledge of the Bible. I was exactly the same up to a few years ago and it wasn't until I became an atheist that I began to take an interest in the book. It would be interesting if lay Christians were given a general knowledge test on the Bible to see just how well average Christians know about this book that they supposedly revere. For example:

(1) What language were the Gospels originally written?
(a) Hebrew (b) Greek (c) Aramaic (d) Latin

(2) How long after Jesus' death was the first Gospel written?
(a) 0 - 15 years (b) 16 - 30 years (c) 30+ years

(3) Which was the first Gospel written?
(a) Matthew (b) Mark (c) Luke (d) John

(4) Fill in the blank with either love or hate: "If anyone comes to me and does not ____ his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-yes, even his own life-he cannot be my disciple."

etc

I may be wrong but I have a suspicion that most Christians would struggle when quizzed on their faith.

Not a great quiz. Numbers 2 & 3 are really about what scholars say about the Bible, and respected theologians who know the Bible very well give differing answers.

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

Not a great quiz. Numbers 2 & 3 are really about what scholars say about the Bible, and respected theologians who know the Bible very well give differing answers.

True, but they don't you think they are important?

Although I have noticed that the authenticity of the documents isn't really a blip on the radar of most Christians. It's usually assumed. Do you not think that people should know this stuff? Or is it better just to take it for granted?

PDN

iUseVi wrote: »

True, but they don't you think they are important?

Although I have noticed that the authenticity of the documents isn't really a blip on the radar of most Christians. It's usually assumed. Do you not think that people should know this stuff? Or is it better just to take it for granted?

Yes, I think it is important, which is why I teach it in classes. I think the evidence for the authenticity of the documents is pretty compelling, so the more informed people are about them the better.

Pompey Magnus

iUseVi wrote: »

Although I have noticed that the authenticity of the documents isn't really a blip on the radar of most Christians. It's usually assumed. Do you not think that people should know this stuff? Or is it better just to take it for granted?

Quite right. I would hazard a guess that most Christians would assume the Gospels were written in the immediate aftermath of the resurrection, that the authors were eye witnesses to the events, that the versions we have now are as they were originally written with no additions/subtractions by later scribes, and that the four Gospels were the accepted texts of Christianity from the very beginning.

I think they just have this vague idea of what the Gospels says, they assume Jesus condemned homosexuality when in fact he never mentioned it, they assume the story about Jesus saving the adulteress really happened, they assume the Gospels are completely compatable and accurate historical accounts. They are happy enough to live with these assumptions.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

Then you have many examples of later people claiming to be representatives of God on Earth claiming that God has told them go and kill, destroy, genocide etc etc.

Most of the time the Hebrew soldiers were not directly told by God anything, they were told through their leaders, who claimed direct communication with God (as leaders often do). And they followed their leaders because the soldiers believed they did have communication with God (and wouldn't you follow God's representatives on Earth? This is a perfectly acceptable way to wage war in the Old Testament.

Moses and Joshua did not just claim to their soldiers that they had a divine mandate: according to the text, they proved it. God performed miracles in front of all the Israelites to prove the credibility of their leaders.

MooseJam wrote: »

is the bible copyrighted ? where does the master copy lie, if it's not copyrighted could I publish my own version of the bible, is it OK to make money selling bibles, surely selling the word of god is a big no no.

Thomas Jefferson did it. He shredded the gospels to make a deist version of Christianity.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

There appears to be a lot of inconsistency between the mood, spirit, and intent of the Old and New Testament. Of course, the New is informed by Christ? The Old is so violent, angry, and vengeful in parts, that I find it hardly consistent with the Christ ethic exhibited in the New.

Jesus did not appear on earth to merely serve as a moral teacher. He left his followers, like Paul, to elaborate on ethics. I think that his most important role was as an eschatological figure. That is, he came to tell us that God intends to renew the world soon, and that he has provided a salvation plan for those who wish to be a part of that new world of heaven on earth.

Most of the books of prophecy in the Old Testament are somewhat, or entirely concerned with the coming of Christ and the ensuing renewal of the world. This, the two Testaments are indivisible.

Húrin

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I may be wrong but I have a suspicion that most Christians would struggle when quizzed on their faith.

I agree, and I also think that most atheists would too.

You would have a hard time converting even a Biblically ignorant Christian to atheism merely by quizzing. Equally, it is often easy to refute the feeble arguments employed by most atheists as to why God does not exist, but it is an entirely different question to get them to realise that God does exist, and probably beyond my power.

iUseVi wrote: »

True, but they don't you think they are important?

Although I have noticed that the authenticity of the documents isn't really a blip on the radar of most Christians. It's usually assumed. Do you not think that people should know this stuff? Or is it better just to take it for granted?

I agree. I think that most Christians do not learn enough about the authenticity of the documents. It should not simply be assumed. It would be dishonest not to apply the same intellectual rigour to the Bible as one does to other texts.