The Bible errors and followers

Mister Trebus

The Bible is litttered with errors big and small, has some pretty dreadful things in it (in Gods name apparently) cruelty, intolerance, some good stuff (possibly) and yet people follow it; almost blindly in some cases.....why do you think that is?

MrBobbyZ

Who follows it blindly? Where are they? What are their names?
I demand answers!

Mister Trebus

MrBobbyZ wrote: »

Who follows it blindly? Where are they? What are their names?
I demand answers!

LOL...American Bible Belt just love it....

MrBobbyZ

Hope they don't read the Old Testament too much. Some serious stuff there. A lot of old school vengeful god stuff. Also a lot of old school vengeful people.

Mister Trebus

MrBobbyZ wrote: »

Hope they don't read the Old Testament too much. Some serious stuff there. A lot of old school vengeful god stuff. Also a lot of old school vengeful people.

Thats's my point, if it is so mistake ridden and vile in places, why are people still following it, or believing in it????

MrBobbyZ

Why the bible, why the Koran, Hindu texts or the Book of Mormon? To me they are all misguided, but who am I to tell people what to believe or not believe or what books/theologies to follow.

Point is if you look hard enough you'll find someone who believes in the Twilight series.

And in fairness to the bible, it's a fascinating read!

Mister Trebus

MrBobbyZ wrote: »

Why the bible, why the Koran, Hindu texts or the Book of Mormon? To me they are all misguided, but who am I to tell people what to believe or not believe or what books/theologies to follow.

Point is if you look hard enough you'll find someone who believes in the Twilight series.

And in fairness to the bible, it's a fascinating read!

Well fascinating is not a word I would use myself

MrBobbyZ

Mister Trebus wrote: »

Well fascinating is not a word I would use myself

Have you read the bible?

Mister Trebus

MrBobbyZ wrote: »

Have you read the bible?

Yes of course, and I think that if it was released today it would be laughed at...probably wouldn't even be published...but still a bestseller these days

hfallada

There is going to be some errors obviously in the book. Firstly it was even written in English and wasn't translated into English until I guess the reformation. Even now the protestant bibles have differences to catholic bibles.

The bible was first written about 70-80 years after the death of Jesus. There was obviously going to be slight variations in the story from when Jesus told it.

Some people would believe the bible if it was written yesterday and Jesus preformed a miracle in front of them

Mister Trebus

hfallada wrote: »

There is going to be some errors obviously in the book. Firstly it was even written in English and wasn't translated into English until I guess the reformation. Even now the protestant bibles have differences to catholic bibles.

The bible was first written about 70-80 years after the death of Jesus. There was obviously going to be slight variations in the story from when Jesus told it.

Some people would believe the bible if it was written yesterday and Jesus preformed a miracle in front of them

The Old testament was written 70-80 years after the death of Jesus ????

MrBobbyZ

Mister Trebus wrote: »

Yes of course, and I think that if it was released today it would be laughed at...probably wouldn't even be published...but still a bestseller these days

Laughed at.
Possibly, but as an account of cultural, religious and sociological history it would be valued by many more.
Published?
A 2000 year old written history containing accounts and stories much much older would definitely be published, and yes, possibly be a bestseller.

Mister Trebus

MrBobbyZ wrote: »

Laughed at.
Possibly, but as an account of cultural, religious and sociological history it would be valued by many more.
Published?
A 2000 year old written history containing accounts and stories much much older would definitely be published, and yes, possibly be a bestseller.

So would you think that if nobody had ever heard of Jesus, the Bible etc and I produced this as a book of religion and how to live you life it would be accepted as a mainstream option by more than just crackpot cultists ??
I doubt it very much....try get a book published by mainstream credible publishers that states in black and white that homosexuals should be killed...that alone would make it unsellable to credible publishers....never mind all the other crap in there.

Can you imagine selling the idea that bats are fowl....you would be laughed at...but hey, the Bible sells that notion.....

MrBobbyZ

Mister Trebus wrote: »

So would you think that if nobody had ever heard of Jesus, the Bible etc and I produced this as a book of religion and how to live you life it would be accepted as a mainstream option by more than just crackpot cultists ??

No, I would not think!
However the bible is not a modern creation. It is an ancient collection of histories/stories.
Also the book did not come first, the monotheistic religion existed before the bible.

PopePalpatine

Mister Trebus wrote: »

Can you imagine selling the idea that bats are fowl....you would be laughed at...but hey, the Bible sells that notion.....

They are the chickens of the cave. :pac:

Mister Trebus

PopePalpatine wrote: »

They are the chickens of the cave. :pac:

PMSL

Peregrinus

Mister Trebus wrote: »

LOL...American Bible Belt just love it....

American Bible Belters refuse to wear mixed fabrics?

They stone adulterers?

They avoid eating shellfish?

Nobody "follows the bible blindly". You're setting up a straw man here.

Your claim would probably pass unchallenged in the Atheism and Agnosticism forum, but you've put it in the Christianity forum, where people know a bit about scripture and the place it has in people's lives. If you seriously want to discuss this, you're very welcome. But rather than telling us how we regard scripture and how wrong we are to regard it that way, wouldn't you make more progress if you actually looked at how scripture is used by Christians?

[Take a look at the charter and in particular point 5. You're free to ask about the problems you see in scripture, but blandly asserting that the bible is littered with errors and then asking us to explain our position on the basis that your view of the bible is correct is not really in the spirit of the forum. Rather you should point to what you regard as errors and ask us what we think about them.]

Mister Trebus

Peregrinus wrote: »

American Bible Belters refuse to wear mixed fabrics?

They stone adulterers?

They avoid eating shellfish?

Nobody "follows the bible blindly". You're setting up a straw man here.

Okay, I accept that people will not follow every single part of this book blindly, fair enough....but people in these areas, or others who are caught up in it, follow THEIR belief in it blindly...yes?

Mister Trebus

Peregrinus wrote: »

[Take a look at the charter and in particular point 5. You're free to ask about the problems you see in scripture, but blandly asserting that the bible is littered with errors and then asking us to explain our position on the basis that your view of the bible is correct is not really in the spirit of the forum. Rather you should point to what you regard as errors and ask us what we think about them.]

I am not asserting anything....The Bible IS littered with errors...I will be more than willing to discuss them with anyone here....

Peregrinus

Well, can you name an error in the Bible which you would expect to undermine Christian faith in it?

Mister Trebus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, can you name an error in the Bible which you would expect to undermine Christian faith in it?

Firstly, I do not wish to undermine Christian faith....I couldnt care less about that, so let us be very clear on that.

Secondly:

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


God makes two lights: "the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night." But the moon is not a light, but only reflects light from the sun. And why, if God made the moon to "rule the night", does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky?

katydid

Mister Trebus wrote: »

The Bible is litttered with errors big and small, has some pretty dreadful things in it (in Gods name apparently) cruelty, intolerance, some good stuff (possibly) and yet people follow it; almost blindly in some cases.....why do you think that is?

Some follow it blindly; there will always be those who prefer not to think too hard. Most people don't follow it blindly, but realise that is a document written by different human beings over many centuries, and as such it is a fallible document.

It doesn't mean that those people don't believe that it is divinely inspired; divine inspiration and human fallibility are not mutually exclusive. We are challenged by the text to think about these contradictions, to contextualise, to interpret - and this is part of the spiritual journey. The key is to pick out the essentials, and leave behind the unessential.

Mister Trebus

katydid wrote: »

Some follow it blindly; there will always be those who prefer not to think too hard. Most people don't follow it blindly, but realise that is a document written by different human beings over many centuries, and as such it is a fallible document.

It doesn't mean that those people don't believe that it is divinely inspired; divine inspiration and human fallibility are not mutually exclusive. We are challenged by the text to think about these contradictions, to contextualise, to interpret - and this is part of the spiritual journey. The key is to pick out the essentials, and leave behind the unessential.

So if it was written for the times it was written in, are we to believe it now, considering how much we have evolved since then?
People once thought the world was flat...you would be hard pressed to find one now

katydid

Mister Trebus wrote: »

So if it was written for the times it was written in, are we to believe it now, considering how much we have evolved since then?
People once thought the world was flat...you would be hard pressed to find one now

Because we contextualise it. We know the earth doesn't four corners, and we don't care whether Judas hanged himself in the Potters Field or died some other way. These are minor discrepancies and inaccuracies - we look past them to the parts that are important.

Mister Trebus

katydid wrote: »

Because we contextualise it. We know the earth doesn't four corners, and we don't care whether Judas hanged himself in the Potters Field or died some other way. These are minor discrepancies and inaccuracies - we look past them to the parts that are important.

They are not minor discrepancies at all IMHO, if it was written for people of the day it was written in a way that they could unserstand, yes?
We no longer have the same world view, and indeed can disprove large parts of it with the knowledge we now posess, so should we believe in its written word....or alter it to suit our needs now?.....as you seem to suggest /

Do you believe that homosexuals should be killed? The Bible is quite clear on this issue.

tommy2bad

Mister Trebus wrote: »

So if it was written for the times it was written in, are we to believe it now, considering how much we have evolved since then?
People once thought the world was flat...you would be hard pressed to find one now

Actualy you would have a better chance of finding people who believe the flat earth idea now than 2000 years ago.
Most people knew that the earth was a globe as the saw the masts of ships approach from over the horizon.
The Greeks had calculated the circumference of the earth with a surprising acuracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
The flat earth idea is a rejection of science and like biblical inerrancy entirely a modern phenomena.

tommy2bad

Mister Trebus wrote: »

They are not minor discrepancies at all IMHO, if it was written for people of the day it was written in a way that they could unserstand, yes?
We no longer have the same world view, and indeed can disprove large parts of it with the knowledge we now posess, so should we believe in its written word....or alter it to suit our needs now?.....as you seem to suggest /

Do you believe that homosexuals should be killed? The Bible is quite clear on this issue.

Your right, their are not minor discrepancies, they are telling indications that the text belongs in a context. We now no longer have the same data or view of the world but we are still people and reading how people before us learned and lived is never a wast.
The bible is quit clear that at one time in a certain context homosexuals were considered so evil as to be killed. So?
That's not the same as saying that God said they should be killed.
You seem to confuse following God with strict adherence to the bible in a literal way. Which is not something any Christian would do, well not sensible ones, their will always be nut jobs. Don't base your judgement of either Christians or the bible on the opinions of nutjobs.

Peregrinus

Mister Trebus wrote: »

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

God makes two lights: "the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night." But the moon is not a light, but only reflects light from the sun. And why, if God made the moon to "rule the night", does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky?

Well, just to pick nits, the moon does provide light, even if only by reflection. It even casts shadows. If "light" is understood as something that provides us with illumination, the moon is certainly a light.

But I'll grant you, in general the bible contains a number of astronomical inaccuracies. This would obviously be a problem if I wished to use the Bible as an astronomical textbook. But I don't, and neither do most Christians of my acquaintance. (And those that do are idiots, I will cheerfully agree.)

Is it your position that, if a book has no value as an astronomical treatise, it can have no value at all? If that's not your position, why do the astronomical inaccuracies bother you?

norrie rugger

How do you know which parts to take literally and which to accept as stories

tommy2bad

norrie rugger wrote: »

How do you know which parts to take literally and which to accept as stories

They are all stories. All the books of the bible are stories, some are historical, some are allegorical, some are myth and legend. It's the message that the story conveys that matters.
Get a good study bible, one which includes well-documented footnotes and cross-references, introductory material before each book of the Bible, essays on history, and maps and timelines. It should also honestly say what our “best guesses” are for now in terms of historical accuracy.
Remember the bible is constantly being interpreted in the light of new information and developments. You can see this even in the bible itself, hence the 'contradictions'. What is important is the message and the record of revelation.

Mister Trebus

tommy2bad wrote: »

Your right, their are not minor discrepancies, they are telling indications that the text belongs in a context. .

A context that is no longer applicable

tommy2bad wrote: »

The bible is quit clear that at one time in a certain context homosexuals were considered so evil as to be killed. So?
That's not the same as saying that God said they should be killed.
.

So I can take from this statement that the Bible IS NOT the word of God?
And it gives no time frame on its opinion on killing homosexuals, it is very clear on that. There is o limitation on it.

tommy2bad wrote: »

You seem to confuse following God with strict adherence to the bible in a literal way. Which is not something any Christian would do, well not sensible ones, their will always be nut jobs. Don't base your judgement of either Christians or the bible on the opinions of nutjobs.

I dont....