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....

smcgiff

Christians believing the bible is not literal is relatively new, strangely, more so as we develop as a species. Go back a couple of hundred years when the new testament was around for nearly two millennia and see where it would get you if said it was only a story.

Others still take it literally.

Mister Trebus

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

Sorry, the moon IS NOT a light...nick pick all you want...the FACT remains it is not a light....and surely God would have known that since it created the moon?
It is not a light. Fact.

Moving on

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.)

I never at any point said it should be used as a guide to the stars....just as well as it is wrong ....so good for you that you dont !
I have stated the Bible is full of errors and have provided an example, as requested, in the first part of it. Very early in it as a matter of fact.

Peregrinus wrote: »

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?

Wow, a strawman and so early in the discussion too....pfftt...see the papragraph above for my answer to this question please...:rolleyes:


Are you done with this particular error (assuming that this is your reply and you have not disprovd my stance in any way) or would you like another one to be getting on with?

Peregrinus

Calm down, Mister Trebus. You still haven't told me why you think I, or any Christian, should be bothered by the fact that the bible describes the moon as a light.

Seriously, given that you agree with me that the bible is not a guide to the stars, why is this a problem? I'm genuinely not seeing why you think it is.

Mister Trebus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Calm down, Mister Trebus. You still haven't told me why you think I, or any Christian, should be bothered by the fact that the bible describes the moon as a light.

Please look at OP.

The Bible is full of errors, YOU asked for an example, I provided one, there are plenty more.
The OP should answer this question for you.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Seriously, given that you agree with me that the bible is not a guide to the stars, why is this a problem? I'm genuinely not seeing why you think it is.

Its not that I am agreeing with you, as if I have just had a road to Damascus moment , I already knew it.

You are getting caught up in the examle of how the Bible is incorrect I feel....

Benny_Cake

Mod: Before this goes any further, I'd ask anyone who is new to read the forum charter here. Pleas report posts which contravene the charter.

If anyone wishes to discuss evolution or creationism, they may do so on this thread. Homosexuality can be discussed on this thread. Let's not let these subjects hijack this thread.

Peregrinus

Mister Trebus wrote: »

Please look at OP.

The Bible is full of errors, YOU asked for an example, I provided one, there are plenty more.
The OP should answer this question for you.

OK, I am looking at the OP.

In the OP you say three things.

1. The bible is full of errors.
2. Yet people follow it.
3. Why do we think that is?

The sequence of questions implies that you think that, because of the errors, it is somewhat surprising that people should follow the bible, and this requires explanation. My apologies if I'm misreading you.

But, if I'm not misreading you, then I think your position requires some explanation. You've pointed to errors in matters of astronomy and animal taxonomy. I could see that, given these errors, it would be surprising if people took the bible as an authority on astronomy or zoology but, few loopers aside, they mostly don't. Given that you accept that most Christians do not take the bible in that way, why do you think it's astronomical errors are at all relevant to the way they do take it?

By way of parallel, maps of the world produced by Europeans before the sixteenth century do not show Australia, for obvious reasons. Does that mean the maps can tell us nothing about what Europeans of the time knew about geography, or that what they did know was wrong? Clearly, it means neither of those things. The maps they produced were limited by the scope of their knowledge. The biblical texts were limited by the scope of the authors' knowledge. Hell, the texts we produce are limited by the scope of our knowledge. But so what?

Mister Trebus

Peregrinus wrote: »

The sequence of questions implies that you think that, because of the errors, it is somewhat surprising that people should follow the bible, and this requires explanation. My apologies if I'm misreading you.

Nope you are reading me right...as I said there are plenty more examples than those I gave, even examples that are not scientifically wrong but simply morally wrong, and yet people use this book as their guide ...albeit buffet Christians I hasten to add !

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, if I'm not misreading you, then I think your position requires some explanation. You've pointed to errors in matters of astronomy and animal taxonomy. I could see that, given these errors, it would be surprising if people took the bible as an authority on astronomy or zoology but, few loopers aside, they mostly don't. Given that you accept that most Christians do not take the bible in that way, why do you think it's astronomical errors are at all relevant to the way they do take it?

See above for answer to this...as I said you are holding onto this example....would you prefer to have me give you more examples of errors both moral and scientific so as to widen our debate?

Most Christians dont take the Bible this way...means they extract what they want out of it as best suits their needs at that time, yes?
If so why bother to read it in the first place...I mean, if I take your arguement that they dont take it this way, becasue they understand it to be wrong, why other taking any of it?

Peregrinus wrote: »

By way of parallel, maps of the world produced by Europeans before the sixteenth century do not show Australia, for obvious reasons. Does that mean the maps can tell us nothing about what Europeans of the time knew about geography, or that what they did know was wrong? Clearly, it means neither of those things. The maps they produced were limited by the scope of their knowledge. The biblical texts were limited by the scope of the authors' knowledge. Hell, the texts we produce are limited by the scope of our knowledge. But so what?

I have already alluded to the same thing , in my reply to kathydid, but what this DOES prove is that people then knew what they knew; by their limits....we know what we know now by our knowledge....BUT DO NOT use the same maps as they did...our maps INCLUDE Australia, they do not simply ignore it becaue someone once drew a map that did not contain it.

This applies to the Bible does it not ?

Peregrinus wrote: »

The biblical texts were limited by the scope of the authors' knowledge.

So according to your statement here, the Bible is not the word of God? God had nothing to do with the writing of the Bible, since the knowledge conatined within it is erroneous, because of course God would have been aware of such errors and would not have entered them into theBible even if only through the hand of a mere mortal so it could be written down ...according to your good self?
Just a book written by an "author"...and nothing more, is this what you are saying?

katydid

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.

Some things are discrepancies, arising from the book being a collection of things written by different people at different times. So, in the case I cited of the different versions of Judas's fate, it's simply a matter of two people telling a similar story and getting details wrong. Like two witnesses reporting the same accident. The texts are full of such examples.

Some things are written from the point of view and understanding of the day, and so we have to contextualise them from our own, contemporary knowledge. We know, because it's been scientifically proven, that the earth doesn't have four corners.

And sometimes it's just simply that images and metaphors are used, without any expectation of the reader taking it literally. If I tell you I searched high and low, and in every nook and cranny for my missing keys, do you take me literally? If I tell you I have the weight of the world on my shoulders, do you think I actually believe the globe is weighing me down? The people three thousand years ago were no less imaginative and capable of understanding metaphor as we are.

Mister Trebus

katydid wrote: »

Some things are discrepancies, arising from the book being a collection of things written by different people at different times. So, in the case I cited of the different versions of Judas's fate, it's simply a matter of two people telling a similar story and getting details wrong. Like two witnesses reporting the same accident. The texts are full of such examples.

Many books in the bible were not written by two or more people, and the offerings are no less incorrect because of it. So sorry but that doesn't wash.
If the two stories you offer are not conforming then one is wrong, or both are wrong.....but both cannot be right...

katydid wrote: »

Some things are written from the point of view and understanding of the day, and so we have to contextualise them from our own, contemporary knowledge. We know, because it's been scientifically proven, that the earth doesn't have four corners.

Again this point I agree with....so why use it today then if it was written for those then ? If it is proven wrong, why use it? Why include it? If so much is wrong...surely much more is wrong

katydid wrote: »

And sometimes it's just simply that images and metaphors are used, without any expectation of the reader taking it literally.QUOTE]


So why use them at all....unless it was so that uneductaed masses would believe it even if they hadnt the foggiest idea what it meant...but boy it sure sounds good.....

katydid wrote: »

. If I tell you I searched high and low, and in every nook and cranny for my missing keys, do you take me literally? If I tell you I have the weight of the world on my shoulders, do you think I actually believe the globe is weighing me down? .

So can you give me an example in the bible where this type of cliche is used please?

katydid wrote: »

The people three thousand years ago were no less imaginative and capable of understanding metaphor as we are.

Again, examples please of cliches in the bible, thanks.

tommy2bad

smcgiff wrote: »

Christians believing the bible is not literal is relatively new, strangely, more so as we develop as a species. Go back a couple of hundred years when the new testament was around for nearly two millennia and see where it would get you if said it was only a story.

Others still take it literally.

Hmmmm. Unless you mistyped, this is exactly wrong, literal bible interpretations is the relative new thing. A couple of hundred years is relatively new! It only became a 'thing' in the 1800's and is probably a reaction to the scientific revolution.

katydid

Mister Trebus wrote: »

Many books in the bible were not written by two or more people, and the offerings are no less incorrect because of it. So sorry but that doesn't wash.
If the two stories you offer are not conforming then one is wrong, or both are wrong.....but both cannot be right...







Again this point I agree with....so why use it today then if it was written for those then ? If it is proven wrong, why use it? Why include it? If so much is wrong...surely much more is wrong

katydid wrote: »

And sometimes it's just simply that images and metaphors are used, without any expectation of the reader taking it literally.QUOTE]


So why use them at all....unless it was so that uneductaed masses would believe it even if they hadnt the foggiest idea what it meant...but boy it sure sounds good.....





So can you give me an example in the bible where this type of cliche is used please?







Again, examples please of cliches in the bible, thanks.

Apart from the gospels, which were more than likely written by individuals, a generation or so after the event, but which may well have been altered and transcribed in the early days in a way that makes them different from the original, most parts of the bible probably were written by more than one person. Certainly the Old Testament authorship is very vague, and is generally thought to be by collections of scribes rather than individuals.

You're absolutely right; if two people give different details of a story, both can't be right. In fact, there's no guarantee either description is right. But the point is that it doesn't matter. The substance is what matters, and the substance is the same. Whether the robber was wearing a blue jacket or a brown jacket is not of immense significance.

Why do we use it today; I've already answered this, more than once. We use it because we can contextualise the content and leave aside the inessential. We focus on what is still relevant and important.

I have no idea what clichés you're referring to.

With all due respect, you don't seem to be too interested in the answers people are giving you. I have addressed the same points with you repeatedly and you don't seem to be bothered to take what I say on board.

katydid

tommy2bad wrote: »

Hmmmm. Unless you mistyped, this is exactly wrong, literal bible interpretations is the relative new thing. A couple of hundred years is relatively new! It only became a 'thing' in the 1800's and is probably a reaction to the scientific revolution.

I disagree with both of you. There have always been people who have interpreted the bible literally; look at the early Christians who didn't marry or make any plans for the future because they believed literally that the Second Coming was just around the corner.
I agree that the opinions polarised to a certain extent in the eighteenth/nineteenth century due to scientific discoveries and ideas which highlighted the clash between what was written and what science could prove. But literalism didn't start then.

Mister Trebus

tommy2bad wrote: »

Hmmmm. Unless you mistyped, this is exactly wrong, literal bible interpretations is the relative new thing. A couple of hundred years is relatively new! It only became a 'thing' in the 1800's and is probably a reaction to the scientific revolution.

Yeah I must admit I had to read that post a couple of times,,,still not sure I get it

tommy2bad

Mister Trebus wrote: »

A context that is no longer applicable

Ahem sort of, depends on what you mean by context. A set of circumstance or the moral issue it deals with i,t it might be just a record of what happened then. Is it relevant? yes in the context of the overall message.

Mister Trebus wrote: »

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 0 limitation on it.

The bible is not the word of God in the sence of god dictating the exact words and someone transcribing them. That's the Koran your thinking of!

Mister Trebus wrote: »

I dont....

And no one else dose either! What exactly are you complaining about? That 66 books written down over a period of 1000 years and probably existing in oral form for hundreds of years before that don't coincide perfectly?
They're not even structured in chronological order and one of them never mentions God. Some are collections of letters some are poems and Revelations may be the ravings of a mad man or a political allegory like Gulliver's Travels.
It's not one book designed to contain all the wisdom from God, it a collection that together record the relationship of man and God. It's a testament in the sense of covenant as it derived from Latin, not in the sense of evidence or witnessed as we use testament now. It's not history or science or manifesto. It a record of the covenant and serves as evidence of that covenant.

Mister Trebus

katydid wrote: »

Whether the robber was wearing a blue jacket or a brown jacket is not of immense significance.

Vital if you are trying to catch the robber dont you think?

katydid wrote: »

Why do we use it today; I've already answered this, more than once. We use it because we can contextualise the content and leave aside the inessential. We focus on what is still relevant and important.


.

Relevant to whom and which group. One religon takes one use another takes a different one...which one is the right one...both caanot be right ,can they ?

katydid wrote: »

I have no idea what clichés you're referring to.

Really? You wrote them....searching high and low, weight of the world on my shoulders...cliches....

katydid wrote: »

With all due respect, you don't seem to be too interested in the answers people are giving you. I have addressed the same points with you repeatedly and you don't seem to be bothered to take what I say on board.

I am interested of course and I seem to be having to repeat myself each time too.
If you feel you have answered, and you feel that further questioning of your answers by myslef is you having to repeat yourself then by all means dont reply....but if further questioning is needed then I feel I must question further. Thanks for commenting so far.

tommy2bad

katydid wrote: »

I disagree with both of you. There have always been people who have interpreted the bible literally; look at the early Christians who didn't marry or make any plans for the future because they believed literally that the Second Coming was just around the corner.
I agree that the opinions polarised to a certain extent in the eighteenth/nineteenth century due to scientific discoveries and ideas which highlighted the clash between what was written and what science could prove. But literalism didn't start then.

Ahh yes I agree with you literal readings have always existed. I'm confusing it with it's close relation, inerrancy. But you'll forgive me, most literalists do too.


I off course meant that literal and inerrant have only become an issue in recent history.

Benny_Cake

Mister Trebus wrote: »

Really? You wrote them....searching high and low, weight of the world on my shoulders...cliches....

I think katydid was referring to metaphors or figures of speech rather than cliches, but some examples in John would be:

"Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep." - John 10:7

"I am the good shepherd" - John 10:11

"I am the vine; you are the branches" - John 15:5

Turtwig

Mister Trebus wrote: »

Vital if you are trying to catch the robber dont you think?

Katydid's point was that a robbery has taken place. A far as history goes you're rarely going to get the precision of what clothes a robber in the Middle Ages was wearing. You will however get rather decent reliability when the several different sources say a robbery took place in the Middle ages. The substance is there the pernickety details aren't. The bible is a series of books that consists of many different literary genres. Very rarely is a person expected to take a poem literally the same goes for the books in the bible. Only nutty literalists insist the the bible doesn't contain errors.

Mister Trebus

Jernal wrote: »

Katydid's point was that a robbery has taken place. A far as history goes you're rarely going to get the precision of what clothes a robber in the Middle Ages was wearing. You will however get rather decent reliability when the several different sources say a robbery took place in the Middle ages. The substance is there the pernickety details aren't. The bible is a series of books that consists of many different literary genres. Very rarely is a person expected to take a poem literally the same goes for the books in the bible. Only nutty literalists insist the the bible doesn't contain errors.

I did get the point, and perhaps I was too subtle with my response to it.


The colour of the jacket is important simply because, if :

Person A says Judas hanged himself
Person B says Judas jumped to his death....

...the important thing is the death (yes?)...however...equally as important, because it leaves one or both of them open for debate and disproval thousand of years later on Boards.ie...(;)) is which one got it right if any.

So the robbery took place...fine
Who did the robbery.....
Dont know but the important thing is something was stolen ????
Not so, we need to know who did it and... if what they wore is a vital part of the proof... and if so,then it is just that...vital.

And yes I know I am comparing a jacket to the word of God or Jesus or whoever but only because it was giving as a comparison earlier.

The whole picture is important ,as it proves, or disproves.
It raises questions on the validity of anything that person writes...or says God "told" them to write in its name...and once one thing is questioned and possibly proven incorrect, even by virtue of a conflict in the same story, then everything they say falls into that bracket.

So once again, why bother believing a book that is provably littered with errors, scientifically debunkable and morally corrupt in areas?...why bother when you know this to be the case?
Is the cognative dissonance of believers in the bible that twisted ?

norrie rugger

tommy2bad wrote: »

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.

who determines what the story means?
What about mistranslations or mistranscriptions over a millennium ago? Or plain old changing the text to suit some old conquering army's need?

As a historical artifact it can not be relied upon as it has been far too open to abuse by those in control of it.