Truthfulness of the Bible

[Ted]

According to many biblical and Jewish scholars the Bible was never meant to be taken literally. One should not ask "Did it really happen this way? but What does it mean. According to these scholars the Bible was written as a timeless book to be reread and reinterpret from generation to generation to get the message as it applies to new knowledge and new situations. They claim there are multiple valid interpretations to any part of the Bible. (Rabbi Daum, M. Borg, D. Crossan, J. Spong, D. Hall and a whole host of others. There are no blacks and whites but only shades of gray.

Shalom

Ted

[Ted]

A few other points. Jesus was crucified for treason and being a s**t disturber. Secondly I fail to see in the Bible any place where it claims to be the absolute inerrant word of God. The "Word of God" rightly belongs to "the Word made flesh" and not to a book. Some of course are still in bondage, the bondage of the Book.

Shalom

Ted

[xyz]

Ted;1339592 wrote: When will folks get over the idea that the Bible can be taken literally.


When people stop killing, thieving and lying?

[Bryn Mawr]

xyz;1339595 wrote: When people stop killing, thieving and lying?


xyz;1341223 wrote: When people stop killing, thieving and lying?


Reduced to repeating you one liners now?

That's desperation :wah:

[xyz]

Ted;1341222 wrote: A few other points. Jesus was crucified for treason and being a s**t disturber.
According to criminals, quite probably.

Secondly I fail to see in the Bible any place where it claims to be the absolute inerrant word of God.
Whether it does or not makes no difference to arrogant, interfering outsiders. Those with credibility as Christians, the pillar of truth, claim it to be the inerrant word of God, and anyone who wants to deceive them has to misinterpret it- or say that it is not to be understood literally.

The "Word of God" rightly belongs to "the Word made flesh" and not to a book.
According to the Bible, it belongs to both, many more times to the latter than to the former.

Some of course are still in bondage, the bondage of the Book.
Some who would destroy themselves and others find healthy discipline hard to take, so call it 'bondage'.

[Ahso!]

xyz;1341223 wrote: When people stop killing, thieving and lying?Wrong answer (to a non-question BTW). Many of the liars, thieves and murderers are literalists.

Would you care to try again?

[Ahso!]

xyz;1341229 wrote: According to criminals, quite probably.



Whether it does or not makes no difference to arrogant, interfering outsiders. Those with credibility as Christians, the pillar of truth, claim it to be the inerrant word of God, and anyone who wants to deceive them has to misinterpret it- or say that it is not to be understood literally.



According to the Bible, it belongs to both, many more times to the latter than to the former.



Some who would destroy themselves and others find healthy discipline hard to take, so call it 'bondage'.references and citations, please.

[Ted]

Ahso

I'm pleased you asked that question. LOL

Shalom

Ted

[recovering conservative]

Ahso!;1341026 wrote: Hes actually very easy to silence. Simply ask him to explain himself and he runs for cover with his tail tucked between his legs.


And then he's back again!

[xyz]

Ted;1341245 wrote: Ahso

I'm pleased you asked that question. LOL

Shalom

Ted
You are? Then ask them yourself, because I ignore some posters.

[Ted]

That's ok. That's your privilege. Certainly it is not the best way to dialogue or learn. Go for it.

Shalom

Ted

[Ahso!]

recovering conservative;1341250 wrote: And then he's back again!He enjoys the exercise.

[Ahso!]

xyz;1341254 wrote: You are? Then ask them yourself, because I ignore some posters.Seriously, I don't blame you. I'd need to ignore me too if I were you.

[xyz]

Ted;1341256 wrote: That's ok.
Then post the same question under your own name.

Unless you're afraid to get the answers, of course, which may be supposed if you do not do so.

(The reason that another poster asked was almost certainly because he did not believe that he would get a reply, as it was he who asked. Be party to monkey business, if you will. But don't imagine that there are no answers.)

[Ahso!]

Ah-so he doesn't talk to monkeys. I've got news for him, hes a monkey too.

[Ted]

xyz OH. If you don't want to answer that is fine with me. I didn't expect an answer. Whatever.

Shalom

Ted

[xyz]

Ted;1341310 wrote: xyz OH. If you don't want to answer that is fine with me.
:) I'm sure it would be. It would get you out of a complete rout, wouldn't it.

[Bryn Mawr]

xyz;1341325 wrote: I'm sure it would be. It would get you out of a complete rout, wouldn't it.


:yh_rotfl That would be the day :yh_rotfl

You talk a fine fight but never come up with the logic to back it up.

One line put downs are no substitute for reasoned lines of discussion and you are sadly lacking in reason.

[Ted]

xyz

I backed my statements up with reference to scholars but you offered nothing. I really don't want to wast my time on your childish games.

Shalom

Ted

[xyz]

Ted;1341335 wrote: xyz

I backed my statements up with reference to scholars


Not the statements that I addressed.

[koan]

In reference to the OP -

In the Old Testament, I think a lot of people believe God wasn't lying because they got smote if they tested the rules. A more relevant question, for me, is which really came first, the rules or the smiting. It occurs to me that people are comforted by finding "why" answers when bad things happen and even more comforted if they can come up with a way to prevent the bad thing from happening again. In the Exodus God leads the people out of tyranny in Egypt to a "Promise Land" but doesn't actually take them there straightaway. So... is He lying? It could just be a really big misunderstanding regarding what a "day" is. He also says He is "giving" them the Promise Land then tells them they have to kill everyone in it to claim it. So... is He lying about giving it to them?

Technically, Abraham asked fairly early how he was to prove that God gave him the land and God never answered him. It seems fairly evident on a logical analysis that God can't tell people the whole plan or it would change the way they play their parts in the story. If He needs to get people from one place to another He tells them what they need to hear to make it happen. So lying or not lying is completely irrelevant. If people intuitively have faith in Christianity and/or the bible, they have faith that God is telling them what they need to hear. So... yeah, the question you posed is moot.

[Ted]

koan

In numbers 31 there is a caveat to killing everyone. The soldiers are allowed to keep all the virgins for themselves . . . . er provided they give some to the priests. Thus it is not total annihilation. The writer sure had a handle on soldiers! eh?

Shalom

Ted

[koan]

Yeah, if they really wanted to lie they might have left out some of the incriminating stuff. LOL

[Nomad]

mrmazoo;1183642 wrote: First post everyone, so take it easy on me.

The only solution for Christians (and incidentally Jews and Muslims) is to simply ignore the Bible and rely on their own minds to figure out what a good life is and how to attain it.

What are your thoughts?


Thats the real bitch. We have to figure it out on our own. You can listen to everyone elses argument and allow yourself to be persuaded because one ideal seems reasonable or reject another because its too dasterdly to consider. We can just go along and become what our parents told us we are but thats just lazy. Some of us just want to fit in or feel connected so we join up and follow the herd.

I havent got it figured out yet. Its proving to be my biggest hurdle. The one thing I can rely on is my own instinct to act as that which I wish to become. I fight with my demons but even if my mind is unclear I can control my actions and that becomes my constant. So for the time being my religion is to reject my demons and do some good. I cant define how that plucks me into a category. Actually I think Id prefer not to be in a category.

[xyz]

Nomad;1341776 wrote: Thats the real bitch. We have to figure it out on our own.
If 'it' is the Bible, that's not true. The church does not say, "Read the Bible." It says, "Here's the good news. Jesus died in your place." If people accept what he did for themselves, then they start to read the Bible. So all we have to do is not figure things out, but just respond to the news that "Jesus died in your place." We might think that is good news, and live accordingly. We might think that is bad news, and live accordingly. That's our natural right.

What I don't think we can reasonably do is just dismiss that news because it isn't true, because we don't know that it's untrue; and if it's true, news of free salvation is not one that we can sensibly dismiss. It's looking a gift horse in the mouth. It's like turning down a crate of gold bullion- nobody says, "Oh, it's only painted foam plastic, I'll ignore it."

[Ahso!]

xyz;1341801 wrote: If 'it' is the Bible, that's not true. The church does not say, "Read the Bible." It says, "Here's the good news. Jesus died in your place." If people accept what he did for themselves, then they start to read the Bible. So all we have to do is not figure things out, but just respond to the news that "Jesus died in your place." We might think that is good news, and live accordingly. We might think that is bad news, and live accordingly. That's our natural right.You left a few choices which could fit between your 'good and bad' ones. Lets consider: 1) no news; 2) silly news; 3) neutral news; 4) whats the bible?: 5) who cares what a book says; 6) who cares what you say. Only very few live their lives as a reaction to what the christian bible says. We do however spend more time reacting to what people say to each other.

xyz;1341801 wrote: What I don't think we can reasonably do is just dismiss that news because it isn't true, because we don't know that it's untrue; and if it's true, news of free salvation is not one that we can sensibly dismiss. It's looking a gift horse in the mouth. It's like turning down a crate of gold bullion- nobody says, "Oh, it's only painted foam plastic, I'll ignore it."Yes we do know its untrue as fact or history and can therefore "just dismiss" this 'news'. Its time to cease fooling ourselves. And the analogy you've chosen is about as silly sounding as the agnosticism you're espousing. Sorry all you agnostics.

What Christians tell new recruits is: Jesus died for you, now go read the bible and find out what that all means. IOW, believe it before you read it. Christians use phrases such as 'god's guide book', 'god's master plan book', 'the infallible word of god' and so on to describe the purpose of the bible.

I realize xyz ignores my posts but hes missing some pretty good stuff.

[flopstock]

Ahso!;1341816 wrote: You left a few choices which could fit between your 'good and bad' ones. Lets consider: 1) no news; 2) silly news; 3) neutral news; 4) whats the bible?: 5) who cares what a book says; 6) who cares what you say. Only very few live their lives as a reaction to what the christian bible says. We do however spend more time reacting to what people say to each other.

Yes we do know its untrue as fact or history and can therefore "just dismiss" this 'news'. Its time to cease fooling ourselves. And the analogy you've chosen is about as silly sounding as the agnosticism you're espousing. Sorry all you agnostics.

What Christians tell new recruits is: Jesus died for you, now go read the bible and find out what that all means. IOW, believe it before you read it. Christians use phrases such as 'god's guide book', 'god's master plan book', 'the infallible word of god' and so on to describe the purpose of the bible.

I realize xyz ignores my posts but hes missing some pretty good stuff.I just this minute asked my daughter how she would describe the bible... she just started going to Sunday school a couple of years ago after a pleasant summer bible school experience..... she said it's called the 'word of god' at Sunday school. I asked how is it the word of god if men wrote it and she tells me that god told the men to write it...

stay tuned.:p

[Ahso!]

Too bad most religious institutions can't appreciate biblical content as literature. Your daughter would probably get a more rounded and open minded interpretation of the bible reading the Lone Koan Version with you on FG without anyone dictating its meaning to her. Open ended discussions about literature are so much more interesting, fun and stimulating to the intellect. Not that I'd know much about the latter. :wah:

[Ted]

Ahso

Right on.

Shalom

Ted

[recovering conservative]

Ahso!;1341816 wrote:

What Christians tell new recruits is: Jesus died for you, now go read the bible and find out what that all means. IOW, believe it before you read it. Christians use phrases such as 'god's guide book', 'god's master plan book', 'the infallible word of god' and so on to describe the purpose of the bible.
That reminds me of a TV appearance by those two clowns -- Ray Comfort & Kirk Cameron did with a couple of atheists a few years back. In short, Ray Comfort claimed he could prove his version of God, and that the Bible was inerrant......what it eventually boiled down to after a few slogans was 'pray that God will give you inspiration' and 'just open the Bible and start reading.' In other words, you will believe, if you already believe before you start looking! Although a monkey wrench could be thrown into this strategy if the new acolyte accidentally opened to one of those chapters in the Old Testament calling for genocide.

Funny thing is, the Bible itself doesn't claim to be inerrant! When a fundamentalist says "the Bible is inerrant," what he's really saying is "my interpretation of the Bible is inerrant." This is a claim that was added when the Protestant Reformation started, because all they had for authority were their claims to have the perfect interpretation of the Bible. They use that verse -- 2 Timothy 3:16 that 'all scripture is inspired by God, and beneficial' etc.. But "inspired" doesn't quite mean the same thing as "inerrant."

I realize xyz ignores my posts but hes missing some pretty good stuff.
I doubt he reads much of anything -- since we're all in league with Satan! Like most preachers, he is only interested in talking, instead of listening!

[Ted]

Inerrancy is purely a human doctrine and does not come from the Bible.

Shalom

Ted

[xyz]

Ted;1341919 wrote: Inerrancy is purely a human doctrine and does not come from the Bible.
A fairly common view, but not one of value. Those who value the Bible do so because they find it consistently true in its teaching, not because it is the Bible. That view is the reason for the Bible's very existence.

Therefore, those people justifiably regard any who do not regard the Bible as inerrant as needing conversion, and as those who regard it as errant as those opposed to the Bible's teaching.

Belief in Biblical inerrancy is a necessary sign of received grace.

[Ted]

Historical accuracy has nothing to do with truthfulness or otherwise.

Shalom

Ted

[koan]

xyz;1341940 wrote: A fairly common view, but not one of value. Those who value the Bible do so because they find it consistently true in its teaching, not because it is the Bible. That view is the reason for the Bible's very existence.

Therefore, those people justifiably regard any who do not regard the Bible as inerrant as needing conversion, and as those who regard it as errant as those opposed to the Bible's teaching.

Belief in Biblical inerrancy is a necessary sign of received grace.


The use of the word "therefore" is particularly annoying as you fail to actually draw a conclusion other than rewording your premise.

[koan]

oh, wow

Ahso!;1341879 wrote: Too bad most religious institutions can't appreciate biblical content as literature. Your daughter would probably get a more rounded and open minded interpretation of the bible reading the Lone Koan Version with you on FG without anyone dictating its meaning to her. Open ended discussions about literature are so much more interesting, fun and stimulating to the intellect. Not that I'd know much about the latter. :wah:
score one for "koan's notes" :yh_dance

[xyz]

Ted;1341952 wrote: Historical accuracy has nothing to do with truthfulness or otherwise.
That is, to a degree, what Christians mean by inerrancy. The spiritual message of a passage, which may go unnoticed by a non-believer, is what the believer values, and historicity or otherwise becomes secondary. Truthfulness is seen in the practical, day-to-day application. Or to put it in more homely, down to earth expressions, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and handsome is as handsome does. To Christians, the 'pudding' is so much to be preferred to other remedies for the problems of mankind that it convinces them that it is truly of divine origin. It becomes clear to them that others take the same view, even if they do not share the same approach to it.

[koan]

xyz;1341975 wrote: [snip] It becomes clear to them that others take the same view, even if they do not share the same approach to it.


?

since when?

[Ted]

I really do like what recovering conservative has to say. He is right on.

I was studying under a theologian this summer and he was talking about those "in bondage to the book" as just another form of idolatry.

As far as I can see scientists make one serious mistake. They make an assumption they cannot support right at the beginning though I do know some scientists who are devout Christians. Another thought that crosses my mind is the whole idea of pure objectivity is simply impossible. It cannot happen.

Shalom

Ted

[recovering conservative]

Ted;1342635 wrote: I really do like what recovering conservative has to say. He is right on.

I was studying under a theologian this summer and he was talking about those "in bondage to the book" as just another form of idolatry.

As far as I can see scientists make one serious mistake. They make an assumption they cannot support right at the beginning though I do know some scientists who are devout Christians. Another thought that crosses my mind is the whole idea of pure objectivity is simply impossible. It cannot happen.

Shalom

Ted


I think the big mistake the all-or-nothing literalists make, is that they may armtwist some reluctant believers into going along with them, but most of the people who decide that they cannot just go along with literal interpretations that fly in the face of historical and empirical evidence -- end up abandoning everything about their religious teaching. A lot, maybe even most of what has been written by theologians over the ages may be garbage, but someone like Richard Dawkins decides that the entire field of theology has no net worth, and wants to throw it all out.

And yes, everyone has to begin with at least a few a priori assumptions about themselves, and about the world. Scientists have an assumption that the Universe is understandable, and that progress of our understanding will eventually unlock all of the great mysteries. It's the exact opposite of the "god in the gaps" belief that creationists have. And many scientists, who are metaphysical naturalists, take a strong position (physicalism) that there will be no undiscovered forces that we presently refer to as 'supernatural', when we figure everything out. After a short time of being involved with CFI and other atheist/humanist organizations, I ended up coming to the conclusion that people who want to organize around unbelief, end up looking much like fundamentalists who want to exclude those who do not believe their particular creeds.

[Ted]

recovering conservative

Right on.

Shalom

Ted

[Bryn Mawr]

Ted;1342635 wrote: I really do like what recovering conservative has to say. He is right on.

I was studying under a theologian this summer and he was talking about those "in bondage to the book" as just another form of idolatry.

As far as I can see scientists make one serious mistake. They make an assumption they cannot support right at the beginning though I do know some scientists who are devout Christians. Another thought that crosses my mind is the whole idea of pure objectivity is simply impossible. It cannot happen.

Shalom

Ted


A scientist who makes assumptions before the facts is not a scientist.

[recovering conservative]

Ted;1342737 wrote: recovering conservative

Right on.

Shalom

Ted


Thanks again! I guess we're about on the same wavelength.

[Ted]

recovering conservative.

You are so right. I was raised in a fundamentalist church and to put it bluntly it was evil.

Shalom

Ted

[recovering conservative]

Bryn Mawr;1342749 wrote: A scientist who makes assumptions before the facts is not a scientist.


Okay, are the grounding philosophical positions that we can understand the Universe by the scientific method proveable? In the unlikely event that our universe is ruled by a trickster, or some kind of evil demiurge that the Gnostics believed in, then it wouldn't be possible to know the Universe. So far, so good, for science! But it has to be acknowledged that science has to start with a few assumptions also, before it can start building an understanding of things.

On the fringes of science, how many theoretical physicists, begininning with Einstein, have stated that a Grand Unified Theory has to be the foundation of physics? And that it must be a simple, elegant theory! I've seen this a lot in the general audience books on physics I have read over the years -- and it sounds good to me, but it certainly cannot be claimed that they are just going by the evidence to build new theories.

Same with programs like SETI, that are looking for intelligent life in the Universe. They are working under the assumption that such a vast universe must have other intelligent life like us; but there is no way to falsify that theory....if falsification is really important. If they find intelligent life, then their theory is correct -- if they don't find it, they just keep on looking!

Not that I'm complaining; but I think the hard rationalists like Richard Dawkins, don't acknowledge any limits to the scientific method of discovery, and make an unjustified claim that science can replace all other ways we use to understand and find meaning and purpose in life.

[Ted]

Stephen Hawking has recently decided that a grand unified theory is not attainable. In fact he has said he must think over his whole concept of the nature of reality.

Yes, Dawkins does seem to have a problem. One scientist has attacked him on the basis of science. Will post that later. Soon time to go out.

Shalom

Ted

Shalom

Ted

[Ahso!]

Bryn Mawr;1342749 wrote: A scientist who makes assumptions before the facts is not a scientist.But isn't that what a hypothesis is? I'd say a scientist who holds to assumptions in spite of evidence is not a scientist.

[Bryn Mawr]

Ahso!;1342920 wrote: But isn't that what a hypothesis is? I'd say a scientist who holds to assumptions in spite of evidence is not a scientist.


Scientific method is to create the hypothesis to fit the data, not to assume the hypothesis before the data is collected.

Gather the data, analyse it and then start thinking about what it tells you rather than derive your hypothesis and then try to find the data to support it.

[Ahso!]

hy·poth·e·sis

   /haɪˈpɒθəsɪs, hɪ-/ Show Spelled[hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-] Show IPA

–noun,plural-ses  /-ˌsiz/ Show Spelled[-seez] Show IPA.

1.

a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

2.

a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.

3.

the antecedent of a conditional proposition.

4.

a mere assumption or guess.

Hypothesis | Define Hypothesis at Dictionary.com

[Bryn Mawr]

Ahso!;1342940 wrote: hy·poth·e·sis

   /haɪˈpɒθəsɪs, hɪ-/ Show Spelled[hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-] Show IPA

–noun,plural-ses  /-ˌsiz/ Show Spelled[-seez] Show IPA.

1.

a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

2.

a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.

3.

the antecedent of a conditional proposition.

4.

a mere assumption or guess.

Hypothesis | Define Hypothesis at Dictionary.com


And?

How does this differ from the description I gave?

Number 1 is the definition I know, number 4 I totally deny, numbers 2 and 3 are very loose uses of the term.

[Ahso!]

All four are valid but to differing extents. It may have been hypothesized that the earth is round because the sun rose on one side and set on the other. But I could also put forth a hypothesis that states God is real, which is pure assumption, and it is now up to me to prove my hypothesis.