RE: Why the Bible? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Icarys -> RE: Why the Bible? (11/19/2009 3:50:01 PM)

quote:

Thank you SO much! That was what i was hoping for, to find out if i could change anything i was doing or not doing. You are a class act woman!


Top notch!





eyesopened -> RE: Why the Bible? (11/20/2009 4:39:26 AM)

Breatheasone, I assure you, I was not poking fun at you personally nor at the Bible as an important work of literature. 

The problem is, too many people will listen to the reasonable arguements of Ravi Zacharias and, like the Bible itself, twist his words for their own agenda instead of looking at face value.

I personally look to the Bible to understand the history of faith, to see how the Hebrew people were united under a new philosophy of monotheism. And it's interesting to read how humans struggled then and struggle now with their religion as it relates to politics, ambition, culture, class and individual need. 

I do not, and no one could ever convince me that the Bible is the actual Word of God.  There are inconsistancies in the prophesy of Isaiah, fer example. Isaiah said the name of Christ is "God with us" and Jesus' name is God Saves or God Defends.  Joshua.  His name is Joshua and we can try to change it to the hebrew pronounciation but it is what it is.  There is the problem with virgin birth, because the writers of the New Testament, in their zeal, took the word virgin to mean someone who had not had sex rather than the original hebrew word for "young woman".  It is further a problem because the virgin birth and the ascention into heaven too closely resemble the stories of the buddah and other gods of polythesim.  Well-intentioned, but Constantine could not wrap his arms around a mere mortal human being as someone who could also be the Christ.  So Constantine turned Joshua into God. 

I am someone who tries to follow the example of Jesus.  A man.  A really special human being who was able to express a new way to understand God. 

No, it's not you personally nor your beliefs.  I think it's a good thing for people to neither dismiss or embrace a religion but take the time to understand the various beliefs of others.  It is only by understanding can there ever be peace.

But really, the Farting Preacher is hillarious.




GotSteel -> RE: Why the Bible? (11/20/2009 6:09:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened
The problem is, too many people will listen to the reasonable arguements of Ravi Zacharias and, like the Bible itself, twist his words for their own agenda instead of looking at face value.


I consider at least this part of his presentation to be reasonable:

"If you see that kind of systemic contradiction and failure then you have reason to believe that I cannot really trust this document it's not in keeping with the way I'm seeing history and reality"



tazzygirl -> RE: Why the Bible? (11/20/2009 6:40:15 AM)

~FR

I do not, and no one could ever convince me that the Bible is the actual Word of God. There are inconsistancies in the prophesy of Isaiah, fer example. Isaiah said the name of Christ is "God with us" and Jesus' name is God Saves or God Defends. Joshua. His name is Joshua and we can try to change it to the hebrew pronounciation but it is what it is. There is the problem with virgin birth, because the writers of the New Testament, in their zeal, took the word virgin to mean someone who had not had sex rather than the original hebrew word for "young woman". It is further a problem because the virgin birth and the ascention into heaven too closely resemble the stories of the buddah and other gods of polythesim. Well-intentioned, but Constantine could not wrap his arms around a mere mortal human being as someone who could also be the Christ. So Constantine turned Joshua into God.

Many inconsistencies came about during translations.

Some people believe, some people dont. Then there are the rest.

Carlin, Penn/Teller... wonderful comedians. They make me laugh, they rarely make me think. I prefer a more serious discourse beyond someone trying to get a laugh while belittling others.



AnnaOfAramis -> RE: Why the Bible? (11/20/2009 7:46:53 AM)

Greetings,

Thank you vincent for posting the George Carlin link- I was about to post it myself.

quote:

I do not, and no one could ever convince me that the Bible is the actual Word of God.

..... Jesus. A man. A really special human being who was able to express a new way to understand God.

.... I think it's a good thing for people to neither dismiss or embrace a religion but take the time to understand the various beliefs of others. It is only by understanding can there ever be peace.
[sm=agree.gif]

I don't think (I hope) any contrary posts were directed at the OP, but only expressing their own views of religion as a response and a discussion. I have done quite a bit of exploring myself and ended up coming pretty much full circle only ending back with a more defined sense of what I believe. FWIW, I consider myself a pantheist and something of a taoist in outlook. I see religions and the bible and other religious books as not right nor wrong, simply ways that people choose to represent their beliefs. To me it's all manufactured by humans and contains as much fallacy as truth depending what you take from it. I don't credit the Bible as any better than mythologies of other cultures: the Greeks, the Mayans, etc. It contains interesting lessons- so too do many other books. I find Joseph Campbell's studies and comparisons of world mythologies quite fascinating. It seems they have far more in common with one another than differences. I can enjoy some of the various rituals of different religions, but I take from them my own meaning, not necessarily what traditionalists do. While I don't consider myself Christian in beliefs, I was raised in a Christian household, so the traditions of my family I still uphold, but I do so more as a sense of kinship with family than because of the religion.

I enjoy the George Carlin clip because, while it is tongue in cheek, it does encapsulate what I essentially agree with.

I do understand that for many religion provides the answers they seek, but for for me it does not. Everyone has to find their own truth and live by it.

Well wishes,
anna



thornhappy -> RE: Why the Bible? (11/20/2009 8:13:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Many inconsistencies came about during translations.


There are other large-scale inconsistencies.  For instance, the Book of Judges says judges are da bomb, and when we had kings we had our butts kicked.  The Book of Kings says the opposite - that bad things happened when we were led by judges.

And there are 2 creation stories, and several givings of the law.

There are inconsistencies withing the synoptic Gospels too.



Moonhead -> RE: Why the Bible? (11/20/2009 9:13:00 AM)

There's even stuff in Genesis as well: two separate lengths given for the duration of the flood, and a volume of the ark that doesn't match the one you'd get by calculating from it's dimensions. (Presumably those are both wrong in the Tal;mud as well...)



Brain -> RE: Why the Bible? (11/20/2009 9:20:23 AM)

The Conservative or Liberal Bible? lol

The Conservative Bible
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-8_qqBePKI

The Bible is far too liberal for Andy Schlafly and the Conservative Bible Project and they aim to fix it with or without Jackie & Dunlap's help.







vincentML -> RE: Why the Bible? (11/20/2009 12:05:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


Many inconsistencies came about during translations.

Some people believe, some people dont. Then there are the rest.



Inconsistencies not only from translations of translations and copies of copies, but also because there was perhaps a 30 to 40 year period after the crucifixion before the book attributed to Mark, and during that time there was an oral transmission of stories across the years and across the 2500 mile width of the Roman Empire. Additionally, the early stories may not have been intended as historical record but more probably as a record of beliefs and persuasion by new converts to new converts word of mouth over a pint or two. So, one should not be surprised that there are inconsistencies. To dwell on the myriad of inconsistencies seems to be an irrelevent game.

Seems to me (humbly stated) the main issue is whether Jesus was Resurrected after the Crucifixion and what is the meaning of all that. Either you accept the Redemption offered by the Resurrection or you don't for whatever your reasons. Nit piking the size of Noah's boat or whether the cock crowed two times or three seems to me to avoid the main issue. And for people such as us who were born into Western Civilization framed and powered by Christianity it is an Existential choice. I mean you believe you will survive the death of your brain, or you wont, and you construct your ethics accordingly and live the best life you can in light of your decision. In either case, whether a humanist or theocrat (sorry, i don't know the equivalent word) is no excuse to be cruel to people or animals. Do not allow the need for ethics to be diverted by debate over biblical inconsistencies. We all still have a responsibility to one another.

vincent



eyesopened -> RE: Why the Bible? (11/20/2009 12:57:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


Many inconsistencies came about during translations.

Some people believe, some people dont. Then there are the rest.



Inconsistencies not only from translations of translations and copies of copies, but also because there was perhaps a 30 to 40 year period after the crucifixion before the book attributed to Mark, and during that time there was an oral transmission of stories across the years and across the 2500 mile width of the Roman Empire. Additionally, the early stories may not have been intended as historical record but more probably as a record of beliefs and persuasion by new converts to new converts word of mouth over a pint or two. So, one should not be surprised that there are inconsistencies. To dwell on the myriad of inconsistencies seems to be an irrelevent game.

Seems to me (humbly stated) the main issue is whether Jesus was Resurrected after the Crucifixion and what is the meaning of all that. Either you accept the Redemption offered by the Resurrection or you don't for whatever your reasons. Nit piking the size of Noah's boat or whether the cock crowed two times or three seems to me to avoid the main issue. And for people such as us who were born into Western Civilization framed and powered by Christianity it is an Existential choice. I mean you believe you will survive the death of your brain, or you wont, and you construct your ethics accordingly and live the best life you can in light of your decision. In either case, whether a humanist or theocrat (sorry, i don't know the equivalent word) is no excuse to be cruel to people or animals. Do not allow the need for ethics to be diverted by debate over biblical inconsistencies. We all still have a responsibility to one another.

vincent


Well there's the added problem of calling the body of work, "The Bible" as though there is only one.  Do we really want to be so ugly as to now declare that only Luther knew the "Word of God" and all Jews and Catholics are non-believers?

So the question "Why The Bible?" has to first answer... which Bible is THE Bible?




vincentML -> RE: Why the Bible? (11/20/2009 2:37:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


Many inconsistencies came about during translations.

Some people believe, some people dont. Then there are the rest.



Inconsistencies not only from translations of translations and copies of copies, but also because there was perhaps a 30 to 40 year period after the crucifixion before the book attributed to Mark, and during that time there was an oral transmission of stories across the years and across the 2500 mile width of the Roman Empire. Additionally, the early stories may not have been intended as historical record but more probably as a record of beliefs and persuasion by new converts to new converts word of mouth over a pint or two. So, one should not be surprised that there are inconsistencies. To dwell on the myriad of inconsistencies seems to be an irrelevent game.

Seems to me (humbly stated) the main issue is whether Jesus was Resurrected after the Crucifixion and what is the meaning of all that. Either you accept the Redemption offered by the Resurrection or you don't for whatever your reasons. Nit piking the size of Noah's boat or whether the cock crowed two times or three seems to me to avoid the main issue. And for people such as us who were born into Western Civilization framed and powered by Christianity it is an Existential choice. I mean you believe you will survive the death of your brain, or you wont, and you construct your ethics accordingly and live the best life you can in light of your decision. In either case, whether a humanist or theocrat (sorry, i don't know the equivalent word) is no excuse to be cruel to people or animals. Do not allow the need for ethics to be diverted by debate over biblical inconsistencies. We all still have a responsibility to one another.

vincent


Well there's the added problem of calling the body of work, "The Bible" as though there is only one.  Do we really want to be so ugly as to now declare that only Luther knew the "Word of God" and all Jews and Catholics are non-believers?

So the question "Why The Bible?" has to first answer... which Bible is THE Bible?




Clearly, you make a good point, especially in differentiating the OT from the NT if you accept the central issue is the road to salvation. It makes a big difference if you are a Jew. As far as Catholic vs Protestant I would appreciate it if you would point out what is the significant difference between them as to views on the Redemption. Do each have a different Canon? I am not aware of that. Different translations and interpretations perhaps? Thank you.

vincent



tazzygirl -> RE: Why the Bible? (11/20/2009 11:43:23 PM)

As i have stated before, the Bible is a beautifully written story. Written by many people, from many points of views, translated by many other people, about a man very few of them actually had met.

Remember the whispering game as a child? The more something is told by methods other than written, the more likely it will be changed.

http://www.biblica.com/bibles/about/3.php

The Bible was not written in one specific year or in a single location. The Bible is a collection of writings, and the earliest ones were set down nearly 3500 years ago. So let's start at the beginning of this fascinating story.

The first five books of the Bible are attributed to Moses and are commonly called the Pentateuch (literally "five scrolls").

Moses lived between 1500 and 1300 BC, though he recounts events in the first eleven chapters of the Bible that occurred long before his time (such as the creation and the flood).

These earliest accounts were handed on from generation to generation in songs, narratives, and poetry.

In those early societies there was no writing as yet and people passed on these oral accounts with great detail and accuracy.

The earliest writing began when symbols were scratched or pressed on clay tablets. The Egyptians refined this technique and developed an early form of writing known as hieroglyphics. The Bible tells us that Moses was "educated in all the learning of the Egyptians", so he would have been familiar with the major writing systems of his time. We also read that God gave Moses "two tablets of the Testimony, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God"(Exodus 31:18). All this leads to the conclusion that the earliest writings in the Bible were set down around 1400 BC.

The writings of the thirty or so other contributors to the Old Testament span a thousand years! They recount the times and messages from Moses' successor, Joshua, to the last of the Old Testament prophets, Malachi, who wrote his little tract around 450 BC.

Then there is a 500-year period when no writings were contributed to the Bible. This is the period between the testaments, when Alexander the Great conquered much of the world and when the Greek language was introduced to the Hebrews. Indeed, they began to use Greek so much that the Hebrew language was replaced by Greek and by another language, Aramaic, which was spoken all over that area of the world at that time.




tazzygirl -> RE: Why the Bible? (11/20/2009 11:55:52 PM)

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/catholic_protestant.htm



eyesopened -> RE: Why the Bible? (11/21/2009 4:11:21 AM)



Sorry, I wasn't aware there was a difference between the Roman version and the Orthodox version.  To answer your question, it is the canon primarily that I was talking about. 
 
The question "Why the Bible" was not talking about redemption.  That's a whole 'nother thread.

The First Christian Bible
At the time the Christian Bible was being formed, a Greek translation of Jewish Scripture, the Septuagint, was in common use and Christians adopted it as the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. However, around 100 A.D., Jewish rabbis revised their Scripture and established an official canon of Judaism which excluded some portions of the Greek Septuagint. The material excluded was a group of 15 late Jewish books, written during the period 170 B.C. to 70 A.D., that were not found in Hebrew versions of the Jewish Scripture. Christians did not follow the revisions of Judaism and continued to use the text of the Septuagint as the Old Testament.
 
Protestant Bibles
In the 1500s, Protestant leaders decided to organize the Old Testament material according to the official canon of Judaism rather than the Septuagint. They moved the Old Testament material which was not in the Jewish canon into a separate section of the Bible called the Apocrypha. So, Protestant Bibles then included all the same material as the earlier Bible, but it was divided into two sections: the Old Testament and the Apocrypha. Protestant Bibles included the Apocrypha until the mid 1800s, and the King James Version was originally published with the Apocrypha. However, the books of the Apocrypha were considered less important, and the Apocrypha was eventually dropped from most Protestant editions.
 
Catholic and Orthodox Bibles
The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches did not follow the Protestant revisions, and they continue to base their Old Testament on the Septuagint. The result is that these versions of the the Bible have more Old Testament books than most Protestant versions. Catholic Old Testaments include 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), additions to Esther, and the stories of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon which are included in Daniel. Orthodox Old Testaments include these plus 1st and 2nd Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 and 3rd Maccabees.
 
http://www.twopaths.com/faq_bibles.htm



breatheasone -> RE: Why the Bible? (11/21/2009 9:42:45 AM)

i'm glad to see the gang is still in enjoying this thread! carry on.....[sm=biggrin.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=biggrin.gif]



Musicmystery -> RE: Why the Bible? (11/21/2009 9:54:26 AM)

You are being hyperdefensive.

People are discussing the Bible, as your thread initiated. If you don't want lots of views, don't start threads.

They are even doing so seriously now. So you turn around and turn to ridicule.

Perhaps re-read that Bible. You've missed several important parts of the New Testament in particular.



breatheasone -> RE: Why the Bible? (11/21/2009 10:07:02 AM)

Awww, whats the matter?....You don't like it when someone is being factitious while you are trying to be serious? It dosen't feel good does it?



Musicmystery -> RE: Why the Bible? (11/21/2009 10:10:02 AM)

I don't mind at all. In fact, it's the norm here.

The whining on this thread is yours. When you tire of it, simply stop.

But if you wonder later why people don't take you seriously when you bring up the Bible, something clearly important to you, you've yourself to blame.



breatheasone -> RE: Why the Bible? (11/21/2009 10:13:35 AM)

People will take serious what they want to. As for whining? i don't give 2 craps if you think i was "whining"



Musicmystery -> RE: Why the Bible? (11/21/2009 10:15:12 AM)

OK, dear.

Sorry I suggested the New Testament. I should know by now that few who claim to be Christian can demonstrate such faith.

Enjoy your pout.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875