A Book You Can Trust

Post Reply New Topic

The question with that, of course, is that probably 3 was an adequate relationship well known by everybody. What might have been fascinating as some indication of supernatural intervention would be a given number for pi to, say, one hundred decimal places. It would probably be highly out of normal at the time to mention decimal places at all, though, so the whole question is probably irrelevant. I never have had any information about how the people at that time dealt with numbers less than one.

Exactly. It's a rather silly accusation to level at the bible.

There's an interesting explanation of how the Romans expressed fractions in this wikipedia article on Roman Numerals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#Zero

Sticklers for logical consistency. But who says God is consistent? He is quite insane, you know.

ruveyn

And that's what He says about us. Whaddaboudit?

I've been in talks with JW for the last year and a half, using the handbook What Does the Bible Really Teach?. Coming to the part where the signs are described (“great earthquakes,” “pestilences,” and major “food shortages.”) I reason against it since it's nothing significant in the course of our history, heck it's even better now then before 1914 (apparently when Jesus Christ in the form of Archangel Michael took to the throne and with the other angels battled Satan and his angels. Michael winning the battle and hurling Satan to the earth before Judgement Day which follows shortly in the coming times.) which results in the reasoning of 'if you want to see it as enough reasoning' and a agree to disagree.

I can see the bible has value in other ways besides the religious, but up until now it hasn't convinced me of being of supernatural origin.

So, everything that is wrong in the bible is not supposed to be taken literally. The parts that turn out to be right should be taken literally. Oh, also take literally the part that says homosexuality is evil but please disregard the part about tatoos. You are cherry picking your holy book and arbitrarily so.

READ MY LIPS:

You do not SOUND as if you have so little English.

I said - NOBODY - not even those who claim they do - takes the Bible literally.

I did NOT say that ANY part of the Bible "is supposed to be taken literally" Though some may take some parts literally.

What little I have said about the function of the scriptures does not support any of your statements. Thery MIGHT work if you were talking to kxmode. Surprise - I am not kxmode.

The Bible is NOT "my holy book". It is a book - anthology, rather - that certain groups have seen as special in the same way the conservative churches have recognized certasin individuals as special - the "saints". In that sense - and that sense only - it is a holy book to me. There may be somer who worship it. Not I.

I say to you as I have said to Sand and to some others: you will sound less foolish if you respond to what is actually said, not to what your politics persuade you a bad person SHOULD have said.

[by the way - please think about "You are cherry picking your holy book and arbitrarily so."! !! !!]

So all us imbeciles who donna spika da Hinglish so good lika youse should taka offen our hats and kneel before the mastah.

so in the end we can all agree that any historical accuracy is coincidental when you remember the comittee and other editorials that edited the bible?

I am not apart of that "we" group.

Of course that's what you said. And that's all great. My point is, if we shouldn't take the bible literally, why exactly should we obey anything on it? It supposedly has some laws, but what if they are not meant to be taken literally?

Perhaps reading one Harry Potter book and use it to guide our ethics would make more sense? At least we can actually ask the author what she really meant to say. Rather than assume ourselves.

No, Sir Scarab, those of you with inadequate English should

[check all that apply]

a. Ignore the Barabir

b. Seek lexical resources or an interpreter

c. Request a restatement or translation.

Those of you who are imbeciles should

[check all that apply]

a. Ignore what you do not comprehend

b. Seek explanations

c. Think about what was actually said.

-------------

None of which, clearly, you have done in this instance.

The bible is just a tool to help people guide themselves through the course of life It's just basically an instruction manual on how to lead your life from a certain point of view. Even though it was written by an ordinary person. At the beginning the catholic church only allowed priests to interpret the bible. Every other form of Christianity is just a spruced up form of early catholicism.

define inadequate oh great guru of comprehension.

I disagree that the Bible can't be taken literally.

I think what's important is to consider what Bible passages mean in the proper context.

For example: Sure, you can make up songs to help people remember, say, rules of algebra or how to balance an equation in chemistry. I'm not good at that kind of thing, but it isn't impossible for the right person to do. So, sure, a song can be written to explain science or, really, whatever you want.

Songs used in the context of sharing theologically consistent wisdom or in the context of worship serve a different function than something intended to be a mnemonic. And that's what poems and songs found in the Bible are for: Praising God and sharing wisdom from a spiritual perspective. Understanding that symbolic language and idioms aren't necessarily going to be consistent with scientific fact is not "cherry picking." It's an expression of an artist's perspective. From the ground, the sun/moon/stars DO APPEAR to circle the earth. Just because imagery doesn't match the actual mechanics of how something works doesn't invalidate the expression of imagery. But--you need to know the difference.

Same thing with Proverbs. If you take ONE proverb that states that if you do what it says you'll become rich, and you ONLY apply that ONE proverb thinking literally it is a guarantee of wealth, you'll likely be disappointed. Proverbs are very general, broad, life-lessons that CAN apply to day-to-day living with the understanding that they are not all-encompassing nor do they guarantee life to be a rose garden. Proverbs are good rules and helpful suggestions--they are not commands, and there are always exceptions.

The books of Kings and Chronicles are fairly literal as far as I can tell. I don't know why you WOULDN'T take them literally unless, of course, you merely refuse to believe that miracles are even possible. But aside from figures like David, Solomon, and Hezekiah, pretty much most of what is found there just summarizes the king's rule in terms of how consistent that king was in keeping with Torah. There is, to my knowledge, only one difficult passage in those 4 books--and really the only one in the entire OT and NT combined. What's more is that Kings/Chronicles actually did cite outside sources which were probably records either in the temple or the king's palace which have since been destroyed but at the time the books were written were probably accessible to temple and/or administrative authorities as needed. Ezra/Nehemiah relate the end of the exile after Babylon surrendered to the Medes and Persians. They record the rebuilding of the city walls and the temple. So...exactly what is there not to be taken literally? Not really anything. All you have to understand is those guys worshiped God and their faith colored how they reported facts as they experienced them...but then, if we believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, why wouldn't it be?

The only parts that aren't literal are those parts that are PLAINLY using symbolic language, like Ezekiel and Daniel. But, then again...why NOT take it literally? If a prophet says he saw a vision of angels on eye-covered wheels, why can't we believe that he really did see what he saw in his vision? Even if someone is under the influence of acid and what they see isn't real but merely a "vision" (or hallucination, or a dream, or whatever it is), that person still experiences what they experience regardless of causative factors. Anyone who understands the Hebrew faith knows the wheels covered with eyes represents God who is all-seeing. So it's fine to take visions literally in the sense that we can assume that prophets wrote down what they saw in a vision. As to what those visions MEAN would be a different story, but it's obvious when something (in terms of the actual message) should be taken literally and when it isn't. That's not cherry-picking, and most of the time passages like that self-interpret (the symbolism is explained later).

I think what WOULD be cherry picking would be asserting that because the Torah is God-inspired that it should be observed even by Christians--and then not actually observe it. That's like saying the Bible forbids homosexuality, but then going out and eating shellfish. For the Christian, for whom the gospels take priority over the law, there is a different understanding of the purpose of Torah. Primarily the Torah is intended as law-and-order for a Hebrew theocracy, not for Christian living. To the Christian, Torah fulfills the functions of sacrificial ceremony as well as civil and criminal justice.

So if you believe Isaiah, you can view Torah as something that was never intended to be permanent (for one). Laws regulating diet distinguish the Israelites from "the nations," which means shellfish and pork are not off limits for "other people," including Christians. Which leaves basic morality: Certain behaviors were a regular feature of pagan worship and were forbidden by default. I'm not trying to be hateful towards anybody, but one nasty fact of the Bible is that it forbids homosexuality for that reason and the NT affirms it for Christians. Homosexuality is only ONE of a number things Christians are to avoid. NOT ONCE are Christ's followers instructed to behave violently towards gays despite the behavior being unacceptable. No form of immoral behavior is (homosexuality was mentioned, but this is not to ignore other forms of immorality).

Whether you're cherry-picking or not depends on how well you understand the Christian Bible as a whole. If you assert that you believe the OT and that the OT condemns homosexuality, then you have to keep the dietary laws, circumcision, and so on in order to be consistent. The NT explains why we are "free from the law," what that "law" is that we're free from, and what we still need to do to be consistent with Christian morality. If you're following the NT, it's not cherry picking. If you rationalize certain things from the OT and not others, you're being inconsistent (apart from the NT). As ruveyn likes to say, the Tanakh was written "by the Jews, for the Jews." Before condemning certain behaviors based on the OT, one should understand this basic fact and consider exactly what and why certain things are still relevant to Christians and others are not. The NT is fairly clear about this.

Anyone who understands basic mathematics would see something like this.

Since your god wanted people to remain ignorant, it's no wonder you would scorn "Academics" - those of us who no longer need mind-control cults to tell us what to think.