The BIble

Post Reply New Topic

The bible is as realistic as goblins and unicorns and dragons existing and little elves and rainbows that rain candy from the sky!

I do not believe that the Bible contains no mistakes or errors, nor do I think that it was written by God. It is certainly not the direct transcribed word of God. That does not mean that the authors have nothing truthful to say. The authors of the books of the Bible each share their work in ways that shows the unique insights, many had person experience with God and wrote down more or less accurately what he said.



Well that is quite misleading, there are sections that are written by an amanuensis and Paul is probably the best historian of the era. Even assuming naturalism, like the quite fringe Jesus Seminar does, there is broad agreement that we have recovered many of the sayings of Christ.



To the values of today, probably but to the values put forward by Christ, probably not. Remember Christ's first duty for mankind is for us to love one another as we love God. I am certain that an atheist can love one another but he cannot do so as he loves God. To clarify, that does not mean that an atheist cannot do good things but they definitionally struggle to perform a duty like that.

How many times can this topic come up in a month?

^well at least this time I have managed to get a better idea on 91's view regarding morality, and whilst I do not heartily agree with him I can now see where his logic lies.

Paul was not a historian. He was a preacher. He preached the Gospel and didn't put down much history.

91 says "misleading"? Look who's talking.

91 misleading! never, who'd have thought

He wasn't a historian, but he certainly wrote very important historical documents regarding the early formulation of Christianity.

From his writings, it is pretty clear that he had received a classic Greek education on the subject. Further, he was also educated in at the school of Gamaliel, which was renowned for its balanced and thorough education in Jewish history. His background and education suggests that he was headed for the law and a place within the teachers of the Sanhedrin but he converted to Christianity. Given how quickly he produced the Book of Acts and his research with the Apostles (and Jesus's family), his work is probably the best work of history to be produced in his own era.

91, I know you're knowledgeable enough to know this isn't exactly true ...

The Epistles may have a historical value for those scholars who wish to know what Paul believed about Jesus, but you won't get much history of the early Christian church from the Epistles themselves (just a few glimpses here and there).

Also, 91, the Book of Acts is really dodgy, and you can't say with certainty that Paul wrote it ...

Ok 91 so according to you the Bible is
1. Man Made and allegorical, historical and prose.
2. You have little enthusiasm for the idea that God intended its publication.
3. God was not the ghost writer.

Yet

Many of the writers had personal conversations with God and wrote these down with reasonable accuracy.

So although the bible is man made and God did not dictate it, his personal conversations with select men are relayed in it, also you are in no doubt that Jesus was God and the bible contains many of his sayings. It then follows that you do see the bible as the word of God.

And yet even more bring up things like Genesis which is demonstrably false and Leviticus which is plain immoral and foul.

My apologies, my statement was meant to refer to Corinthians, which is the book that predates the Markian account. It was an error on my part.

That is pretty much accurate. I would not however support the idea that I have no doubt. I do believe that Jesus was God but I certainly have doubts.

Even if the Epistles were just Paul's own beliefs, the fact remains it was those beliefs that became standard theology for the majority of Christians for the last 2,000 years. And as such, they are indeed invaluable historical writings.

Can you see then why I consider your position very contrived? You believe in God and are a Christian which means you necessarily need to believe God had some sort of input into the Bible. Yet you are also an obviously intelligent, rational ,thinking person, who is quite aware that much of what is written in the book is erroneous, immoral, and contradictory. It appears to me that you, like many others in your position, have installed tolerance mechanisms to account for these errors. Primarily you are using the fact that verbal communication leads to errors. If God had intended the Bible to exist it could not contain a single error (unless of course he wanted to confuse) therefore to a rational mind the bible cannot be a deliberate act of God. One efficient way to explain the evident flaws in the book is corruption due to verbal communication, IE God only spoke to a few elite members of our species and they, unilaterally, passed on the gist of the conversation. However can you not see that this only works for a being who is not omniscient, unless of course that is he cares not how he is misrepresented in the future?

Due to people like yourself and Orwell I wonder if it is possible to be a Deist Christian? in other words someone who does not generally believe in a personal interventionist God but can still believe in Jesus as the son of/ or as god incarnate? Surely this position would sit better with your rationale?

PS Are you enduring this heat wave? If you are I hope you, your family and friends are well. My Partner has MS and her strength of will this week is nothing short of awe inspiring!

PPS Care taken not to bring on a somniferous state caused by lack of question marks :