|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 20, 2017 11:14:26 GMT
If we know that the account of genesis couldn't even get the order of when plants and stars formed right, and that adam and eve never existed, when does the bible ever start talking about things that actually happened? We know there is no evidence of a global flood so the whole noah story is out the window, there's no evidence of a mass jewish exodus from Egypt so that's gone, and presumably everything in between including abraham and others. And then we get to the jesus account where it finally starts talking about some known Roman political figures. Heck even during the moses story we don't really even know what pharaoh they are talking about. And whoever jesus was is incredibly sketchy anyway, and especially what he did. So lets give the bible credit for him at least existing and then a golf clap for setting the stories in a handful of real places, and is that really it? We're talking about a book that contains the story of jonah here.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Mar 20, 2017 14:09:20 GMT
You're kinda skipping whole chunks of the Bible there. Historically verified figures start appearing before the Gospels - though how accurate the biblical depiction is about them is another matter.
To summarise:
Old Testament
- Genesis is almost certainly myth and analogy and has been treated as such by at least some Christians throughout history
- The rest of the Pentateuch is also highly likely an invention. Some have suggested it was a story created to give the Israelites hope during the Babylonian captivity
- Joshua, Judges, Ruth and 1 and 2 Samuel are likely mostly invention with perhaps some exaggerated tales of genuine tribal heroes. There is some archaeological evidence for King David though he likely was not as important as made out here.
- 1 and 2 Kings become increasingly historical as they go on, starting with the highly mythicized Solomon and ending with the much more concrete figure of Jeconiah and dealing with the historically verified Babylonian Capture
- 1 and 2 Chronicles is mostly a recap of everything that's come before followed by verified historical events concerning Persia conquering Babylon and the Israelites thereby gaining their freedom.
- Ezra and Nehemiah deal with events that definitely happened (ie the fates of the Jews after leaving Babylon) but viewed through an obvious theological lens and doubtless containing exaggerations, elaborations and simplifications.
- Tobit, Judith and Esther are essentially historical novels set in the context of periods covered elsewhere in the Bible
- 1 and 2 Maccabbees are almost completely historical rather than theological works, detailing the overthrow of the Seleucid rulers of Israel and the formation of the Hasmonean dynasty, all verified
- Job is essentially a parable and was always treated as such
- Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiaistes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach are contemplative works, not historical
- The Prophets books contain the saying of supposed genuine prophets. The existence of these prophets and whether these sayings actually come from them is heavily debated. The consensus is many/most of the sayings were invented later than these prophets supposedly lived. And of course many of the events (such as Jonah getting eaten by a sea monster) are very dubious.
New Testament
- The Gospels and Acts mention some verified figures and practices but there is evidence of some mythic writing too. Jesus' historicity is hotly debated.
- Most of Paul's epistles were probably written by him or his followers. Some have been redacted and others may be complete forgeries.
- The other Epistles' authorship is debated though most are thought to be authentically of the era they claim to be. 2 and 3 John are the major exceptions which are generally considered much later. 2 Peter is also slightly contentious.
- Revelations is prophetic rather than historical.
So - some genuine history in there, some debatable, some probably greatly altered from reality and some just plain made up. Some of this has been acknowledged even by early Christians and some could be argued to still have meaning even if it is conceded they were made up. It's important to remember the Bible's purpose, even when describing supposedly historical events, was not just a history.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 20, 2017 14:37:33 GMT
I never understood why people try to pretend that the Bible didn't intentionally include fantastical stuff that people could choose to believe or not.
There is nothing in Scripture that indicates that any of it was not to be taken as authentic (Not the same as literal).
The notion that the parts that actually involved God weren't real came way later as people started believing God wasn't real.
There is little question that, at least in some aspect every Bible writer bought into the notion of the events happening as written even if they didn't happen on the scale that we, in the 21st century, interpret them to mean.
For example, there is no way the writers of the Pentateuch would know anything about the size of the world and their writing makes it clear they never had a reason to. Their writings were based on a particular purpose - To introduce God, his power and right to rule as creator, and the type of people he likes.
Of course, all of this is irrelevant to the OP's question since his lack of belief has no connection to any one else's belief and I think he's frustrated about stuff.
However, the notion of creation can easily fit perfectly within scientific law since science mandates creation of life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 14:47:17 GMT
The Bible isn't a book of science/history that just fell out of the sky. It was written by people who were explaining things as they understood them. There are a variety of different genres included in this library as well (including some historical accounts and biographies). People of faith believe that the varies works were inspired by God and communicate spiritual truths that are more profound than how perfectly (or imperfectly) they line up what our modern understanding of science/history. People like the OP don't. Pretty simple.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 20, 2017 14:54:57 GMT
The Bible isn't a book of science/history that just fell out of the sky. It was written by people who were explaining things as they understood them. There are a variety of different genres included in this library as well (including some historical accounts and biographies). People of faith believe they were inspired by God and communicate spiritual truths that are more profound than how perfectly (or imperfectly) they line up what our modern understanding of science/history. People like the OP don't. Pretty simple. I somewhat disagree.
The Bible was written for anyone to understand and it was scalable and specifically meant for people that lived beyond the people who wrote it over thousands of years.
However, it can't help but to be written by people who had only a certain knowledge of the time.
In other words, in the 21st century it still makes sense that there is a higher life form capable of creating life since humans in all their inferiority are close to accomplishing it themselves if they haven't done so already. To not believe that is to not believe that anything can be smarter than a typical human which is silly and arrogant even assuming God doesn't exist.
We should just stop pretending that ancient people should live by the standards of 21st century people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 15:03:24 GMT
The Bible isn't a book of science/history that just fell out of the sky. It was written by people who were explaining things as they understood them. There are a variety of different genres included in this library as well (including some historical accounts and biographies). People of faith believe they were inspired by God and communicate spiritual truths that are more profound than how perfectly (or imperfectly) they line up what our modern understanding of science/history. People like the OP don't. Pretty simple. I somewhat disagree.
The Bible was written for anyone to understand and it was scalable and specifically meant for people that lived beyond the people who wrote it over thousands of years.
However, it can't help but to be written by people who had only a certain knowledge of the time.
In other words, in the 21st century it still makes sense that there is a higher life form capable of creating life since humans in all their inferiority are close to accomplishing it themselves if they haven't done so already. To not believe that is to not believe that anything can be smarter than a typical human which is silly and arrogant even assuming God doesn't exist.
We should just stop pretending that ancient people should live by the standards of 21st century people.
I'm pretty sure we're on the same page here. Obviously, people who are alive now can understand it. But the problem is that people today are applying their standards to ancient people (as you said). They're not contextualizing anything. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 20, 2017 15:09:15 GMT
In other words, in the 21st century it still makes sense that there is a higher life form capable of creating life since humans in all their inferiority are close to accomplishing it themselves if they haven't done so already. To not believe that is to not believe that anything can be smarter than a typical human which is silly and arrogant even assuming God doesn't exist. That is a non sequitur. Just because something could have been created by an intelligence doesn't mean that it did. And saying that something probably came by through natural processes instead of being created by an intelligence is not ruling out the possibility that an intelligence was behing it after all. It's just that there is zero evidence for an intelligence that created life, the universe, and everything. There isn't even evidence that Earth was created by planet designers from Magrathea. And in the absence of evidence, Occam's razor leads us to believe that we have evidence of absence. So if you believe it makes sense that life on Earth was created by an intelligence, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for it. And until then, it makes sense to believe that live just came by through natural processes; as the coast line of Norway did. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 20, 2017 15:16:04 GMT
In other words, in the 21st century it still makes sense that there is a higher life form capable of creating life since humans in all their inferiority are close to accomplishing it themselves if they haven't done so already. To not believe that is to not believe that anything can be smarter than a typical human which is silly and arrogant even assuming God doesn't exist.
Of course not. This isn't an argument about belief but rather possibility.
So whether it happened or not is irrelevant to the notion of outright dismissing it as never happening which is the part that's silly and arrogant.
Life starting is not soil erosion although it's easy enough to compare the two in a sentence I guess.
This is incorrect. I am in no more of a burden than anyone else since no one can prove anything.
The only burden I would have is the one placed on myself to convince you and I don't care about people enough to do that and especially since I don't have enough evidence to verify it as fact. But then again, neither does anyone else.
This is all just an exercise in which unlikely event was more likely to happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 15:16:47 GMT
In other words, in the 21st century it still makes sense that there is a higher life form capable of creating life since humans in all their inferiority are close to accomplishing it themselves if they haven't done so already. To not believe that is to not believe that anything can be smarter than a typical human which is silly and arrogant even assuming God doesn't exist. That is a non sequitur. Just because something could have been created by an intelligence doesn't mean that it did. And saying that something probably came by through natural processes instead of being created by an intelligence is not ruling out the possibility that an intelligence was behing it after all. It's just that there is zero evidence for an intelligence that created life, the universe, and everything. There isn't even evidence that Earth was created by planet designers from Magrathea. And in the absence of evidence, Occam's razor leads us to believe that we have evidence of absence. So if you believe it makes sense that life on Earth was created by an intelligence, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for it. And until then, it makes sense to believe that live just came by through natural processes; as the coast line of Norway did. There are many Christians (and other peoples of faith) who don't see a dichotomy between science (including natural processes) on the one hand, and the idea that there is a guiding force (or forces) behind it, on the other. So God could very well use evolution to bring about humans. The problem is when people try to pretend like philosophy is the same as science. It's not. The former is trying to get at the WHY, while the latter is just useful for explaining the HOW. Science cannot answer those deeper WHY questions, nor does it really try to. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 20, 2017 15:42:17 GMT
I am in no more of a burden than anyone else since no one can prove anything.
The only burden I would have is the one placed on myself to convince you and I don't care about people enough to do that and especially since I don't have enough evidence to verify it as fact. But then again, neither does anyone else. Good. You can believe whatever you want. Only if you wanted to convince others would you have to provide better evidence than just a possibility. But since you apparently don't want to convince others, there is no problem. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 15:52:34 GMT
The Bible isn't a book of science/history that just fell out of the sky. It was written by people who were explaining things as they understood them. There are a variety of different genres included in this library as well (including some historical accounts and biographies). People of faith believe they were inspired by God and communicate spiritual truths that are more profound than how perfectly (or imperfectly) they line up what our modern understanding of science/history. People like the OP don't. Pretty simple. I somewhat disagree.
The Bible was written for anyone to understand and it was scalable and specifically meant for people that lived beyond the people who wrote it over thousands of years.
And assuming this is as the only way life could happen = reductio ad absurdum |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 20, 2017 15:55:38 GMT
I somewhat disagree.
The Bible was written for anyone to understand and it was scalable and specifically meant for people that lived beyond the people who wrote it over thousands of years.
Only goobers think translations are bad things.
Any possible edits are revealed in Scripture themselves.
No one said that.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 20, 2017 16:03:19 GMT
Pontius Pilate and Herod are real. The Star of Bethlehem is partly real also.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Mar 20, 2017 16:04:15 GMT
I never understood why people try to pretend that the Bible didn't intentionally include fantastical stuff that people could choose to believe or not. There is nothing in Scripture that indicates that any of it was not to be taken as authentic (Not the same as literal). The notion that the parts that actually involved God weren't real came way later as people started believing God wasn't real. There is little question that, at least in some aspect every Bible writer bought into the notion of the events happening as written even if they didn't happen on the scale that we, in the 21st century, interpret them to mean. For example, there is no way the writers of the Pentateuch would know anything about the size of the world and their writing makes it clear they never had a reason to. Their writings were based on a particular purpose - To introduce God, his power and right to rule as creator, and the type of people he likes. Of course, all of this is irrelevant to the OP's question since his lack of belief has no connection to any one else's belief and I think he's frustrated about stuff. However, the notion of creation can easily fit perfectly within scientific law since science mandates creation of life. Some people (not all) believe that the OT/NT was authored by God through the use of humans doing the physical writing. Some people (not all) believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God; therefore, everything contained in it is perfect and true. Since we know that various things within the Bible are not factual, I think the OP is wondering....how do we separate the true from the false? Sure, there are factual (verifiable) people, places and events that are mentioned in Bible, but all of the supernatural stories could be all made up. How does a person separate fact from fiction? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 16:26:27 GMT
I never understood why people try to pretend that the Bible didn't intentionally include fantastical stuff that people could choose to believe or not. There is nothing in Scripture that indicates that any of it was not to be taken as authentic (Not the same as literal). The notion that the parts that actually involved God weren't real came way later as people started believing God wasn't real. There is little question that, at least in some aspect every Bible writer bought into the notion of the events happening as written even if they didn't happen on the scale that we, in the 21st century, interpret them to mean. For example, there is no way the writers of the Pentateuch would know anything about the size of the world and their writing makes it clear they never had a reason to. Their writings were based on a particular purpose - To introduce God, his power and right to rule as creator, and the type of people he likes. Of course, all of this is irrelevant to the OP's question since his lack of belief has no connection to any one else's belief and I think he's frustrated about stuff. However, the notion of creation can easily fit perfectly within scientific law since science mandates creation of life. Some people (not all) believe that the OT/NT was authored by God through the use of humans doing the physical writing. Some people (not all) believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God; therefore, everything contained in it is perfect and true. Since we know that various things within the Bible are not factual, I think the OP is wondering....how do we separate the true from the false? Sure, there are factual (verifiable) people, places and events that are mentioned in Bible, but all of the supernatural stories could be all made up. How does a person separate fact from fiction? You should consider things like genre and original audience. For example, Luke tells us that he's writing down an orderly account of Jesus's life. It's a biography. He worked with the Apostles to put everything together. Pslams is a book of poetry. Job is a story. Genesis presents itself as historical narrative, but given the limitations of the authors who compiled it, it's loaded with mythological language and themes. The point is that you have to take it on a case-by-case basis, as the Bible is NOT just a singular work. As stated before, it's a collection of works from a variety of different authors that includes a variety of different genres and was compiled over a very long period of time. The Bible is a library. It's not a book. Once you consider the genre and the audience, it becomes easier to deduce what's meant to be taken literally and what's not. |
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Mar 20, 2017 17:11:19 GMT
Indeed, hence it's countless translations and edits.
Only goobers think translations are bad things.
Translations can be bad things since it only takes one misplaced word or one misplaced punctuation mark to change the context of an entire sentence. If a particular text is meant to shape a person's believe, dictate the way that they should act, have bearing on legislation, etc., then MIStranslations can be very bad things. Example: Some parts of the world write dates month/day/year. Other parts of the world write dates day/month/year. If a critical expiration date was mistranslated on a product, someone could die as a result. |
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Mar 20, 2017 17:22:20 GMT
Some people (not all) believe that the OT/NT was authored by God through the use of humans doing the physical writing. Some people (not all) believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God; therefore, everything contained in it is perfect and true. Since we know that various things within the Bible are not factual, I think the OP is wondering....how do we separate the true from the false? Sure, there are factual (verifiable) people, places and events that are mentioned in Bible, but all of the supernatural stories could be all made up. How does a person separate fact from fiction? You should consider things like genre and original audience. For example, Luke tells us that he's writing down an orderly account of Jesus's life. It's a biography. He worked with the Apostles to put everything together. Pslams is a book of poetry. Job is a story. Genesis presents itself as historical narrative, but given the limitations of the authors who compiled it, it's loaded with mythological language and themes. The point is that you have to take it on a case-by-case basis, as the Bible is NOT just a singular work. As stated before, it's a collection of works from a variety of different authors that includes a variety of different genres and was compiled over a very long period of time. The Bible is a library. It's not a book. Once you consider the genre and the audience, it becomes easier to deduce what's meant to be taken literally and what's not. I understood and I was onboard with everything you wrote....until the last sentence. If there is room for interpretation, then it is not easy (or easier) to deduce what's literal and what is not. If you ask 100 people, you could get a 100 different answers of what is literal and what's not. If you approach the Bible as an overall series of fictional stories, with some real people and places sprinkled in, then it's not a big deal. The problem is that some people take specific parts of the Bible literally (by their own determination) and expect others to do the same. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 20, 2017 17:24:53 GMT
I never understood why people try to pretend that the Bible didn't intentionally include fantastical stuff that people could choose to believe or not. There is nothing in Scripture that indicates that any of it was not to be taken as authentic (Not the same as literal). The notion that the parts that actually involved God weren't real came way later as people started believing God wasn't real. There is little question that, at least in some aspect every Bible writer bought into the notion of the events happening as written even if they didn't happen on the scale that we, in the 21st century, interpret them to mean. For example, there is no way the writers of the Pentateuch would know anything about the size of the world and their writing makes it clear they never had a reason to. Their writings were based on a particular purpose - To introduce God, his power and right to rule as creator, and the type of people he likes. Of course, all of this is irrelevant to the OP's question since his lack of belief has no connection to any one else's belief and I think he's frustrated about stuff. However, the notion of creation can easily fit perfectly within scientific law since science mandates creation of life. Some people (not all) believe that the OT/NT was authored by God through the use of humans doing the physical writing. Some people (not all) believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God; therefore, everything contained in it is perfect and true. My entire point has been to believe what you want and dismiss what you want as long as it is something that is not verifiable.
We don't know this at all.
All we have is whether we buy into the notion of something happening that we cannot replicate which is what we are automatically doing when we make assumptions about how life got here.
There is no way to separate truth from falsehood because the Bible is written pretty clearly to be unified throughout. It's best just to accept it or reject it. However, it is not fair to apply our own understandings to the writers since they weren't as knowledgeable in scientific stuff. Their job was to explain what it takes to be approved by God which they do a fabulous job at and it's silly to assume that they didn't understand that quite clearly.
The thing we can't get lost in the weeds over is scientific details about things not discovered no more than just a couple of hundred years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Mar 20, 2017 17:51:44 GMT
Some people (not all) believe that the OT/NT was authored by God through the use of humans doing the physical writing. Some people (not all) believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God; therefore, everything contained in it is perfect and true. My entire point has been to believe what you want and dismiss what you want as long as it is something that is not verifiable.
We don't know this at all.
All we have is whether we buy into the notion of something happening that we cannot replicate which is what we are automatically doing when we make assumptions about how life got here.
There is no way to separate truth from falsehood because the Bible is written pretty clearly to be unified throughout. It's best just to accept it or reject it. However, it is not fair to apply our own understandings to the writers since they weren't as knowledgeable in scientific stuff. Their job was to explain what it takes to be approved by God which they do a fabulous job at and it's silly to assume that they didn't understand that quite clearly.
The thing we can't get lost in the weeds over is scientific details about things not discovered no more than just a couple of hundred years ago.
As far as "My entire point has been to believe what you want and dismiss what you want as long as it is something that is not verifiable."....I agree. Believe what you want - as long as you're not affecting anyone else. As far as, "We don't know this at all" - in reference to knowing that various things within the Bible are not factual......We do indeed know this! There are countless things mentioned in the Bible that are not factual. The moon is not a light source. The Earth does not rest on pillars. You cannot create spotted animals by having the parents mate in proximity to spotted branches. The cure for leprosy is not true in the Bible. The Sun does not revolve around the Earth. Snakes and donkeys cannot talk. You can't have light (or plants, etc.) before you have a light source. Etc. There are countless things mentioned within the Bible that are factually NOT true. So, either a person believes that the entire Bible is the perfect word of God, or there are sections of the Bible that are not factual. The second option brings us back to the OP...Where does the truth start? |
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Mar 20, 2017 17:57:30 GMT
Looking at from this day and age, the only perspective that is objective and factual is the perspective of "perspective".
Only the most self righteous and narrow minded person would claim to know what happened thousands of years ago, a more narrow minded one for millions of years, and only a totally psychopathic control freak would claim billions of years of knowledge.
Or that the laws of Physics, laws of Motion, and other laws discovered within a few centuries, have been constant for billions of years.
So, there's no foundation for facts for or against Creation. Only a total moron would claim so either for or against. Only someone totally out of control, totally possessed in mind from another cognitive force, and that force would almost have to be supernatural to our way of thinking.
Now, this isn't saying Creation is true, just saying that an open mind stays open when there's no possible foundation for knowing either way.
So, as we move along the books, we get "less fantastic". No doubt about it.
The idea that it's all fabricated by Ezra and Nehemiah is pure supernatural "hatefulness". It's "popular" thinking. We know this because half of the secular books in the library about the History of the bible, and over half of those published today, state this. And not one has one iota of evidence, let alone proof, of the claim that Ezra fabricated it.
The only "proof" and "evidence" is that publishers and people on the whole, want to believe this, because this is what sells.
Therefore, we know that over the centuries, all of the successful changing of facts has been to discourage the History shown in the Bible. All of it. That's the simple fact. That's all we know for sure.
That means it's totally impossible, naturally, for the History as shown in the Bible, to have survived thousands of years of scribes, priests, and rulers transferring the History from old parchments to new ones.
We know this because already in this thread, the majority hang on to the hope that it's all fabricated.
Ordinarily, one would consider the "twelve tribes" to simply be twelve different sets of people fleeing Egypt together during a time when Egypt couldn't keep them. Logic would tell us that the "tribes" had some differences, but had an alliance strengthened by the story of twelve brothers.
One could even find it credible that the "lesser tribes" were the "lesser brothers", that the two tribes of Joseph were more Egyptian insiders, and so forth.
It is exactly this tendency, and the proven human desire not to believe anything in the Bible, that makes the objective mind realize that after thousands of years, it couldn't have survived in its form, that it would be erased on the very first transcription.
Not to mention that it failed to serve Ezra and Nehemiah and others at the time, if they meant to bring their people together to build temples and stick together. The stories are totally divisive.
So, not saying I believe the story of Genesis, but the very hatred that people have to it, and the hatred I will probably get, totally unprovoked, for questioning authority and keeping an open mind, is impossible to explain in Nature. It's this "supernatural" proof that shows there is more than people want to admit.
|
|
