|
|
| Post Number: 41
|
Jynx 
resident n0b0dy
Group: Members
Posts: 333
Joined: Dec. 2000
|
 |
Posted on: Jul. 23 2002,20:27 |
|
   |
| Quote (Marauder @ 21 July 2002,12:32) | | I think I'm willing to say that it's the most realiable document covering that time period. And I know it's the most reliable I've read, not that that says too much. |
I'll take that answer to mean that you feel that at least some major parts of the OT are accurate. Very well, then my issues can be split into two categories:
1) The God portrayed is inconsistent and at times appears hypocritical.
This argument is usually shrugged off by "believers", and refuted with "you can't know the nature of God", but that's just not good enough for me. Here are some examples of what I see:
- God gives out ten commandments. One of them is "Thou Shalt Not Kill", and then in Leviticus we get lots of rules, many of which if broken are punishable by death. If "kill" is to be replaced by "murder", then my copy of the Bible has been misinterpreted in a key place, and throws the reliability of the remaining translation out. Besides, later on, God orders the army of the Children of Israel to eradicate an entire city, slaying every single person in the city. Anyone who kills unarmed women and children is a murderer in my book, and yet God Himself ordered this.
- Another commandment given out prohibits adultery, yet King David, one of the most famous of the Israelite kings and portrayed as a near-perfect example of a pious and faithful person, had many wives and concubines at the same time. Now, in my book, multiple wives constitutes adultery, not to mention concubines!
- In both Kings books (and backed up in Chronicles, which is an additional set of documents for the same time period), we read of an entire string of kings who, while they "did evil in the sight of The Lord", lived their lives without retribution (I'm not arguinig after their death). However, those who are the most faithful get the most retribution, and seem to be punished much more than their evil relatives.
- At some point in time, King David trespasses (I'm not sure what he does, can look it up if necessary). God gives him several choices as punishment, and all of the choices punish the people of Isreal! So, a merciful God will bring harm (and possibly death) to innocent people because of the sins of a different man?
2) There are logical inconsistencies in the Bible.
Again, this can easily be Googled, but they exist. If you want a short list, I'd be happy to provide.
Now, here is my point: The OT has several inconsistencies, both in the Nature of God and logical. The NT bases its validity on the OT (John's Gospel has many examples), and Jesus' divinity is in part "proven" by OT scripture. How, then, can I accept the testimony of a flawed set of works as proof? Couple that with logical inconsistencies in the NT (again, I can provide a list) and a total lack of outside evidence, and I have no good reason to continue to believe.
Crafty Butcher: I'm willing to bet that at least some of the OT accounts weren't written by fanatics. You are correct in saying that we can't know the political/religious slant of the author, and what bias that has put on the work in question.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 42
|
godcity
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: Jul. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 24 2002,01:12 |
|
 |
I am a Christian and have many times had questions similar to the ones discussed asked of me. Many times I haven't had the answer.
However, one thing I have been taught is how to be a critical thinker. I do not use just one source to prove or disprove what I believe. If I find I have a question I consult many sources. Not just the one that has the answer I want, sometimes the answer I find from logical thinking and study brings more things into question.
But one thing always remains the same. I have found explinations for everything that appears to be inconsistant has a logical explination that always brings me back to the same conclusion.
The Bible is accurate.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 43
|
demonk
The other white meat
Group: Members
Posts: 800
Joined: Aug. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 24 2002,01:52 |
|
|
Well, godcity and I may disagree on that one fact, but he is probably the most open minded, devout christian any of you will ever meet. So, I for one will respect his conclusion and just agree to disagree.
--------------
I'm just two people short of a threesome!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 44
|
Vigilante
Unrequited Lover
Group: Members
Posts: 719
Joined: May 2000
|
 |
Posted on: Jul. 24 2002,02:09 |
|
|
| Quote | | The Bible is accurate. |
And a better reason to despise christianity I have yet to discover.
--------------
He says turn the other cheek, but that seems kind of weak
I just want to beat up, beat up the meek
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 45
|
godcity
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: Jul. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 24 2002,06:39 |
|
|
So you despise something that even the most liberal of scholars has said that the values and morals of the Bible are the best set out there. Wether or not the history is accurate (which is being proven to be more accurate than anyone ever thought) the morals of the Bible are impeccable. Why do you despise it so? Does it make you uncomfortable?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 46
|
Jynx
resident n0b0dy
Group: Members
Posts: 333
Joined: Dec. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 24 2002,18:19 |
|
|
godcity, I'm sure if you'll understand when I apply a little critical thinking to your previous statements:
- Could you please post explanations for the above dilemmas that I have posted?
- Could you please list some of the sources that you have found helpful in bolstering your faith?
- What other evidence is being found to support the Bible? Links to, at the very least, Amazon.com book info would be appreciated.
FYI, that link that I posted before (which I doubt that either Marauder or godcity have checked out yet) contains a wide variety of references to back up the points made.
Now, since by saying the Bible is "accurate", I will throw down the gauntlet, godcity. For the Bible to be accurate, it should be free of direct contradictions, right?
- OT: Was man made before or after the animals? Genesis 1 says after, Genesis 2 says before.
- OT: King David is smiting Philistines: Records of the exact same account disagree on the number of horsemen captured - II Samuel 8:4 says 700, I Chronicles 18:4 says 7000. There are several more instances of numbers not matching between books describing the same event.
- NT: Depending on the gospel you read, when Jesus was mocked, he was given either a purple robe or a crimson robe. These are two very different colors.
- NT: None of the four gospel writers were able to agree on what happened at the resurrection - check this out:
| Quote |
When the sun was coming up (Matt. 28:1) while it was still dark (John 20:1), Mary Magdalene (John 20:1) or Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt 28:1) or "the women" [note the plural] (Luke 24:1) went to the tomb. There was an earthquake, and an angel came down and rolled the stone away (Matt. 28:2) from the entrance of the tomb and sat on it, even though it had apparently already been rolled away when Mary Magdalene had got there (John 20:1, Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2). The reason for the visit was to anoint the body with spices (Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1) or just to look at the tomb (Matt. 28:1), take your pick.
When she or they, take your pick, arrived, she/they witnessed the earthquake and angel coming down from heaven (Matt. 28:1), or they walked into the tomb to discover a young man dressed in white sitting on the right (Mark 16:5) or two men in bright shining clothes (Luke 24:4), take your pick.
At this point, John says that Mary had run back to fetch Peter and another disciple. The other gospel writers make no mention of Mary taking leave of the tomb to go back and get any of the men at this point.
If/when she/they returned, the angel (Mark 15:6) or the angels (Luke 24:5) is/are quoted by the gospel writers as having said one of three things. Either "He is not here, he is raised, just as he said." (Matt. 28:6) or "He is not here, he has been raised." (Mark 15:6, Luke 24:6) or "Woman, why are you crying?" (John 20:13).
So the woman or women ran from the tomb to tell the disciples (Matt. 28:8) or they left, too terrified to say anything to anyone (Mark 16:8), take your pick.
Mary Magdalene saw Jesus appear to her and decided he'd been resurrected (John 20:14-18). Or the women, having left the tomb and thinking things over, were sure that Jesus' body had been stolen, so they tried to bribe the soldiers guarding the tomb to tell them where the body had been taken (Matt. 28:11-15).
|
So, using critical thinking, how do you explain the above? I have seen the errors in my Bible with my own eyes, and it has shaken me. How can I take a document with flaws as a divine work?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 47
|
Nikita
Princess of Darkness Spy. Assassin. Seductress.
Group: Members
Posts: 937
Joined: Apr. 2001
|
 |
Posted on: Jul. 24 2002,18:46 |
|
|
| Quote (Jynx @ 24 July 2002,13:19) | Now, since by saying the Bible is "accurate", I will throw down the gauntlet, godcity. For the Bible to be accurate, it should be free of direct contradictions, right?
| Quote |
When the sun was coming up (Matt. 28:1) while it was still dark (John 20:1), Mary Magdalene (John 20:1) or Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt 28:1) or "the women" [note the plural] (Luke 24:1) went to the tomb. There was an earthquake, and an angel came down and rolled the stone away (Matt. 28:2) from the entrance of the tomb and sat on it, even though it had apparently already been rolled away when Mary Magdalene had got there (John 20:1, Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2). The reason for the visit was to anoint the body with spices (Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1) or just to look at the tomb (Matt. 28:1), take your pick.
When she or they, take your pick, arrived, she/they witnessed the earthquake and angel coming down from heaven (Matt. 28:1), or they walked into the tomb to discover a young man dressed in white sitting on the right (Mark 16:5) or two men in bright shining clothes (Luke 24:4), take your pick.
At this point, John says that Mary had run back to fetch Peter and another disciple. The other gospel writers make no mention of Mary taking leave of the tomb to go back and get any of the men at this point.
If/when she/they returned, the angel (Mark 15:6) or the angels (Luke 24:5) is/are quoted by the gospel writers as having said one of three things. Either "He is not here, he is raised, just as he said." (Matt. 28:6) or "He is not here, he has been raised." (Mark 15:6, Luke 24:6) or "Woman, why are you crying?" (John 20:13).
So the woman or women ran from the tomb to tell the disciples (Matt. 28:8) or they left, too terrified to say anything to anyone (Mark 16:8), take your pick.
Mary Magdalene saw Jesus appear to her and decided he'd been resurrected (John 20:14-18). Or the women, having left the tomb and thinking things over, were sure that Jesus' body had been stolen, so they tried to bribe the soldiers guarding the tomb to tell them where the body had been taken (Matt. 28:11-15).
|
So, using critical thinking, how do you explain the above? I have seen the errors in my Bible with my own eyes, and it has shaken me. How can I take a document with flaws as a divine work? |
I don't think those were actually written by some higher power-powered magic quill on parchment or chisel on stone slab.
They were supposedly written by mortals who quite possibly saw the same things but had different points of view, writing style, what they thought was important, and ways of describing (perhaps exaggeration?). Hell, one could be color blind! 
If a whole bunch of ppl saw the same thing and wrote about it, it's going to be quite different from each other.
--------------
Mad scientist, sexy engineer
Who's yo Mommy?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 48
|
demonk
The other white meat
Group: Members
Posts: 800
Joined: Aug. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 24 2002,19:04 |
|
|
But then why didn't they just sit down and "compare notes" before writing? You would think that something as important as the resurection of Jesus would have been important enough for them to sit down and make sure they all said the same thing. I can understand a little fudging of numbers (I've done this myself), and even screwing up the color of the robe (color blind person, didn't really take much note of color, etc), but to be so wildly divergent about the desciption of the resurection just dumbfounds me. Small mistakes in what was said, fine, I can deal with that. But if what was above was truely from the Bible, then something is seriously wrong! All it takes is one mistake to prove that it is not a completely accurate retelling of the past. And once you lose that accuracy, it makes you question other messages within the Bible.
I will never doubt that the Bible is a great moral guide and has interesting stories in it (although not all of them are good ones). But I just can not accept the Bible as a HISTORICAL document anymore than I can accept Lord Of The Rings as a historical document for medival England. Both are works of fiction, and good ones at that.
--------------
I'm just two people short of a threesome!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 49
|
Nikita
Princess of Darkness Spy. Assassin. Seductress.
Group: Members
Posts: 937
Joined: Apr. 2001
|
 |
Posted on: Jul. 24 2002,19:28 |
|
|
Maybe they didn't like each other/didn't agree with each other (kinda like our wonderful politics forum). On top of that, add the fanatic factor, stir gently, run like hell.
Hm now about translations - doubt that ppl here have read it in the original language, and the next edition is at the mercy of the person who does the translating/copying ... and we always lose something in translations. Always.
I'm not saying it's an accurate historic document (hell, even history can be different when told from different sides of the war/social class/etc). I agree that it's a good moral guide (though at times I feel it's passive and a lot of it is praying/waiting/hoping for a giant hand to reach down from the sky and sic the person who wronged you). Heh, so much for prayer.
One thing that has always bothered me is the "I'm out to get your ass - repent yo!" being of the OT and the "aww let's kiss and make up and turn the other cheek" entity of the NT. Seems like the OT then was full of rituals and burnt animal sacrifice (sorry, veggies won't do), and the NT sometimes feels like an acid trip.
There are ppl who say that if you don't agree with any part of the Bible, you're riding a superlubricated slip and slide straight to the core of hell.
If that's the case, it's going to be pretty packed there.
Put a shrimp on the barbie for me.
Edited by Nikita on Jan. 01 1970,01:00
--------------
Mad scientist, sexy engineer
Who's yo Mommy?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 50
|
Marauder
Northwind Highlander
Group: Members
Posts: 75
Joined: Jun. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 24 2002,20:17 |
|
|
Awrright, Jynx, ya made me bring the pain. Well, sorta.
In response to the items of your July 23, 12:27 post, here goes. (Keep in mind, these come from my understandings.)
1.) Thou Shalt Not Kill - Easier explained than done. God orders this in reference to common murder. If you read through, you'll find that God also calls for loyal men and gives them instructions to kill others, and later orders the destruction of anyone/thing in Caanan by the incoming Isrealites. Answer: God understands murder, capital punishment, and war as different. Don't you?
2.) Adultery and David - Yeah, and God wasn't exactly happy about that. Then again, we're all human.
3.) Evil/Good Kings - What, you think life's fair? Besides, I can understand throwing more at good kings than bad. First off, a good king's gonna work harder for the people. Secondly, the disaster will hit others more intensely under a king who doesn't want to act(evil).
4.) King/People - In that day, IIRC, bad events were said to have causes. I could cite the NT, where the apostles assume that a man is blind because of a sin perpetrated by him or his parents. In other words, I think that should something of that type happen, the people would take a more careful look at David, and might find out(to his public disgrace) what had been going on. That, and if you're a decent king(And David was remembered as the best) you care about your constituents.
Again, just my concepts here.
Rest of you: I'm not saying the Bible doesn't have contradictions, oddities, mysteries, and so forth. But I don't think that they make it too unreliable.
Nikita: If you have to comprehend the Bible at all well to be saved, ain't NOBODY going to heaven. Most professors at my college have only a 'pretty-good' graps of things. Thankfully, it's written so that you can get the important parts without having to grind through it too far, and if you do go deeper, it will definitely keep you interested.
--------------
I'm a Mechwarrior enthusiast - I insist that no one may have a fight without a 20+ ton walking war machine. It's just not civilized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
