Misconceptions about the Bible

[Jehanne]

The Bible is a collection of historical literature that must be understood in its cultural, political, social, economic, etc., contexts.  Your OP does none of that.

Are you suggesting that a correct interpretation wouldn't comport with an understanding as you describe above or are you projecting some historical literary interpretation as a gradual evolution of understanding? If I'm right my claims would be accurate and yours speculative at best. So, show me. Where and how am I wrong?

There is no "correct" interpretation of the Bible, or, any other religious texts from Antiquity. I looked at your profile and see that you are an atheist; is that true?

[Nay_Sayer]

I'd rather focus on what it does say. For example, the instructions on how to own slaves and Paul's musings about servants being obedient to their masters.

[Jehanne]

I'd rather focus on what it does say. For example, the instructions on how to own slaves and Paul's musings about servants being obedient to their masters.

If one looks at all the commentaries in the following centuries (Christian, Jewish, pagan), slavery was never an issue. Christians who pull abolitionist texts out of the Bible are treating it as a form of religious play dough, morphing it into whatever they want it to be for them.

[The Grand Nudger]

Those aren't conclusions, they're observations of how those legal issues you asked about were handled at the time. You couldn't trade one life to save another - that would still be murder, but if a child hadn't been born yet, it was handled like an extension of the mother and father - the property thereof - not a person.

I mean, broadly speaking, that's the shape of reform between the code of ur nammu and judaic law. Ur nammu tends to call for human life in property crimes to an extreme, whereas judaic law preferred monetary damages for property crimes.

[Fake Messiah]

The second image is a product of the dark ages theology based upon a Latin mistranslation, the belief, of that time, that there was a literal metallic dome surrounding Earth and the subsequent inclusion of images and misinterpretation in Biblical encyclopedias of that period. It would be like me showing you a picture of a flat earth resting on a turtle resting on four elephants and comparing that to modern science for you to defend. C'mon. 

Bible was written in the dark ages by people who didn't know where the sun went at night. Seriously, today a 9 year old child knows more about cosmology than the writers of the Bible.

When it comes to translations, I wonder why then the dumbest people get to translate Bible since they all have firmament, foundations of Earth, that the stars will fall down, etc.

[Anomalocaris]

The Bible doesn't say that the heavens (universe) and earth were created in 6 literal days. 

The Bible doesn't state or imply the age of the universe or Earth.

The Bible doesn't say that the Earth is flat.

The Bible doesn't say that a snake or donkey talked.

The Bible doesn't say that the soul is immortal.

The Bible doesn't say that all good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell. 

The Bible doesn't teach the trinity. 

The Bible doesn't teach that Jesus was born on December 25th.

The Bible doesn't say that Jesus died on the Roman t shaped cross. 

The Bible doesn't teach the rapture. 

The Bible doesn't teach that God is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient or omnibenevolent. 

The Bible doesn't teach that God can see into the future as if from a crystal ball.

The Bible doesn't teach Christmas, Easter or any pagan holidays. 

There's probably more but that's at least a start.

Bible doesn’t teach much of anything.   It is a bully’s manifesto.

[h4ym4n]

The Bible doesn't teach that getting an abortion is a sin.

Did they practice abortion at that time? What does sin literally mean? What about a case in which during a struggle with a man a fetus is aborted as a result? Soul for soul? Life for life?

Perhaps you’ve not read the good book?

Numbers 5:16-23


King James Version




16 And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the Lord:
17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:
18 And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:
19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:
20 But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:
21 Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The Lord make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the Lord doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;
22 And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.
23 And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:

[Data]

There is no "correct" interpretation of the Bible, or, any other religious texts from Antiquity.  I looked at your profile and see that you are an atheist; is that true?

Let me check . . . yep, that's what it says. Atheist. In another thread I suggested the possibility that I change that to Irreligious/Agnostic/Atheist but it's all ridiculous, isn't it. Theist, atheist, irreligious, agnostic, blithering idiot, sage of verbosity - I'm all of those things and none of them. Their just labels for the pathologically narrow minded ideologues. Designed to keep you from exploring the real truth by keeping you pigeonholed. 

Of course there is a correct interpretation of the Bible, or any other religious text, or for that matter, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. If I say Gandalf the Grey is headmaster of Hogwarts school of witchcraft and wizardry and you wanted to refute that you would look to JK Rowling's Harry Potter series. If I said Dumbledore was a wizard of Middle Earth who rode a white steed named Shadowfax, a descendant of Felaróf, you would look to JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. If you want to know what the Bible says, examine the Bible.

[brewer]

https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1sam/15.html

[GUBU]

The bible teaches about washing feet but not about washing hands.

The bible doesn't say that slavery or rape are bad.

Are you sure about all of that? Are you familiar with the Biblical hygienic laws? Is that right? Hygienic? Sometimes I think my spellcheck is dumber than I am. I argue with it sometimes. 

Anyway. The Bible doesn't say slavery or rape are bad? I'm going to have to disagree with all of that, actually, if I may.

You're perfectly entitled to disagree if you want. It won't make you any less wrong, but it's your choice to open your mouth and remove all doubt.