question about the bible

[searchingforanswers]

Ok thanks to all again. I appreciate the christian response as well. I have another question however. I have read that it Is thought that the writers of Greek mythology only wrote down their stories after many years of passing it along orally. (lol) now my question is do we know whether the bible is the same? I do not know much about the history of the bible.

[Minimalist]

Be my guest.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54448381/19/Wr...entury-BCE


The discussion about literacy in the 10th and 9th centuries is on page 161 and will give precious little comfort to bible thumpers.

There is no simple answer to your question. The one thing we can state is that there is no evidence of any biblical writing in Hebrew prior to the Dead Sea Scrolls which date from the mid 2d century BC at the earliest. The earliest written version of the Torah is the Septuagint which was written in Greek and seems to date from the early 3d century BC. You can make of that what you like.

[liferocks]

All of humanity, not just a bunch of people coming up with the Xtian biblical texts, have related their understanding of a spiritual reality saying basically the same things. I think we can safely conclude that It's an integral part of the human psyche to formulate ideas about it. That cannot, however, prove God, because God in this complex construct needs to be believed in and not 'known' apart from intellectually.

I believe this is very well put fr0d0, I would say you have a good grasp of realtiy on this point. I haven't believed that there is a God just because someone told me there is. It took me a long time, a lot of investigating and soul searching until I arrived at my own conclusions about a creator. It was entirely MY choice.

[Rev. Rye]

Here's the way I see it. The Old Testament/Tanakh was originally compiled during the Babylonian Exile. Before that, all the books that comprised it were passed down orally over several centuries. Odds are that the original versions of those stories, and (if they did in fact happen) the actual events, would have likely been very different from the versions we all know, and it's quite likely that even those oral versions told at the time could have been altered to make the entire text more cohesive (at least as much as the final text was.) To find an analogue, study the history of the versions of any fairy tales you can think of, from Charles Perrault to Walt Disney, and see how different they are. Of course, despite being written by people from different parts of the globe, they were effectively part of the same Israelite/Jewish culture.

As for the New Testament, the authors all knew the Tanakh, and it's likely that they all knew that they were creating an expanded universe to it. Somewhat similarly to the situation with the Tanakh, it was finally compiled about a century or two after the events that they apparently covered, and, after codifying the beliefs of Christianity, the powers that be chose the texts that (in theory) squared with those beliefs the most.

[Godscreated]

Hello search and welcome. The first question I would ask your friend is has he actually read The Bible ? And by read I mean the entire volume from Genesis to Revelation. If he has, fair enough. But if he hasn't then how does he know ? I never read it till I became an atheist. But nevertheless. It doesn't advance your argument if a work you are referencing, you haven't even bothered to read. I intend to re-read it again. It isn't the sort of book you can do justice to just once, given it;s actual length and cultural and historical significance. Also you need to know that The Bible is incomplete. There are missing books known as the Gnostic Gospels which feature accounts by Mary Magdalene and Judas Iscariot.

It is so full of contradictions. Whether you believe in God or not you can't accept it verbatim due to the inconsistencies :

Adam lived to 930.
Methuselah to live to 969.
Enoch was perfect and never died.
Jesus was born of a virgin - no father.
He performed miracles and raised the dead.
He rose from the dead himself three days after dying.
God punishes the Jews for worshipping false ones - so why give them free will ?
He is angry with them for doing so - but isn't anger one of the Seven Deadly Sins ?
He contemplates not punishing them, but their children all the way to the fourth generation.
Eight people on the Ark - after the first generation conception possible only through adultery or incest.

These are just a few of the many. The entire book is full of ambiguity and paradox and inconsistency.

Now let me return to the Gnostic Gospels. Consider this : why would God have books of The Bible dictated to Man only for those books not to appear, or only for particular periods. Why not all the books in a completer version ?

One of the missing books is the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. She was Jesus's cousin. And may also have been his wife as well. They were very close - married or not - and in later years, the Church disapproved of this and had her Gospel removed. This was to curtail her influence on subsequent generations and the reason for this was good old fashioned misogyny. Which is why she is commonly portrayed as a prostitute.

One of the other missing books is the Gospel of Judas Iscariot. According to this, he was the favourite disciple and not Peter. Once again thie reason for this book being omitted may have had to do with jealousy and the need to find a scapegoat for the betrayal of Jesus. But if you actually read the four Gospel accounts in The Bible of this, they all give four different accounts. And this makes zero sense if the author is God. Because surely only one definitive account of the life of Jesus is needed. Everything else is superfluous to requirement.

So I would state in conclusion based upon this that there is no way God coul;d have dictated The Bible, It is just too illogical for it to be so. Interestingly while there are different versions of The Bible, there is only one of The Koran. Nevertheless, Go back to your friend and emphasise all these inconsistencies. It would be very interesting to reference his opinion. Hope this has been of some help.

Welcome searchingforanswers, I know I'm not responding to your post directly, however this response is for you and twocompulsive. TC maybe if you had read the Bible before becoming an atheist you would not have become one, just saying. You say that you've read the Bible through once and plan so again, I have a suggestion this time study what you read, you've made many mistakes in what you have written and if SFA's friend is knowledgable in scripture he will point out the many ways you are not. Before I go farther let's address a couple of things just to get them out of the way, first there are no missing books of the Bible and you made it sound as if that info came from scripture itself, the gnostic writtings do not agree with what the scriptures say and you need to go back to the OT to start your research on those writtings. There are not different versions of the Bible, there are however different translations that say the same thing, this is far from having different versions, to have different versions there would have to be major changes in what they say and that is not the case with the Bible.The Koran has never been re-translated because one would be killed for doing so, so much for the love that the Koran is suppose to teach. Yes I know that men died to translate the Bible from Latin into German, English and ect. but the translation were completed so that the common man could read the Bible for him/herself and make their own decisions.

You can not prove that some men did not live that long even if you do not believe in God, same for Enoch, you first have to disprove God before you can disprove what scripture says about Enoch. I know you think the burden of proof is on me, well I did not make the statement you did.
Again you have to disprove God before you can disprove that Jesus was born of a virgin.
Jesus performed miracles and I consider raising the dead to be a miracle, He died and rose from the grave three days later how are these contradictions and again you must first disprove God.
God gave freewill so people could have choice, He does not want us to be robots, would you want your government making you live only the life it desires, I don't think you would. Even so your government has laws and if you disobey a law you are punished and the severity of that punishment depends on which law you disobey, so when you read the OT again study what God tells His people the Israelites and see if He did what He said He would do.
No anger is not sinful, unless you use it in away that is unlawful, that would be doing something against God's will, again when you read the Bible study it and you will see that God can not sin. God will not even tempt man to sin.
The punishment you refer to above happens like this (pay attention to what scripture teaches) when God's people disobeyed Him they would turn their backs on Him and not receive His protection and blessings until they repented. With the sinful parents teaching their children the ways of the world and false gods the childern keep living the same sinful life style and it took a few generations before they would understand that living for God was the best choice. Now before you go saying where's their freewill you must understand that the purpose of the Israelite nation was to lead the way for Christ to come into the world, this is why Christ came to them first and then the gentiles (world). For all they did wrong and endured they were given the first chance to deliver the salvation of Christ to the world, however in their hatred for the world they did not recognize what was being give to them and let the privilege past to the gentiles.
Eight people on the Ark: I'm not sure how you could come to that conclusion, it was very possible with out adultery or incest, I know you did not reach that conclusion through scripture.
The gospel of Mary Magdelene, just where did you get all that junk, as I said above this gospel does not represent the rest of scripture and the same for the gospel of Judas Iscariot. For some one to rewrite the accounts of the scriptures so that these two gospels would not fit would take a rewritting of both testaments, that would be an undertaking so great no one would do it for a lie.
SFA I to encourage you to question your friend not only because he might be able to give you some answers you'er looking for but if he can't maybe he will go search out the answers and learn more about the God he professes.
In conclusion TC I would suggest that if you read the scriptures again that you not read straight through, instead you should study scripture and to do this you can not read straight through you must search for answers and why not look for some truths instead of trying to find what you believe to be contradictions.

[Minimalist]

you first have to disprove God before

No, asshole. YOU have to demonstrate that your god is something other than a figment of your very fried imagination. I don't know how many times I have to keep telling you this because it never seems to sink in but your fucking GOD is not a default position.

You believe in it because you are an idiot. The rest of us require evidence.

Don't thank me. I'll keep reminding you every time you fuck up....which means more or less on a daily basis!

[Anymouse]

I believe this is very well put fr0d0, I would say you have a good grasp of realtiy on this point. I haven't believed that there is a God just because someone told me there is. It took me a long time, a lot of investigating and soul searching until I arrived at my own conclusions about a creator. It was entirely MY choice.

So if no one told you about a god, why would you do so much "investigating and soul searching?"

And if, having decided you need to do that, did you study all religions (Islam, Judaism, the variations of Christianity, Wicca, animism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Shinto, &c), or just one version of Christianity? And if the latter, why did you decide to accept that and reject all the others without even looking at them? What makes you an atheist on all religions except yours?

The atheists here would say that there is only one difference between you and them: you believe in one more god than they. They would say I have two more than they. So do I win with a pair?

If you decided to give Christianity "a fair shake" and study it intensely, I wonder why you did not do that with all religions. Organised ones like yours, unorganised ones like mine, and many others. And to be fair to yourself (the only fairness that matters in such things), atheism should also get much "investigating and soul searching" as well.

Then when you have done that, most folk here would be more likely to accept your premise that "you arrived at your own conclusions." As you describe it now, you limited yourself to intense study of one aspect of the question of religion, did not study any other, nor atheism, and made a "free will choice." In fact there was no other choice or conclusion to make (you only studied one), there was no will (you chose not to study anything else), and I'll bet the study wasn't free either (atheism, Wicca, and many other religions do not have collection plates).

In conclusion TC I would suggest that if you read the scriptures again that you not read straight through, instead you should study scripture and to do this you can not read straight through you must search for answers and why not look for some truths instead of trying to find what you believe to be contradictions.

You certainly don't want to read the Bible straight through. While it is touted as the Word of God, some words are just too squicky for the modern-day Christian, like burning villages and raping virgins, taking virgins for the army as "war spoils," how to treat your slaves, how slaves should be content with their lot, and adult nursing as a God-given blessing (that's actually one of the good things in there too) and all those other seeming contradictions to history and geology and science, that when you don't read them, aren't contradictions.

Protestants long argued against the Catholic Church about interpreting and standing between the Bible and their parishoners, yet they do the same. "Study it" (but only the parts they tell you to study, not the whole thing). If you are going to base your religious belief on a book, you ought to know what's in the whole book. If you don't your are taking your faith on faith.

And if its "The Word of God," why wouldn't you want to read the whole thing, if you believe that? Don't you want to know all his Word?

Ofttimes the words "study the Bible" are a euphamism for "memorise passages from the Bible." If you actually -read- the Bible, you might learn what's really in there, touted as the "Word of God." I find, sadly, that many more non-Christians have actually read the -whole- Bible than Christians have. Many Christians only take the word of some fellow (almost always a fellow) in a pulpit -telling- them what's in there.

My aunt Carolyn is the former Chief Presbyter of Chicago. (I guess that means she is a Presbyterian.) She is now "semi-retired" preaching from a small church's pulpit in Allegan, Michigan. But the New Testament is clear: women should keep silent in church. They presumably should never lead a major church denomination or instruct in religion. Oh yes, I forgot all the rampant sexism in the New Testament in that list above.

There is an awful lot of the Bible that is not taught from the pulpit, nor in Sunday School, for good reason. They don't want you reading what's really in there. If the Bible were published under any other title today, it would most certainly be banned to minors, and considered pornography by many others.

(KJV) Proverbs 5:18 & 19: "Let thy fountain be blessed; and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and the pleasent roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravisthed always with her love."

Isaiah 66:11 - "That ye may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory."

So much they don't teach in Sunday School or church . . .

James

[Godscreated]

I believe this is very well put fr0d0, I would say you have a good grasp of realtiy on this point. I haven't believed that there is a God just because someone told me there is. It took me a long time, a lot of investigating and soul searching until I arrived at my own conclusions about a creator. It was entirely MY choice.

So if no one told you about a god, why would you do so much "investigating and soul searching?"

And if, having decided you need to do that, did you study all religions (Islam, Judaism, the variations of Christianity, Wicca, animism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Shinto, &c), or just one version of Christianity? And if the latter, why did you decide to accept that and reject all the others without even looking at them? What makes you an atheist on all religions except yours?

The atheists here would say that there is only one difference between you and them: you believe in one more god than they. They would say I have two more than they. So do I win with a pair?

If you decided to give Christianity "a fair shake" and study it intensely, I wonder why you did not do that with all religions. Organised ones like yours, unorganised ones like mine, and many others. And to be fair to yourself (the only fairness that matters in such things), atheism should also get much "investigating and soul searching" as well.

Then when you have done that, most folk here would be more likely to accept your premise that "you arrived at your own conclusions." As you describe it now, you limited yourself to intense study of one aspect of the question of religion, did not study any other, nor atheism, and made a "free will choice." In fact there was no other choice or conclusion to make (you only studied one), there was no will (you chose not to study anything else), and I'll bet the study wasn't free either (atheism, Wicca, and many other religions do not have collection plates).

In conclusion TC I would suggest that if you read the scriptures again that you not read straight through, instead you should study scripture and to do this you can not read straight through you must search for answers and why not look for some truths instead of trying to find what you believe to be contradictions.

You certainly don't want to read the Bible straight through. While it is touted as the Word of God, some words are just too squicky for the modern-day Christian, like burning villages and raping virgins, taking virgins for the army as "war spoils," how to treat your slaves, how slaves should be content with their lot, and adult nursing as a God-given blessing (that's actually one of the good things in there too) and all those other seeming contradictions to history and geology and science, that when you don't read them, aren't contradictions.

Protestants long argued against the Catholic Church about interpreting and standing between the Bible and their parishoners, yet they do the same. "Study it" (but only the parts they tell you to study, not the whole thing). If you are going to base your religious belief on a book, you ought to know what's in the whole book. If you don't your are taking your faith on faith.

And if its "The Word of God," why wouldn't you want to read the whole thing, if you believe that? Don't you want to know all his Word?

Ofttimes the words "study the Bible" are a euphamism for "memorise passages from the Bible." If you actually -read- the Bible, you might learn what's really in there, touted as the "Word of God." I find, sadly, that many more non-Christians have actually read the -whole- Bible than Christians have. Many Christians only take the word of some fellow (almost always a fellow) in a pulpit -telling- them what's in there.

My aunt Carolyn is the former Chief Presbyter of Chicago. (I guess that means she is a Presbyterian.) She is now "semi-retired" preaching from a small church's pulpit in Allegan, Michigan. But the New Testament is clear: women should keep silent in church. They presumably should never lead a major church denomination or instruct in religion. Oh yes, I forgot all the rampant sexism in the New Testament in that list above.

There is an awful lot of the Bible that is not taught from the pulpit, nor in Sunday School, for good reason. They don't want you reading what's really in there. If the Bible were published under any other title today, it would most certainly be banned to minors, and considered pornography by many others.

(KJV) Proverbs 5:18 & 19: "Let thy fountain be blessed; and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and the pleasent roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravisthed always with her love."

Isaiah 66:11 - "That ye may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory."

So much they don't teach in Sunday School or church . . .

James

I never said not to read the entire Bible, everyone should, however reading srtaight through is not a study of scriptures it is just completeing a read. I'm not sure where you get your info on what goes on in churches, I've never experianced what your touting. No those verses are not taught in Sunday School and the reasons should be obvious, however with the way some on this site reason it would not suprise me if they thought it to be true.
Please answer this question, why do you think that pastors of churches do not want the people of the church studying scriptures, what would that profit them?

---

you first have to disprove God before

No, asshole. YOU have to demonstrate that your god is something other than a figment of your very fried imagination. I don't know how many times I have to keep telling you this because it never seems to sink in but your fucking GOD is not a default position.

You believe in it because you are an idiot. The rest of us require evidence.

Don't thank me. I'll keep reminding you every time you fuck up....which means more or less on a daily basis!

I understand that you have nothing better to do in your life than to make yourself look like a grouchy old cogger, what a waste of a human mind.

[DaveD]

I understand that you have nothing better to do in your life than to make yourself look like a grouchy old cogger, what a waste of a human mind.

I understand that you have nothing better to do in your life than to make yourself look like a lick-spittle to an imaginary grouchy old codger, what a waste of a human mind.

[liferocks]

I believe this is very well put fr0d0, I would say you have a good grasp of realtiy on this point. I haven't believed that there is a God just because someone told me there is. It took me a long time, a lot of investigating and soul searching until I arrived at my own conclusions about a creator. It was entirely MY choice.

[font=Georgia]
So if no one told you about a god, why would you do so much "investigating and soul searching?"

And if, having decided you need to do that, did you study all religions (Islam, Judaism, the variations of Christianity, Wicca, animism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Shinto, &c), or just one version of Christianity? And if the latter, why did you decide to accept that and reject all the others without even looking at them? What makes you an atheist on all religions except yours?

The atheists here would say that there is only one difference between you and them: you believe in one more god than they. They would say I have two more than they. So do I win with a pair?

If you decided to give Christianity "a fair shake" and study it intensely, I wonder why you did not do that with all religions. Organised ones like yours, unorganised ones like mine, and many others. And to be fair to yourself (the only fairness that matters in such things), atheism should also get much "investigating and soul searching" as well.

Then when you have done that, most folk here would be more likely to accept your premise that "you arrived at your own conclusions." As you describe it now, you limited yourself to intense study of one aspect of the question of religion, did not study any other, nor atheism, and made a "free will choice." In fact there was no other choice or conclusion to make (you only studied one), there was no will (you chose not to study anything else), and I'll bet the study wasn't free either (atheism, Wicca, and many other religions do not have collection plates).

WOW. An amazing response to my post. Should I take this personally, is this just a personal bias on your part about every Christian in existence? Are you taking my entire life’s teachings out of context and are you trying to make some ridiculous analogy about what I believe? Well, from now on I promise that every time I post in this forum, that I will include an elaborate, comprehensive biography of my life and ALL my tutelage. (please note the sarcasm in this statement).

How do you know by what I said just how many religions I did study? Also about my choice of religious beliefs, how did you arrive at the conclusion that I “did not study any other, nor atheism”. What about, as you said, “What makes you an atheist on all religions except yours?” These are your words Anymouse.

I suggest you consult a dictionary to look up the word atheist, and also another word I stated in my post, investigating.

Is all of this an attack on me to try and support your beliefs?
Perhaps you should remember how you yourself arrived at your choice of religious beliefs before you question others.