The Bible

[Kyuuketsuki]

If you want to believe that then fine. I find it a far fetched understanding of the text.

Back at ya ... I think you're looking at your bible with blinkered vision.

Kyu

[chatpilot]

Frodo how is the New Testament a fulfillment of the Old Testament?First of all many of those texts in the O.T. that supposedly prophesy the coming of Christ are taken out of context and have nothing to do with Christ.Alot of the so called historical prophecies are believed to be written years after their so called fulfillment.

The flat Earth theory was propagated mostly by the Catholic church due to the many times in the O.T. where the Earth was believed to have 4 corners,which makes sense coming from a people whose knowledge of the then known world was limited.The church also propagated the theories of Earth centrism basing themselves on such unscientific gems as the following found in Joshua Ch:10 V:12 and 13.

12.Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.13.And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemy...........

I was thinking about this subject matter last night and had to ask myself why is it that the bible has endured and is considered the greatest book in all of literature to this day?And the answer came to me Frodo not in a revelation from God unfortunately, but through a process of logic.It is a known fact that vanity is in mans nature.Man wants to put himself above everything and all of creation so what better way to do this than to equating himself with an imaginary God? Genesis 1:27 illustrates this perfectly: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them".


What they forget is that at the same time, this wonderful imaginary God that man created, also had regrets of having created man as illustrated so clearly in Genesis 6:7 "And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Finally,the bible presents man with a false hope of eternal life hence defeating mans greatest fear, death itself in the person of Jesus Christ as shown in John 3:16 "16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". And let us not forget that final stroke of genius by the followers of Christ and authors of the New Testament in Mark 13:32 and several other places in the N.T. "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father". By not specifying a date for the return of Christ they left the door open for this belief to continue to be propagated for all of eternity until mans days on Earth are through.

So Frodo I suggest that before you go stating what the bible does and does not say I suggest that you read it first, and I don't mean the childrens version with the pretty little pictures.

---

Frodo you made an interesting statement a post of two ago where you basically stated that the bible in your opinion is not literal.Then what is it?If metaphorical or allegorical and full of myths then what is the point?This makes Christ a mythical figure and his life story a mere fabrication.

[fr0d0]

Of course you can contest the content of the Bible. I wouldn't have it any other way. I don't conclude that the prophesies are taken out of context, that they're not about Jesus himself, or that they're written after fulfillment. Judaic record keeping is quite accurate.

LOL @ revelation from God

Of course the Bible plays to the crowd. It has to. "The puddle looked at it's surroundings and thought 'hmm... this fit's me perfectly. It must've been made for me'. (Apologies to Douglas Adams).

But then you contradict yourself. We're egotistical for creating God in our image (sic), but then the opposite for making God hate us.

I don't believe the statement "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" is about death at all. It's about living life to the full in the present. "perish" refers to death of your soul/ spiritual side in every moment. That's what Christ releases you from after all. 'Eternal life' is all about describing the nature of the soul, and what happens to IT. Not that I personally give a flying fuk about it at the moment. It has nothing at all to do with my life. I have absolutely no fear of any consequence... only those that affect my daily life. We all do that don't we? Well, the sane among us.

As for the end times.. well we're in the land of fantasy there. Yep, it'll be wrapped up and we'll all snuff it. The end.

The point of the Bible, is to describe the nature of God and his involvement in this world, and to provide a means for people to live life to the fullest; to be the healthiest they can possibly be, and to achieve their potential fully. The Bible ISN'T hard scientific fact to go prove or disprove. People that want to go find talking snakes etc etc etc are welcome to that absurd pursuit if that floats their boat. Me I'd rather stick with the actual subject in hand.

[chatpilot]

Frodo your interpretation of the soul and eternal life and all of that nonsense are 'your interpretation' and no one elses and quite frankly it is not your conventional christianity.Many christians of different faiths posit their hope on eternal life in paradise where ever that may be.And most fundamental aka as protestant christians take alot of what Jesus said literally.I dont see how criticizing the bible literally based on its so called facts of history is straying from the topic at hand.Am I in the wrong room?The topic of this thread is The bible right?

Also,regarding the prophecies of the coming of Christ I can literally show you that they are out of context and dismantle them all for you one by one.When you find one that in your opinion is irrefutable please be so kind as to send it to me so I can do what I do best.

[Tiberius]

Just want to weight in here on a fr0d0 statement:

The Bible touches on NO scientific principles.

I actually agree with you, but not in the sense that you might agree with (if that makes sense). I agree that the Bible doesn't contain any scientific principles, because modern science has disproven the "literal events" that the Bible claims (i.e. 6 day creation, Noah's ark, etc). In this way the Bible is not scientific.

HOWEVER, when it was written, the Bible was written as factual. These people were writing how they thought it might of happened (in other words, they were writing a hypothesis). Many of the stories were based on legends passed down over the ages, accepted as truth.

In this way, the Bible was written as a scientific book. It told stories as literal events. Just because modern science has disproved its claims, doesn't mean it wasn't written originally as claims about reality.

[chatpilot]

I agree Adrian,these people were writing about oral traditions and what was then their view or interpretation on such matters of creation,the first humans,and the beginning of languages (tower of babel) just to name a few.These were really at least in their part of the world their version of science in a pre scientific age.

[fr0d0]

You think it is my personal interpretation and I say it isn't. Many Christians do waffle on about eternal life. You'll find that it's a quite outdated interpretation though. Who said you were straying from the topic? I didn't. You say the Bible myths are fact. I don't. We're still talking about the same Bible. You're just interpreting it differently to me. I take Jesus's words at face value. Literally would be a stretch, as he spoke in a certain style.

You must've misread my comment about the coming Christ. Irrefutable evidence concerning a drug induced vision? Are you crazy? You think there's hard fact in there??

---

HOWEVER, when it was written, the Bible was written as factual. These people were writing how they thought it might of happened (in other words, they were writing a hypothesis). Many of the stories were based on legends passed down over the ages, accepted as truth.

In this way, the Bible was written as a scientific book. It told stories as literal events. Just because modern science has disproved its claims, doesn't mean it wasn't written originally as claims about reality.

That is absolute nonsense. Back that up.

'Truth' in context is 'eternal truth' - which it is. 'Spiritual truth' - which it is. NONE of it is scientific in nature and never ever has been. This is clearly understood throughout sensible history. The odd fool has considered it fact, that's all such a proposition ever can be. Foolish.

[Tiberius]

You think it is my personal interpretation and I say it isn't.

There are large groups of Christians who believe in a literal Bible. This is their personal interpretation, and your version is your personal interpretation. The only way it cannot be your personal interpretation is if everyone read the Bible in the exact same way.

That is absolute nonsense. Back that up.

'Truth' in context is 'eternal truth' - which it is. 'Spiritual truth' - which it is. NONE of it is scientific in nature and never ever has been. This is clearly understood throughout history.

No, what is clearly understood through history is that the people who wrote the Bible were writing down creation myths that had been passed down through the generations. That said, the first books of the Bible are highly detailed, and they have a full genealogy from Adam in them. I hardly think the author would have included a genealogy if he didn't think it was completely accurate.

The Bible starts off reading like a history book, with all the stories tied into each other. It is either the work of a very clever fiction author (highly doubtable given the era) or the work of people who thought they were recording accurate history.

[chatpilot]

Frodo I must know where you are from that according to you the idea of eternal life is considered an outdated interpretation.My interpretation of the bible myths are not my own you would know this if you picked up a book on theology or modern christian thought every once in awhile.Most christians even so called learned christians take alot of what is in the bible myths as literal.There have been scientific excavation to try and confirm the existence of certain places mentioned in the Old and New Testament or to locate remnants of a people said to have occupied those places.

I've even seen so called scientific shows trying to prove that certain so called miraculous events in the O.T. actually happened such as the crossing of the Red Sea by the Hebrews to name one example.When I asked for irrefutable evidence I was not referring to the visions of John but rather the existence of Christ as an historical figure for one and also for so called prophecies of his coming that were not taken out of context.

[fr0d0]

No, what is clearly understood through history is that the people who wrote the Bible were writing down creation myths that had been passed down through the generations. That said, the first books of the Bible are highly detailed, and they have a full genealogy from Adam in them. I hardly think the author would have included a genealogy if he didn't think it was completely accurate.

Incredibly thin evidence, and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Interpretation is key here, and factually, nothing backs up your assertion.

Frodo I must know where you are from that according to you the idea of eternal life is considered an outdated interpretation.My interpretation of the bible myths are not my own you would know this if you picked up a book on theology or modern christian thought every once in awhile.Most christians even so called learned christians take alot of what is in the bible myths as literal.There have been scientific excavation to try and confirm the existence of certain places mentioned in the Old and New Testament or to locate remnants of a people said to have occupied those places.

I've even seen so called scientific shows trying to prove that certain so called miraculous events in the O.T. actually happened such as the crossing of the Red Sea by the Hebrews to name one example.

You're incredibly insulting chatpilot for someone so seemingly ignorant of the subject. Perhaps you sense that you lose the discussion? I'm a current Christian and I'm telling you how it is. Literalism is a minority view. Get over it. Yes you have very vocal minority extremists. Don't you always get these?

When I asked for irrefutable evidence I was not referring to the visions of John but rather the existence of Christ as an historical figure for one and also for so called prophecies of his coming that were not taken out of context.

There is no irrefutable evidence as I'm sure you're aware. "Historians agree" that Jesus the man existed, is the best you can get I'm afraid. Then we have the question about his deity, something there necessarily can be no evidence for, as is His nature.