Inconsistent Bible Criticisms

[Earthling]

Have you ever noticed inconsistencies in criticisms of the Bible?

For example, who wrote the Bible, primitive goat herders or priests and scholars in Babylonian exile?

Given either one of those possibilities was it written to control people who were long dead or was it written as an sort of quasi historical mythology to people who obviously would have known better?

It's odd when you think about what people are thinking about when they are telling you what you should think.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Have you ever noticed inconsistencies in criticisms of the Bible?

For example, who wrote the Bible, primitive goat herders or priests and scholars in Babylonian exile?

Given either one of those possibilities was it written to control people who were long dead or was it written as an sort of quasi historical mythology to people who obviously would have known better?

It's odd when you think about what people are thinking about when they are telling you what you should think.

I don't know about all that, but the only contradiction I found was:



All the other things like multiple creation stories etc aren't an issue since multiple people wrote the bible; and, despite people's beliefs it was still written by human authors, with human intents, culture, history, and politics; nothing is perfect. Like any other religion.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I steer clear of the 'primitive goat herders' thing because it's gross anyway. Like saying ancient Egyptians were too primitive to really build the pyramids or 'x native culture was too savage to create y.' That's not how anthropology or history works.

I also try very hard not to tell people what they believe, and distance my own view of bible author intentions from others. Understanding that it is indeed possible to have multiple perspectives.

Heck, my own view is that there are multiple perspectives. Many different writers of different backgrounds. Some of which I don't doubt were trying to establish a new controlling church, some of which were creating moral fables to be passed on as a inheritable world view which is too often taken literally, some of which is period understanding of the world around them which contradicts modern knowledge, and others quasi-historical record keeping. It can be at times one but not the other, and at times more than one or none of them, just by being a dynamic writing that spanned through multiple peoples and times.

 

[icehorse]

Have you ever noticed inconsistencies in criticisms of the Bible?

For example, who wrote the Bible, primitive goat herders or priests and scholars in Babylonian exile?

Given either one of those possibilities was it written to control people who were long dead or was it written as an sort of quasi historical mythology to people who obviously would have known better?

It's odd when you think about what people are thinking about when they are telling you what you should think.

in my experience, it seems you have things backwards. It is by far more common that the religious attempt to tell other people how to think then it is common for the non-religious to tell the religious how to think.

Now on this forum there are a lot of critics of religion, but I think this forum is not representative of the rest of the world.

 

[metis]

It's odd when you think about what people are thinking about when they are telling you what you should think.

Like the above post?

 

[Earthling]

I don't know about all that, but the only contradiction I found was:

View attachment 26630

All the other things like multiple creation stories etc aren't an issue since multiple people wrote the bible; and, despite people's beliefs it was still written by human authors, with human intents, culture, history, and politics; nothing is perfect. Like any other religion.

I like that cartoon, I've never seen salvation presented exactly as that, but it is accurate from a Biblical perspective.

I found your response equally ironic, though. You don't know about all that, and then you go on to say you know exactly that, which I'm inclined to doubt that you do. Even I don't. Your position is belief just as mine is.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I like that cartoon, I've never seen salvation presented exactly as that, but it is accurate from a Biblical perspective.

I found your response equally ironic, though. You don't know about all that, and then you go on to say you know exactly that, which I'm inclined to doubt that you do. Even I don't. Your position is belief just as mine is.

Ha. I don't know about all that in detail. I heard about the inconsistency in genesis in general. I never looked into it just see it online a lot. If you were to ask me details, I wouldn't know.

 

[Jumi]

Look at just about any topic and you find unequal criticism. As to Bible criticism, it would be hard to criticize the whole Bible as something. Looking at books in Bible it's clear that different books of it were written by very different people and for different purposes.

 

[Nakosis]

Have you ever noticed inconsistencies in criticisms of the Bible?

For example, who wrote the Bible, primitive goat herders or priests and scholars in Babylonian exile?

Given either one of those possibilities was it written to control people who were long dead or was it written as an sort of quasi historical mythology to people who obviously would have known better?

It's odd when you think about what people are thinking about when they are telling you what you should think.

I think generally they believe they possess the truth and are compelled to share it.

 

[PureX]

Many writers, many editors, many translators, over many centuries. And not a one of them was God.

 

[Earthling]

I steer clear of the 'primitive goat herders' thing because it's gross anyway. Like saying ancient Egyptians were too primitive to really build the pyramids or 'x native culture was too savage to create y.' That's not how anthropology or history works.

To me this is an extremely astute observation and just as refreshing. Thanks.

I also try very hard not to tell people what they believe, and distance my own view of bible author intentions from others. Understanding that it is indeed possible to have multiple perspectives.

Heck, my own view is that there are multiple perspectives. Many different writers of different backgrounds. Some of which I don't doubt were trying to establish a new controlling church, some of which were creating moral fables to be passed on as a inheritable world view which is too often taken literally, some of which is period understanding of the world around them which contradicts modern knowledge, and others quasi-historical record keeping. It can be at times one but not the other, and at times more than one or none of them, just by being a dynamic writing that spanned through multiple peoples and times.

That certainly is a valid perspective but not by any means far removed from the theological norm. Some of it, not all of it. I find control as a motivation to be patently absurd no matter who or when you think the texts were written. The Bible primarily consists of examples of where any control is almost entirely unsuccessful, and the purpose of the founding of a nation of laws was predicated upon the inability to adhere to those laws and thereby demonstrating the nature of sin (to miss the mark) and the need of salvation.

If, by creating moral fables you mean to imply parables and illustrations, symbolism. metaphorical or allegorical instruction, then yes, the Bible certainly makes use of those, but to dismiss everything that seems out of line with the natural, or modern scientific explanation is a.) inconclusive and narrow minded at best and b.) often misinterpreted as not being symbolic etc. in the first place. For example, celestial phenomenon in the books of Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation being representations of social and political upheaval, which can be established by comparing the applications in the aforementioned books.

Actually, if I go through your list they are all patently absurd except for the obvious truth that there were multiple writers over a relatively great period of time.

To call the Bible quasi historical is really irresponsible and uninformed. The extant copies compared to other histories presents a tremendously superior presentation alone. The meticulous copying, the unprecedented honesty . . .

 

[Earthling]

in my experience, it seems you have things backwards. It is by far more common that the religious attempt to tell other people how to think then it is common for the non-religious to tell the religious how to think.

That is an unfortunate truism, although it is, as you say, common religiosity. Ideologically, sociologically. It is more political and social than it is Biblical.

Now on this forum there are a lot of critics of religion, but I think this forum is not representative of the rest of the world.

Fair enough, but that only means that there isn't this type of concentrated criticism of the Bible or any other sacred text or religion, ideology etc. doesn't take place outside of forums like this.

 

[Earthling]

Like the above post?

Specifically my post above? The OP? You think that criticism of criticism is telling someone how to think?

 

[Earthling]

Ha. I don't know about all that in detail. I heard about the inconsistency in genesis in general. I never looked into it just see it online a lot. If you were to ask me details, I wouldn't know.

The cartoon could be compared to the Mafia's protection racket. Pay them for protection from whom? Them, of course. On the other hand it can be compared with the same validity to a parent's disciplining of a child. The parent doesn't discipline the child out of some egotistical tyranny, but to protect the child from being rejected, first by the parent then by society for it's unacceptable behavior.

The methodology for the Mafia's protection racket may be similar but the motivation is far more sinister and self serving.

 

[Earthling]

I think generally they believe they possess the truth and are compelled to share it.

Perhaps. But that doesn't address the inconsistencies.

 

[Nakosis]

Perhaps. But that doesn't address the inconsistencies.

How does one generally address inconsistencies in their argument? How do you address them?

Usually, I try to come up with a better argument. The problem with attacking the Bible is there is a infinite number of ways to argue around inconsistencies. people can get very creative with their arguments for and against.

Whether you want to support it or attack it most people get to a position they are comfortable with. At least until somebody with a creative mind thinks up something new.

 

[metis]

Specifically my post above? The OP? You think that criticism of criticism is telling someone how to think?

Of course it is-- connect the dots.

 

[Earthling]

Of course it is-- connect the dots.

And the original criticism is likewise telling people what to think? So to you objectivity is an affront to independent thought?

 

[metis]

And the original criticism is likewise telling people what to think? So to you objectivity is an affront to independent thought?

To your questions, yes and no in that order.

 

[PureX]

The overwhelmingly common flaw I see among both those who seek to criticize the Bible, AND among those who seek to defend it, is the insistence on reading it as though it were a grade school textbook, rather than reading is as a collection of symbolic, mythical, metaphorical, philosophical/theological expositions regarding a specific culture's concept of and relationship with "God". To read it as if it were supposed to be historically factual is imbecilic. And yet an embarrassing majority of both the believers and the detractors alike insist on doing so, ad nauseam. So intently, and so often, in fact, that virtually every discussion related the Bible, in mixed company, immediately devolves into a contest of absurdity.

IF, both theists and non-theists were willing and able to read the text as it was intended to be read: as ARTIFICE, the conversation that followed would be something very different than the one that almost always ensues, now. For one thing, the discussion would have to begin with each side explaining to the other what ideas they think the text is intending to present to the reader, through the literary artifice of symbol, metaphor, myth, and so on. And then from there, they could perhaps begin to discuss/debate the validity of those ideas to the circumstances of a modern reader.