How do non-believers account for the authors of the Holy Bible?

Fluffy · Jan 7, 2007

Firstly to clarify this post, I am using "non-believer" to refer to any person who does not believe that the words in the Bible were in some way inspired by God and not as a synonym for atheist. So under this definition, a non-believer might be a pagan, an atheist, a Hindu etc. or a Jew might respond with regards to the NT only for example.

However you feel about the Bible, it is undeniably a collection of writings that has had a profound impact of Western society and history. Whilst the position of the believer on this scripture is fairly clear, what is less so is the reaction of the non-believer. It was not, obviously, conjured from thin air but if we are going to discount the possibility that its authors were even inspired by God then what possibilities are we left with?

Were the authors being deliberately deceptive? If so what did they have to gain by lying? Were they motivated politically or did they simply wish for some sort of personal recognition?

Another possibility is that they truly believed what they said but were entirely mistaken. How can so many educated men have believed so deeply in something that was, from the non-believer's point of view, so wrong? Were they tricked by some sort of evil being to preach falsely or can their mistake be attributed to social and psychological factors?

There are perhaps other possibilities but I can't think of any so feel free to post more than the two I have suggested.

For the believers on the forum, do you think that any of the positions of the non-believers on these authors are possible? Do you think they are perhaps likely or plausible and if not, why not? Do you find anything inherently offensive about the non-believers position if the two options I have given (deliberately deceptive or utterly mistaken) are the only two available to the non-believer and does this create a significant barrier between you and the non-believer?

Valjean · Jan 7, 2007

They truly believed what they said but were entirely mistaken.

How could so many educated men have believed in something so wrong? The same way educated Muslims, Romans, Zoroastrians, Shintoists, Greeks, &c did (do).

The basic values, attitudes and beliefs of a society are instilled long before a child has any capacity for critical analysis. They insinuate themselves unfiltered and unexamined into the brain's operating system and are subsequently extremely hard to dislodge. Logic, comparative examination and reason played no part in their instillation and are usually ineffective in altering or dislodging them.

MysticSang'ha · Jan 7, 2007

I don't think I'd go that far, Seyorni, but I see where you're going with your argument.

I think the authors truly believed in what they wrote, but they weren't entirely mistaken. There are golden nuggets of truth IMHO within the borders of the Holy Bible, no matter which version one uses.

I can find passages of forgiveness, the Golden Rule, and the Middle Way in the Bible, and those virtues reap innumerable rewards for the practitioner.

I don't think in any way were the authors deceptive. Cosmologically speaking, I think they were, at best, on to something; but ethically speaking, I think they were mostly on the mark.

How can one be utterly mistaken with the "Do unto others.........." advice?

Maybe I'm missing something here. *scatches head*

Peace,
Mystic

krashlocke · Jan 7, 2007

Fluffy said:
Were the authors being deliberately deceptive? If so what did they have to gain by lying? Were they motivated politically or did they simply wish for some sort of personal recognition?

Another possibility is that they truly believed what they said but were entirely mistaken. How can so many educated men have believed so deeply in something that was, from the non-believer's point of view, so wrong? Were they tricked by some sort of evil being to preach falsely or can their mistake be attributed to social and psychological factors?

Were they preaching? Did they believe these things from a literal sense? These are common assumptions, but is it so bizarre to suggest that many of these books were works of fiction from the beginning? Did Orwell actually believe that 1984 was a prophetic writing of the world as it shall be or was he writing fiction with the intent of conveying a message? Whose to say that people won't derive faith from a work of ficiton in the future (Consider: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44660&highlight=jedi)?

I personally tend to enjoy reading religious texts and viewing them as wonderful books filled with historical data, interesting stories, and good moral and ethical questions. Do I take them literally when they talk about a big invisible man in the sky? Not yet.

doppelganger · Jan 7, 2007

Nobody can know, but another possibility is that the earliest versions (Paul's epistles, the Cross Gospel, the sayings gospel - Q or Thomas) were written by people who knew they were writing in the realm of metaphorical myth and that other writers later mistook the metaphors as statements about a literal history and combined all three - Paul's mysticism and philosophy, with the mythologization of that mysticism in the Cross Gospel, with the philosophical teachings of the sayings Gospel. And it was embellished from there.

Valjean · Jan 7, 2007

MysticSang'ha said:
I don't think I'd go that far, Seyorni, but I see where you're going with your argument.

I think the authors truly believed in what they wrote, but they weren't entirely mistaken. There are golden nuggets of truth IMHO within the borders of the Holy Bible, no matter which version one uses.

I can find passages of forgiveness, the Golden Rule, and the Middle Way in the Bible, and those virtues reap innumerable rewards for the practitioner.

Sorry Mystic. I was quoting Fluffy's original post. Perhaps I should have moderated "entirely."

MysticSang'ha · Jan 7, 2007

Seyorni said:
Sorry Mystic. I was quoting Fluffy's original post. Perhaps I should have moderated "entirely."

Oops, I see.

Peace,
Mystic

Booko · Jan 7, 2007

krashlocke said:
Were they preaching? Did they believe these things from a literal sense? These are common assumptions, but is it so bizarre to suggest that many of these books were works of fiction from the beginning? Did Orwell actually believe that 1984 was a prophetic writing of the world as it shall be or was he writing fiction with the intent of conveying a message? Whose to say that people won't derive faith from a work of ficiton in the future (Consider: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44660&highlight=jedi)?

The question for me is not whether some people will derive faith from a work of fiction in the future, but whether there's much (or any) historical precedent for so many people having derived faith, and entire civilizations being built on a foundation of, an anthology of fiction.

Since I don't really see much by way of example that way, it wouldn't be my first choice of options to believe that Biblical texts are mainly "fictional." It's too much of a leap with too little justification for it. (Your mileage may vary.)

I personally tend to enjoy reading religious texts and viewing them as wonderful books filled with historical data, interesting stories, and good moral and ethical questions. Do I take them literally when they talk about a big invisible man in the sky? Not yet.

Yes, well I've often observed that many problems have occured because people take religious texts and read them as if they were modern texts in history or science, or because the readers are metaphorically-impaired.

Booko · Jan 7, 2007

Fluffy said:
However you feel about the Bible, it is undeniably a collection of writings that has had a profound impact of Western society and history. Whilst the position of the believer on this scripture is fairly clear, what is less so is the reaction of the non-believer.

It was not, obviously, conjured from thin air but if we are going to discount the possibility that its authors were even inspired by God then what possibilities are we left with?

Um, actually, I have heard and read opinions from non-believers that it was actually conjured out of thin air. This typically begins with "Jesus never existed" and then goes from there. (It's one thing to point out that there is a lack of non-Christian sources, but quite a leap to state therefore it's totally invented, but people do make the leap.)

Were the authors being deliberately deceptive? If so what did they have to gain by lying?

We can observe religious groups where leaders are deliberately deceptive. What they gain is power, personal attention, money, free forced sex, the usual stuff. Do I consider this a "possibility"? Well, since it's been observed in the past (and the present) I must admit that it's a possibility. I just think that, given the entire picture of Christianity, it's a very remote possibility. When I was an atheist myself, I would not have entertained that possibility for long, for precisely the same reasons I give it little credence now.

Were they motivated politically or did they simply wish for some sort of personal recognition?

I wonder what political motivation there could've been. It put one in more political trouble to adhere to some non-standard religion at the time, and especially if it meant you wouldn't be doing your civil duty sacrificing to the proper gods. Jews managed to get a bye on that, but the Christians were seen as treasonous for refusing to do so. That's not what I'd call political smarts.

I speak from personal experience when I say that belonging to a religious minority that goes against the cultural grain is NOT an asset, politically or socially.

In Christianity, there was no political advantage until much later, from Constantine and after. That's way after the authors of the Gospels.

Personal recognition? Hey, it's a common enough human motivation. But while it's possible it might be some factor in individual authors, I don't think it would be the main motivator. I think they genuinely believed what they wrote. Personal recognition, if it was there, would be more of a subconscious thing.

Another possibility is that they truly believed what they said but were entirely mistaken.

Mistaken about what? The whole existence of God thing? Ethics? History? Specific doctrines? I'm not sure how to respond to this part.

How can so many educated men have believed so deeply in something that was, from the non-believer's point of view, so wrong? Were they tricked by some sort of evil being to preach falsely or can their mistake be attributed to social and psychological factors?

Um, that would be interesting, to find many non-believers who would believe an evil being was behind it.

Even people who generally believe in the Bible may not accept all of it as authentic. Muslims, as you know, only accept the Gospels and Revelation. The Epistles are not seen as God-inspired, and there is a strong current of thought that someone did some funny business with the text.

Mormons, as you know, believe in the Bible, but believe there are errors that occured in writing/translating the text, and think some things were left out. As far as I know, Mormons believe these mistakes occured honestly, and not because of any deception or other funny business.

Baha'is, like Muslims, believe the Gospels and Revelation are ok, but view the Epistles as more informative, but not authoritative. Like Muslims and Mormons, we also believe that some information was lost, though it's anyone's guess what that information was. We don't believe that loss has removed the spiritual usefulness of the text, though.

Do you find anything inherently offensive about the non-believers position if the two options I have given (deliberately deceptive or utterly mistaken) are the only two available to the non-believer and does this create a significant barrier between you and the non-believer?

Well, I've seen people take offense, but I don't find it offensive any more than I would if you came up with an alternative understanding of some poem of John Donne. Reading is a dicey proposition that way.

The only thing that irritates me is when the occasional person with some axe clearly grinding in the background, proceeds to do wholesale slaughter to the text in an irrational effort to prove some point. I don't object to that on religious grounds, though, but on the grounds that it's a ridiculous hermeneutic. :149:

Halcyon · Jan 7, 2007

It boils down to faith, again.

The authors had a faith, and that faith inspired them to write. What is written is true to them, they meant no deception. To the non-believer the text has no relevance because they lack the faith needed to interpret the text from the authors position.

The texts are true of you believe them and false if you don't. There's no trickery involved.

PureX · Jan 7, 2007

Fluffy said:
However you feel about the Bible, it is undeniably a collection of writings that has had a profound impact of Western society and history. Whilst the position of the believer on this scripture is fairly clear, what is less so is the reaction of the non-believer. It was not, obviously, conjured from thin air but if we are going to discount the possibility that its authors were even inspired by God then what possibilities are we left with?

You would be left with a collection of books inspired by the idea of God in the minds of the men who wrote them. The fact that the idea of God exists does not prove that God exists, nor would the lack of a God mean that the idea of a God cannot exist.

Fluffy said:
Were the authors being deliberately deceptive? If so what did they have to gain by lying? Were they motivated politically or did they simply wish for some sort of personal recognition?

I believe the authors believed that their idea of God was an accurate representation of an actual God, and they were trying as best they could to pass this idea on to succeeding generations, because they believed it to be accurate.

Fluffy said:
Another possibility is that they truly believed what they said but were entirely mistaken.

Entirely, or partially, or slightly. It's impossible to say. The only thing we can say with a real degree of probability is that they are probably wrong to SOME degree.

Fluffy said:
How can so many educated men have believed so deeply in something that was, from the non-believer's point of view, so wrong? Were they tricked by some sort of evil being to preach falsely or can their mistake be attributed to social and psychological factors?

A "non-believer" in this case would be an agnostic: one who refuses to believe that the scriptures are, or are not, an accurate representation of an actual God. One who believe that the scriptures are not an accurate representation of God, are just "believers" with a different opinion.

Fluffy said:
There are perhaps other possibilities but I can't think of any so feel free to post more than the two I have suggested.

Why not just go with the truth: ... that we simply don't know?

sandy whitelinger · Jan 7, 2007

Seyorni said:
They truly believed what they said but were entirely mistaken.

How arrogant of you. Now, just what were they mistaken about?

Mathematician · Jan 7, 2007

doppelgänger said:
Nobody can know, but another possibility is that the earliest versions (Paul's epistles, the Cross Gospel, the sayings gospel - Q or Thomas) were written by people who knew they were writing in the realm of metaphorical myth and that other writers later mistook the metaphors as statements about a literal history and combined all three - Paul's mysticism and philosophy, with the mythologization of that mysticism in the Cross Gospel, with the philosophical teachings of the sayings Gospel. And it was embellished from there.

I agree with this.

It's the same way people accounted for the Greek Gods.

Perhaps if they were actually written when the alleged Jesus figure existed we might have more evidence.

joeboonda · Jan 7, 2007

The NT writers said, among other things, a main message; that was they all claimed that Jesus Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again physically the 3rd day. To me, if they made that up, it is awful strange that they all died proclaiming that Christ had risen indeed. People die for what they think is true, but nobody dies for something they know is not true. I believe they saw the risen Saviour and died proclaiming this truth, otherwise they would have denied it when faced with a brutal death at the hands of those who would quell this good news.

Dentonz · Jan 7, 2007

Seyorni said:
They truly believed what they said but were entirely mistaken.

How could so many educated men have believed in something so wrong? The same way educated Muslims, Romans, Zoroastrians, Shintoists, Greeks, &c did (do).

The basic values, attitudes and beliefs of a society are instilled long before a child has any capacity for critical analysis. They insinuate themselves unfiltered and unexamined into the brain's operating system and are subsequently extremely hard to dislodge. Logic, comparative examination and reason played no part in their instillation and are usually ineffective in altering or dislodging them.

If it is nothing but a compilation of words, then it will fade away; but if it is the Word of God, it will stand.
It has already spanned the course of several thousand years with many different authors, compiled by other men many years after the fact, and still stands irrefutably the most influential book of all time.

Kay · Jan 8, 2007

doppelgänger said:
Nobody can know, but another possibility is that the earliest versions (Paul's epistles, the Cross Gospel, the sayings gospel - Q or Thomas) were written by people who knew they were writing in the realm of metaphorical myth and that other writers later mistook the metaphors as statements about a literal history and combined all three - Paul's mysticism and philosophy, with the mythologization of that mysticism in the Cross Gospel, with the philosophical teachings of the sayings Gospel. And it was embellished from there.

My thoughts exactly.

Wandered Off · Jan 8, 2007

PureX said:
You would be left with a collection of books inspired by the idea of God in the minds of the men who wrote them.

Exactly! They would project their idea of what they thought God would say. Those inclined toward violence would interpret their own notions such as taking others' lands by force as commandments from God. Those with a more peaceful and loving temperament likely would interpret nobler ideas as inspired by God.

That would explain the seemingly different portrayals of God across all texts claiming divine inspiration.

Kamala · Jan 8, 2007

I think it would most likely be a combination of several possibilities already named here: some metaphorical writings later interpreted as literal, some political motivation (the accuracy of the portrayal of the Pharisees in the Gospels is questionable; also the possible anti-Roman political messages encoded in Revelation), and even things seen in visions (whether or not those visions were of divine origin is anyone's guess).

Kungfuzed · Jan 8, 2007

Fluffy said:
Firstly to clarify this post, I am using "non-believer" to refer to any person who does not believe that the words in the Bible were in some way inspired by God and not as a synonym for atheist. So under this definition, a non-believer might be a pagan, an atheist, a Hindu etc. or a Jew might respond with regards to the NT only for example.

However you feel about the Bible, it is undeniably a collection of writings that has had a profound impact of Western society and history. Whilst the position of the believer on this scripture is fairly clear, what is less so is the reaction of the non-believer. It was not, obviously, conjured from thin air but if we are going to discount the possibility that its authors were even inspired by God then what possibilities are we left with?

Were the authors being deliberately deceptive? If so what did they have to gain by lying? Were they motivated politically or did they simply wish for some sort of personal recognition?

Another possibility is that they truly believed what they said but were entirely mistaken. How can so many educated men have believed so deeply in something that was, from the non-believer's point of view, so wrong? Were they tricked by some sort of evil being to preach falsely or can their mistake be attributed to social and psychological factors?

There are perhaps other possibilities but I can't think of any so feel free to post more than the two I have suggested.

For the believers on the forum, do you think that any of the positions of the non-believers on these authors are possible? Do you think they are perhaps likely or plausible and if not, why not? Do you find anything inherently offensive about the non-believers position if the two options I have given (deliberately deceptive or utterly mistaken) are the only two available to the non-believer and does this create a significant barrier between you and the non-believer?

Do we even know who the real authors were? Are any of the books of the bible written by the person in the title of the book? I would assume the book of Matthew should have been written by the apostle Matthew, but you know what happens when you assume.

doppelganger · Jan 9, 2007

Kungfuzed said:
Do we even know who the real authors were? Are any of the books of the bible written by the person in the title of the book? I would assume the book of Matthew should have been written by the apostle Matthew, but you know what happens when you assume.

The majority of history scholars agree on the authorship of seven of the Pauline Epistles. The rest are hotly disputed, with little or no reliable evidence of authorship (including the four canonical gospels and the Acts of the Apostles).

How do non-believers account for the authors of the Holy Bible?

A fool

Veteran Member

Big Squishy Hugger

Member

Through the Looking Glass

Veteran Member

Big Squishy Hugger

Deviled Hen

Deviled Hen

Lord of the Badgers

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Reason, and reason again

Well-Known Member

Member

Towards the Sun

Sporadic Driveby Member

Member

Student Nurse

Through the Looking Glass