Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Also, I'm of the opinion that anyone who uses a book that gives instructions on how to sell your own daughter into sexual slavery (exodus 21:7-11) as a moral compass is a dumdum.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you accept the Bible? If not, explain why.
- Thread starter Biblestudent_007
- Start date
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
No, it is inaccurate. It does not correspond to reality.
esmith
Veteran Member
I have always figured that in a Oral Society it was accepted that a story should be changed whereas in a Written Society it is not acceptable that a story be changed. The Bible came about in an Oral Society. Therefore the stories changed during the re-telling. We also assume that when a story is told certain events are, how should I say, exaggerated. It is human nature to make the hero, heroine, or event seem more grandiose. Also if the facts are not known it is human nature to fabricate explanations or take existing stories and change them to fit the audience.
So to answer your question "Do I accept the bible". I would have to say that there are historical events portrayed, and myths/legends in the Old Testament and the New Testament is wishful thinking with possible historical parts (mostly wishful thinking).
So to answer your question "Do I accept the bible". I would have to say that there are historical events portrayed, and myths/legends in the Old Testament and the New Testament is wishful thinking with possible historical parts (mostly wishful thinking).
Levite
Higher and Higher
I suppose that depends on what you mean by "accept" and by "Bible."
I accept the Tanakh as the sacred scriptures of the Jewish People, and I accept that the Torah is binding upon all the People Israel, and that it is inspired by the revelations of our ancestors with God.
But I don't accept it as of direct divine authorship, or that it is somehow perfectly inerrant in every way.
And I certainly don't accept the New Testament of the Christians as sacred or binding in any way, or consider it to be a part of the Bible.
I don't think that's true in all instances, especially in the case of the Psalms and Proverbs. I think that the structure of the Psalms as songs was intended to be a mnemonic aid so that the exact wording could be remembered easily, even in an oral society. Same with the structure of the Proverbs as snappy little one- and two-line idioms. These sorts of things say to me that parts of the Bible were definitely intended to be preserved without change.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Do I accept the Bible as what?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
How do you know?
Why does it say so many things that are just plain wrong?
So you think there was a talking snake? That the best way to cure leprosy is to dip one bird in the blood of another? That the earth stood still? that there are waters above the firmament? That people who work on the wrong day should be killed? That God commands people to kill babies and they should do it? That eating clams is an abomination?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I did answer your question.
I assume these "fallacies" are cherry picked by atheists/agnostics/and skeptics? . .
What do you mean, "cherry picked"? They're in the Bible, and they're wrong. Therefore, the Bible is wrong, at least once. Do you agree? If not, what part do you disagree with?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
So you believe the Bible to be true because you have faith in it? Why do you have faith in it?
esmith
Veteran Member
I didn't mean to imply that everything was changed, just that it was acceptable by an oral society to modify a story. Since there were no printing presses that turned out volumes of works oral to aural modifications did occur.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I'm pretty sure you already learned here once that the gospels were not written by eye-witnesses. Did you forget?
Biblestudent_007
Active Member
Is this about your past reference to the scholar Bart Erhman? . .
Biblestudent_007
Active Member
Simply, as the inspired word of God.
waitasec
Veteran Member
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
No, just the simple fact that the gospels were not written by eye-witnesses, nor are they claimed to be. You might want to actually read them--nowhere does it say they're written by eye-witnesses, nor does it say who wrote them. In fact, we don't know who wrote them.
As I said at the time, I doubt that this fact will have any impact on your beliefs. That's because your beliefs aren't based on facts; they're based on your childhood indoctrination. Had you been indoctrinated by Muslims in Pesawar, you would have the exact same faith in the quran.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Oh, no, there is no God, so definitely not. If there were, why would He choose such an ineffective, hard to understand way to communicate with us? He could easily address us each individually. So definitely not. Why, do you? How did you happen to pick the Bible for that?
AfterGlow
Invisible Puffle
As an accurate account of a deity's interactions with the world?
No.
This guy;
Maybe it's a reference to the beginning of the Gospel of Luke where the anonymous author explains how he based his gospel on the accounts of eyewitnesses he spoke to, implying that the author himself was not an eyewitness.
Or maybe she's referring to the strange quirk in the Gospel of Matthew where "Matthew" talks about himself in the third person. For example, Matthew 9:9:
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
I accept the Bible as an interesting window into the lives of ancient religious men from that corner of Earth.
It shows their violent world, their erroneous understanding of things, their superstitions, and their willingness to commit genocide, and condone slavery. It also shows their poetic and occasionally philosophical side.
As a whole, I find it to be very unethical, and see that it has virtually no reasonable place in the modern world.