The Bible. Myth or Reality?

[Greatest I am]

God to the best of their understanding. The finite's attempt to understand the infinite.


I do believe miracles occur. I see the God concept as a non-dualist (God and creation are not-two).

Yes. We are trying to understand how the infinite could be such a vile demiurge.

Perhaps God should use a miracle on his own satanic nature.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I believe the Bible is real. I once saw a blurry home movie of a Bible.

I know there are some people who say it's faked - that it was just a dictionary in a forged dust jacket - but I consider this unlikely.

Good for you.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Doesn't matter what it speaks to. The lessons and moral sand teachings are a positive thing for some.



No.

Good.

As to the morality of the God shown in the bible, do you agree with this finding?

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”―Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

If not, why not?

Regards
DL

 

[1robin]

The Bible. Myth or Reality?

A friendly suggestion. I would recommend you not start off by mortally wounding your credibility by using Dawkins as a source for anything related to the historical reliability of the bible.

1. Whatever his qualifications in a biology lab he has no special credibility in a historical context.
2. He is a terrible philosopher. In fact his "central argument" has been called (by professional scholars) the worst argument against God in the history of western thought.
3. He is not a competent theologian, often displayed common misconceptions about the bible that Sunday School children can easily recognize the fault in.

As a Gnostic Christian I see literal reading of the Bible as a gross distortion of what the Bible was written to do. That being to inspire people to seek God and his best laws and rules. Literal readers just become idol worshipers and do not seek God the way Jesus instructed.

Before we get in to anything specific I want to make some generalized points.

1. As an academic classification the bible is categorized as historical biography, NOT myth.
2. The bible does contain huge portions which are intended to be read literally. The bible contains 750,000 of the most profound words in human history and is neither all one thing or another.
3. Some parts are literal, some cryptic, some apocalyptic, some symbolic, some parable, etc...
4. The bible has been shown time again by very competent scholars as to be comparably free of myth. Stories as complex as the Gospel narrative cannot be attributed to myth as quickly as it was established.
There are various reasons for this.
a. Complexity requires time.
b. Myths are not usually established within the lifetimes of witnesses on a large scale.
c. Myths are usually controlled by a central agent.
d. Etc....

Literal reading has created and idol worshiping closed minded people who have settled for an immoral God whom we name as a demiurge as his morals, if literally true, are more satanic than God like.


Literal reading has also created a climate where scholars and experts, historians and archeologist, and all the academically well accepted information they uncover, --- is being ignored or called lies by those who are not academics of the various disciplines.

This is an opinion based conclusion which does not include any supporting evidence or even the attempt.

What is the point of producing good academics if literalists are going to ignore facts because of blind faith?

What is a literalist exactly. I have never heard of anyone who believes that every word of the bible is literal historical fact. It was not intended to be.

The bible is not impugned by referring to some anonymous "literalist". You must instead show something that was intended to by literal is in fact not within the bible. Then you must consider the reasons for it once found (could be simply scribal error). Then you must form some meaningful conclusion based on all the facts.

Remember please that if not a book of myths, then real talking serpents are somehow supposed to still exist and believers have to believe in a lot of supernatural phenomenon without any evidence whatsoever. Literalist Christians, it seems to me, have suspended rational judgement that has created in Christians a new Dark Age of thought and an Inquisitional attitude towards all other thinking. They no longer seek God and are true idol worshipers instead of the God seekers that Jesus wanted to see.

Let me use this an example of how these arguments lack meaningfulness.

The majority of those best qualified to know (NT historians) regardless of their faith agree that the central claims of the bible. Examples: That Christ appeared in history with an unprecedented sense of divine authority, that he practiced a ministry of exorcism, that he was crucified, that his tomb was found empty, that even his enemies claimed to experience him after death, etc.... are all historically reliable.

Now if Christ's core claims are historical then exactly how damaging is an accusation about whatever you mean by the literalness of a secondary issue like the nature of the serpent in Genesis?

Do you think the Bible to be a book of myths or a book trying to show reality and history?


Regards

DL

I think there exists an unprecedented and long established level of reliability to the bible's core claims. It was not intended to be at all times an accurate historical record and so accusations that it at times is not is not really a argument.

 

[outhouse]

Before we get in to anything specific I want to make some generalized points.

1. As an academic classification the bible is categorized as historical biography, NOT myth.

False. Plenty of academia considers the bible to contain mythology.

3. Some parts are literal, some cryptic, some apocalyptic, some symbolic, some parable, etc...

Some factually mythology.

4. The bible has been shown time again by very competent scholars as to be comparably free of myth.

LOL you mean apologetically inclined scholars who hold a minority position not held by academia.

Supply sources when making these apologetic claims.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sure. The Inquisition did that for sure. It was a great asset that Christianity should revive.

Regards
DL

a refresher of context

most estimates put the numbers killed at hundreds or thousands over the course of hundreds of years, in a small part of Europe and ending hundreds of years ago..

Contrast this with atheists/socialists like Stalin murdering millions in a single recent generation, not to mention Christians being murdered en masse as we speak in parts of the world, we have real ideological threats to face right now without turning to obscure antiquity

 

[outhouse]

The majority of those best qualified to know (NT historians) regardless of their faith agree that the central claims of the bible. Examples: That Christ appeared in history with an unprecedented sense of divine authority, that he practiced a ministry of exorcism, that he was crucified, that his tomb was found empty, that even his enemies claimed to experience him after death, etc.... are all historically reliable.

Supply sources when making these apologetic claims.


It is almost impossible the NT claims are credible when being written by unknown authors decades after the facts by people far removed from any actual event in the language it took place in.

Only parts were written in a rhetorical special kind of history using mythology, and those that are contradict each other.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes. We are trying to understand how the infinite could be such a vile demiurge.

Perhaps God should use a miracle on his own satanic nature.

I'm seeing your true colors. Why didn't you just lead with your opinions and saved me the bother?

 

[Greatest I am]

A friendly suggestion. I would recommend you not start off by mortally wounding your credibility by using Dawkins as a source for anything related to the historical reliability of the bible.

1. Whatever his qualifications in a biology lab he has no special credibility in a historical context.
2. He is a terrible philosopher. In fact his "central argument" has been called (by professional scholars) the worst argument against God in the history of western thought.
3. He is not a competent theologian, often displayed common misconceptions about the bible that Sunday School children can easily recognize the fault in.


Before we get in to anything specific I want to make some generalized points.

1. As an academic classification the bible is categorized as historical biography, NOT myth.
2. The bible does contain huge portions which are intended to be read literally. The bible contains 750,000 of the most profound words in human history and is neither all one thing or another.
3. Some parts are literal, some cryptic, some apocalyptic, some symbolic, some parable, etc...
4. The bible has been shown time again by very competent scholars as to be comparably free of myth. Stories as complex as the Gospel narrative cannot be attributed to myth as quickly as it was established.
There are various reasons for this.
a. Complexity requires time.
b. Myths are not usually established within the lifetimes of witnesses on a large scale.
c. Myths are usually controlled by a central agent.
d. Etc....




This is an opinion based conclusion which does not include any supporting evidence or even the attempt.


What is a literalist exactly. I have never heard of anyone who believes that every word of the bible is literal historical fact. It was not intended to be.

The bible is not impugned by referring to some anonymous "literalist". You must instead show something that was intended to by literal is in fact not within the bible. Then you must consider the reasons for it once found (could be simply scribal error). Then you must form some meaningful conclusion based on all the facts.


Let me use this an example of how these arguments lack meaningfulness.

The majority of those best qualified to know (NT historians) regardless of their faith agree that the central claims of the bible. Examples: That Christ appeared in history with an unprecedented sense of divine authority, that he practiced a ministry of exorcism, that he was crucified, that his tomb was found empty, that even his enemies claimed to experience him after death, etc.... are all historically reliable.

Now if Christ's core claims are historical then exactly how damaging is an accusation about whatever you mean by the literalness of a secondary issue like the nature of the serpent in Genesis?






I think there exists an unprecedented and long established level of reliability to the bible's core claims. It was not intended to be at all times an accurate historical record and so accusations that it at times is not is not really a argument.

Many words that did not say much.

So you would be one who believes that God condemned us all and then stupidly decided to go through the farce of dying for us, even as we know God cannot die. Right?

Regards
DL

 

[outhouse]

Christian mythology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to a number of scholars, the Christ story contains mythical themes such as descent to the underworld, the heroic monomyth, and the "dying god" (see section below on "mythical themes and types").


Some scholars have argued that the Book of Revelation incorporates imagery from ancient mythology


The Pastoral Epistles contain denunciations of "myths"

 

[Greatest I am]

I'm seeing your true colors. Why didn't you just lead with your opinions and saved me the bother?

I was up front, as always.

Regards
DL

 

[jonathan180iq]

A friendly suggestion. I would recommend you not start off by mortally wounding your credibility by using Dawkins as a source for anything related to the historical reliability of the bible.

Quick question - what is the absolute oldest evidence for the Bible's existence? Can you name it?

I challenge you to submit your evidence for the oldest scraps of the Torah, or any part of the part of the Bible prior to 600 BCE.
It doesn't take someone with a PHd in Biblical History to dissect the flaws in the Bible's portrayal of historical events. It doesn't even take much more than a quick wiki-search to begin to understand how and why the Judeo-Christian narrative arose out of several pre-existing Mesopotamian religions.

So before you jump all over someone for quoting Dawkins, make sure you have something to back it up with.

1. As an academic classification the bible is categorized as historical biography, NOT myth.
2. The bible does contain huge portions which are intended to be read literally. The bible contains 750,000 of the most profound words in human history and is neither all one thing or another.
3. Some parts are literal, some cryptic, some apocalyptic, some symbolic, some parable, etc...
4. The bible has been shown time again by very competent scholars as to be comparably free of myth. Stories as complex as the Gospel narrative cannot be attributed to myth as quickly as it was established.
There are various reasons for this.
a. Complexity requires time.
b. Myths are not usually established within the lifetimes of witnesses on a large scale.
c. Myths are usually controlled by a central agent.
d. Etc....

1. As are all other modern religious texts....So what?
2. That's a nice opinion to have.
3. ie, mythological
4. See Addendum
4a. It takes time to fabricate better versions of stories
4b. Neither was the New Testament
4c. You mean, like a convening council which controls which myths to accept as canon and which myths to throw out?
4d. Etc....

**Addendum: You've made the claim that the Bible has been shown by scholars to be comparably free of Myth, yet we have this:

• Angels
• Giants
• Talking Animals
• Burning Bushes which speak audibly
• Zombies
• Planets which stop rotating
• Global 40-day Deluges
• People being turned into blocks of salt
• Flaming lips and tongues flying through the air
• Seas parting
• Walking sticks turning into snakes
• Angels of Death taking children from their homes
• Fireballs raining down from "heaven"
• Teleportation
• Shapeshifting
• Magic spit
• People living inside fish
• etc, etc.

 

[1robin]

False. Plenty of academia considers the bible to contain mythology.

Ok lets keep this civil and we might actually have a debate.

True I did not say anything what so ever about the UNIVERSAL agreement to any one position.
I stated what the classification of the bible is. There is no way you actually believe I was claiming everyone in history agreed with it's classification.

Some factually mythology.

Assuming this is even a coherent description of anything it lacks any relevance. The only way the word myth is relevant here is if by myth it is meant to lack truth. If you mean by "myth" that it is true then the word myth no longer is meaningful.

LOL you mean apologetically inclined scholars who hold a minority position not held by academia.

Supply sources when making these apologetic claims.

Nope I mean, for example what I have already provided you. The well established consensus view of the majority of NT historians for instance. I forget the method you employed to dismiss the evidence I provided for this, beyond the fact that your responses did not in anyway actually detract from the claim.

 

[1robin]

Supply sources when making these apologetic claims.

I already have, and the source was not any apologetic or even a believer. I believe my evidence was statements made by well known non-believing bible critics. Since providing that evidence apparently did no good what so ever, I will not compound that mistake by providing it again to know effect. As I recall your only response to my evidence was to claim what I intentionally provided. Namely the statement by scholars who did not believe the bible (theologically) despite affirming it's many historical claims.

It is almost impossible the NT claims are credible when being written by unknown authors decades after the facts by people far removed from any actual event in the language it took place in.

The main reason I lost all desire to debate was your previous claims in this context. I am not going to start back up in the exact same place that had caused me to take a break from debating. I have already provided counter evidence I believe trumps your claims as to biblical authorship. Since it had no effect what so ever then, I will not waste time repeating it. In fact so far you have not made a point which I have not previously supplied the counter for.

Only parts were written in a rhetorical special kind of history using mythology, and those that are contradict each other.

Well despite this being almost incoherent, it does appear at least fresh. What specifically are you referring to?

 

[1robin]

Many words that did not say much.

This was the complaint I made over and over about the claims I responded to so in effect this claim here is just saying, "I know you are but what am I". This does not foster debate so I will just keep reading. BTW it was your general claim that the bible should not be read as literal. Your claim to knowledge makes it your burden to prove. Not mine.

So you would be one who believes that God condemned us all and then stupidly decided to go through the farce of dying for us, even as we know God cannot die. Right?

This is not a theologically accurate or responsible characterization of my faith and so it requires no defense. What don't you instead quote what scriptures it is your claiming are absurd instead of paraphrasing them intentionally in the most absurd way you can? What actual Christian biblical doctrine are you challenging? You seem to have mashed up relatively unrelated doctrines and then demanded an explanation of the whole. I would suggest instead you limit what you wan to discuss and provide accurate statements about it. For example you could have asked me to explain the doctrine of Christ's death in the context of God's being immortal.

Anyway give me a limited and accurate doctrine to defend and I will see what I can do.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The bible is not entirely historical but does make references to historical events and in some cases have been corroborated by outside sources. Though much of the bible is obviously mythological.

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm seeing your true colors. Why didn't you just lead with your opinions and saved me the bother?

Lol! I find him pretty up front.

 

[George-ananda]

Lol! I find him pretty up front.

I bit my tongue/fingers by not claiming to notice his avatar creature has got the brain portion of the head removed.

 

[Desert Snake]

@George-ananda

I understand, were always assuming the most democratic approach. The reason why it is funny, because I have done the same thing.

 

[1robin]

Quick question - what is the absolute oldest evidence for the Bible's existence? Can you name it? {/quote] This is a confusing question. AS stated it seems silly. The oldest evidence for biblical doctrine would not be for a bible since the bible is a collection of books that were not compiled until much later than some of it's parts. A better question would what is the oldest evidence I am aware of for a historical claim made in a book contained in the bible. A even better one would be my best evidence for the most central claims of the bible. I.E. Christ. Anyway I will await what you to clarify what you actually want answered.

I challenge you to submit your evidence for the oldest scraps of the Torah, or any part of the part of the Bible prior to 600 BCE.

Before I do let me restate something. As a Christian my faith depends on the historical claims made in the Gospels, and not on the OT. For example if you took at random 50% of the OT and threw it out completely it would have no effect on the core doctrines of my faith. Your questions seem to be at best glancing blows against my faith so I will await you confirmation you want these answers. IOW if we can only get to a few issues at best in a post I would think you would prefer more relevant answers.

It doesn't take someone with a PHd in Biblical History to dissect the flaws in the Bible's portrayal of historical events. It doesn't even take much more than a quick wiki-search to begin to understand how and why the Judeo-Christian narrative arose out of several pre-existing Mesopotamian religions.

There must be thousands of historical claims made in the bible, of varying degrees of integrity. The most relevant and central being among the most substantiated. To which of the thousands do you refer and where is even the attempt at evidence?

So before you jump all over someone for quoting Dawkins, make sure you have something to back it up with.

1. No one serious about biblical historical scholarship would use Dawkins for a source. For example find any quote N.T. Wright, Brown, Ehrman, White, Plantinga, or any professional NT historian who quotes Dawkins.
2. I specifically not only did not jump on anyone, but made a point to state I was making a friendly suggestion so as to not make over sensitive bible critics react as you have.
3. Dawkins is viewed in professional circles as a biblical and philosophical joke if considered at all. It was very good advice but it was not obligatory to take as such.

1. As are all other modern religious texts....So what?

No, they are definitely not, not that the qualification of "modern" is relevant or applicable in this context. The vast majority of histories religions are classified as myth, and were considered as such by even those that adopted the faith. For example many observant Greeks and Romans considered their own faith as myth.

2. That's a nice opinion to have.

In all likelihood it is a statement of unavoidable fact, even if not it is the position which has orders of magnitude more justification in every category that it's opposite. It is a virtual certainty that right or wrong much of the bible was intended as literal history.

3. ie, mythological

NO a parable is not classified as myth, neither is prophecy, apocalyptic literature etc... Myth is an actually thing it is not a good synonym for untrue as your using it.

4. See Addendum

Ok.

4a. It takes time to fabricate better versions of stories

. It takes time to fabricate more complex stories, and have them adopted. Biblical doctrine is vastly too complex and established in far too short of time for myth to be a good explanation. Here is one site among thousands that explains this in detail. Four Reasons the Gospels Could Not Be Legends | J.D. GREEAR

4b. Neither was the New Testament

What?

4c. You mean, like a convening council which controls which myths to accept as canon and which myths to throw out?

Lets look at the most famous doctrines of the most famous council to see if this is accurate. The most contentious issue in Christian history has been Christ's nature (the Trinity). Constantine did not care what they decided, he only wished them to decide so he invited 1800 Bishops to determine the issue. Without any record of any coercion all but 2 agreed that Christ was divine. Some conspiracy.

**Addendum: You've made the claim that the Bible has been shown by scholars to be comparably free of Myth, yet we have this:

• Angels
• Giants
• Talking Animals
• Burning Bushes which speak audibly
• Zombies
• Planets which stop rotating
• Global 40-day Deluges
• People being turned into blocks of salt
• Flaming lips and tongues flying through the air
• Seas parting
• Walking sticks turning into snakes
• Angels of Death taking children from their homes
• Fireballs raining down from "heaven"
• Teleportation
• Shapeshifting
• Magic spit
• People living inside fish
• etc, etc.

Most of this so inaccurately described as to render it null and void. Let me ask you this. If God exists which of these acts is impossible, and why? It is absurd to leave unchallenged the most fantastic
possibility, and yet balk at the more mundane possibilities. IOW unless you can show that God is an absurd proposition then lesser supernatural claims (no matter how distorted) are improbable. BTW as far as you actually know why are multiple universes, giant squids, and the fantastic claims of the quantum more believable that a miracle?