The mistake of interpreting holy books literally.

[Martin]

This is my criticism of the Bible. There shouldn't be errors [there are--thousands of them] There shouldn't even be nuances because then we're getting into interpretation and a true word of God would be crystal clear--no room for interpretation. We'd expect a perfect God to be able to hand us a perfect book without any errors or nuances.

All this is proof Christianity does not come from God. It is a purely man-constructed religion like then 10,000 before it.

Clearly the Bible was written by people. It appears they were trying to communicate a "spiritual" experience, according to the beliefs and culture of their time.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I was going to limit this to Abrahamic religions, but the problem almost certainly exists for other religions as well. At least when it comes to the Abrahamic religions reading the Old Testament, Torah, or whatever name it goes by in Muslim sects literally can only refute those particular beliefs. For example the mere fact that ice floats (and a thousand other scientific facts) refutes the Old Testament if one interprets it literally. Other examples are welcome or an explanations of why the refute those books are welcome. Also questions about how the books are refuted is welcome too.

There is an out, at least for Christianity, and probably one for Judaism and for others religions as well. Many Christians misinterpret the following verse:

"16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Please note, it does not say that the Bible is literally true. It does not even imply that it is . It merely states that it is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training. If one treats the stories of Genesis, Exodus, and other parts of the Bible as being instructional and not factual they still "work". It is so odd that so many Christians do not understand this.

Okay, have at it. Bring up any stories myths etc. from your various holy books and tell us how they cannot be taken literally

"God-breathed" is the derivation of our English word, "inspired", that is, "in respiration". The same Bible says every word of God is pure, like silver refined seven times in a furnace.

Regardless of your misinterpretation of the given verse, that are numerous statements, direct and implied, that the Bible is not only true, but inspired.

 

[Kenny]

OK, let me put it in another way .. so, if you are taking this, as you said, very literally, then, what is your definition of 'death' and your own understanding of that phrase ‘saved from that death’ in the context of your own comment - ‘The preaching of the cross is, I know, nonsense to those who are involved in this dying world, but to us who are being saved from that death it is nothing less than the power of God’ ??

As defined by scripture - separation from God. "Saved" is complete unity with God that produces wholeness, sprit, soul and body.

You understand death as when you stop breathing.

 

[Thief]

You forgot the Garden of Eden myth. God screwed up and then punished man for his errors. He is still at fault.

I believe the event happened....but not as you say

 

[Subduction Zone]

"God-breathed" is the derivation of our English word, "inspired", that is, "in respiration". The same Bible says every word of God is pure, like silver refined seven times in a furnace.

Regardless of your misinterpretation of the given verse, that are numerous statements, direct and implied, that the Bible is not only true, but inspired.

I am not the one misinterpreting your book of myths. God breathed means inspired. It does not mean written by God. It clearly does not mean perfect. Read the entire verse in context. Don't quote mine it. Quote mining is usually done as a method to deceive. That verse tells you that the Bible is inspired and as a result useful. It doesn't say that it is inspired therefore true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe the event happened....but not as you say

Then lay out clearly what you believe happened. People that refuse to do so appear to know that they are wrong.

 

[1213]

...The fact that ice floats refutes the flood myth.

Please explain how?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please explain how?

The molecular structure of ice takes up more volume than liquid water. That makes it less dense and it floats as a result.

 

[1213]

The molecular structure of ice takes up more volume than liquid water. That makes it less dense and it floats as a result.

Sorry, I don’t think that refutes the flood story.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, I don’t think that refutes the flood story.

R
Icecaps are made of ice. Ice floats.

 

[SomeRandom]

I was going to limit this to Abrahamic religions, but the problem almost certainly exists for other religions as well. At least when it comes to the Abrahamic religions reading the Old Testament, Torah, or whatever name it goes by in Muslim sects literally can only refute those particular beliefs. For example the mere fact that ice floats (and a thousand other scientific facts) refutes the Old Testament if one interprets it literally. Other examples are welcome or an explanations of why the refute those books are welcome. Also questions about how the books are refuted is welcome too.

There is an out, at least for Christianity, and probably one for Judaism and for others religions as well. Many Christians misinterpret the following verse:

"16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Please note, it does not say that the Bible is literally true. It does not even imply that it is . It merely states that it is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training. If one treats the stories of Genesis, Exodus, and other parts of the Bible as being instructional and not factual they still "work". It is so odd that so many Christians do not understand this.

Okay, have at it. Bring up any stories myths etc. from your various holy books and tell us how they cannot be taken literally

Oh my favourite has to be the one with the goddess Kali against the demon Raktabijan. Big shock, coming from an ardent Kali devotee but eh.
Due to a boon (divine gift) whenever a drop of blood spilt upon the land, a clone of the demon sprung up, rendering him a warrior who could never be defeated in battle. And also sounds suspiciously like the Hydra myth but whatever.
The Goddess Parvati was distraught at his destruction of good, without any measure of recompense. So Kali sprang forth from her forehead. Kali drank the blood of all the clones and then the original. Defeating evil. But became so drunk on bloodlust that she began destroying everything in her wake. Shiva her husband decided to stop her and lay amongst the dead. When she stepped on him she “killed” his mortal form and calmed down. There is a variation whereby Shiva turns into a helpless infant and Kali calms down upon seeing his distress and nurtures him.

Now I personally don’t take the story as literal. Other Hindus are within their rights to do so. That’s their business. For me, I interpreted the moral as whilst it’s good to fight against a cause you think is immoral/unethical, too much fervour can do more harm than good. IOW moderation is a good thing lol

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Clearly the Bible was written by people. It appears they were trying to communicate a "spiritual" experience, according to the beliefs and culture of their time.

Exactly. From the Jewish writers of Genesis in 500 BC right up to the Greeks in 120 CE everybody was communicating their own PERSONAL ideas, not God's. God had nothing to do with the creation of the Bible. Like I said, man-made.

 

[Martin]

Exactly. From the Jewish writers of Genesis in 500 BC right up to the Greeks in 120 CE everybody was communicating their own PERSONAL ideas, not God's. God had nothing to do with the creation of the Bible. Like I said, man-made.

I imagine the authors would have said that their writing was inspired by God, or at least their personal experience of "God".

 

[Thief]

Then lay out clearly what you believe happened. People that refuse to do so appear to know that they are wrong.

the garden event was a deliberate change in the mind and body of Man
the specimen....Adam
cloned......Eve

the test......to affirm curiosty.......even if death is the pending result

Adam and Eve passed the test

it was never a fail

 

[Subduction Zone]

the garden event was a deliberate change in the mind and body of Man
the specimen....Adam
cloned......Eve

the test......to affirm curiosty.......even if death is the pending result

Adam and Eve passed the test

it was never a fail

We were discussing the Noah's ark myth. We can cover Adam and Eve later.

 

[Thief]

We were discussing the Noah's ark myth. We can cover Adam and Eve later.

the title of this thread is broad reaching

 

[Audie]

Sorry, I don’t think that refutes the flood story.

This has been explained s thousand times.

Glaciers, polar ice was there before the
"Flood".
Its still there.
If there had been a flood, the ice would be
gone.

 

[Thief]

This has been explained s thousand times.

Glaciers, polar ice was there before the
"Flood".
Its still there.
If there had been a flood, the ice would be
gone.

the ice is currently fading

are we in for 'round two'?

even though God said he would NOT do so ......by water........again

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry, I don’t think that refutes the flood story.

A global flood a few thousand years ago would have destroyed the polar icecaps.

 

[thomas t]

well.....ok
the author telling the story of the Flood
did say it covered the whole of the earth

that is a bit much to consider
especially coming from a era in which the earth was believed to be flat
and the center of all things, the sun ,the moon ,the stars......etc

from a time when evil things could be controlled by prayer and ritual

but hey......if a flood was sufficent to spoil fertile ground
followed by difficulties of food shortage and other strife
most humans would fail to survive

exaggeration does spoil the text
in current knowledge we do know better......BUT

is it not primarliy a story of morality?

rather than history

I believe the Bible can very well be understood literally. There is nothing wrong about it.
Unless it's Prophecy. Jesus, for instance, isn't a literal sheep, I think.
The flood I would take literally.
However, I don't think that the high hills that were covered were the same as today.
2 Peter 3:5-6 tells that Jesus swapped earthes after or during the Flood.
This makes sense, because God likes order and he wants an orderly planet, not a flooded one in which the water just disappeared and that's it. This is at least what I suggest.