FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-22-2001, 01:47 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: hollywood,CA, USA
Posts: 30
Post Bible as fact

One thing I have always failed to understand is why anyone would insist on treating the bible as word for word truth. Even if you take as a given that the bible was inspired by god the job interpreting what he said and the writing the book still falls on falible humans. People should understand and even expect there to be errors and exagerations. Not only is this a far more logical aproach to take, it simultaneously solves nearly every problem that the bible has with respect to science and progress.
QuadWhore is offline  
Old 10-22-2001, 02:14 PM   #2
Honorary Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Coast
Posts: 5,714
Arrow

Genesis, for example, relates certain events of the alleged creation which occurred before there were people who could possibly have recorded those events. It also relates other alleged facts which only "God" could have known. Either "God" dictated Genesis or "inspired" its authors (giving them certain otherwise unknowable facts through that inspiration)--or else Genesis is fiction.

Once you start throwing out bits and pieces of the Bible, not taking those bits and pieces as literally true, the question arises as to what--if anything-- should be taken as true. If, for example, there were no Garden of Eden, no Fall, then there is no real need for a Savior, a propitiatory sacrifice for "sin," such as that allegedly provided by the crucifixion of Jesus.

Keep in mind, that it would be an easy feat for a perfect and omnipotent "God" to perfectly inspire the biblical authors, copyists, translators, and interpreters to get it right. Anything less, it seems to me, provides good evidence against the inspiration of the Bible by a perfect and omnipotent "God." After all, what would be the point in a perfect and omnipotent "God" imperfectly inspiring the biblical authors, letting them get it wrong?

--Don--

[ October 22, 2001: Message edited by: Donald Morgan ]
-DM- is offline  
Old 10-22-2001, 06:00 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: hollywood,CA, USA
Posts: 30
Post

It could very well be that god didn't care about the bible and never asked that it be created. Which is not to say that the stories are fiction but that god never helped in writing them. It would certainly not be out of character for the god of the old testament to not care about such a thing.
QuadWhore is offline  
Old 10-22-2001, 07:26 PM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,315
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Donald Morgan:
Genesis, for example, relates certain events of the alleged creation which occurred before there were people who could possibly have recorded those events. It also relates other alleged facts which only "God" could have known. Either "God" dictated Genesis or "inspired" its authors (giving them certain otherwise unknowable facts through that inspiration)--or else Genesis is fiction.
You missed the possibility that God told someone and the story was transferred orally before finally being written into the Bible centuries or even millenia later.
All true or nothing true are by no means the only possibilities, even for Genesis.

Quote:
Once you start throwing out bits and pieces of the Bible, not taking those bits and pieces as literally true, the question arises as to what--if anything-- should be taken as true. If, for example, there were no Garden of Eden, no Fall, then there is no real need for a Savior, a propitiatory sacrifice for "sin," such as that allegedly provided by the crucifixion of Jesus.
Well, as to that example, it seems clear to me by observation that people "sin": Thus Jesus' atoning sacrifice has meaning. The "Fall" is by contrast a question of whether God created us sinful or we choose it ourselves. Oh, and it is quite possible to believe in a literal Fall without believing in a literal Garden of Eden. One could believe, without contradiction, that we Fell somehow without believing a single detail of the story in Genesis.

Quote:
Keep in mind, that it would be an easy feat for a perfect and omnipotent "God" to perfectly inspire the biblical authors, copyists, translators, and interpreters to get it right.
That would be a major and public ongoing miracle. If God was prepared to reveal Himself in such a dramatic way, why bother to write a Inerrant book - why not just zap knowledge into everone's head? The obvious answer is that God doesn't want to undeniably reveal himself at this time, thus precluding any major interference on the part of the Bible.

Quote:
Anything less, it seems to me, provides good evidence against the inspiration of the Bible by a perfect and omnipotent "God." After all, what would be the point in a perfect and omnipotent "God" imperfectly inspiring the biblical authors, letting them get it wrong?
So that people like you can justify their unbelief and that those that haven't been chosen to believe aren't forced to do so.

Tercel

[ October 22, 2001: Message edited by: Tercel ]
Tercel is offline  
Old 10-22-2001, 09:06 PM   #5
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: et in Arcadia ego...
Posts: 406
Post

The Bible is an account of the age old conflict/struggle between church and state. Atheism as an ideology is older than recorded history, and if you notice the Biblical writers/authors always appear to have the winning hand and we atheists are relegated to the status of having a lost cause. Well, this is actually the very opposite of the true history of atheism. The above statements I made are all facts. This may come to a shock to some but much of what is contained in the ancient writings that wound up being placed in the Bible were very likely to have been conceived and written by atheists. Yes, of course the priesthood has corrupted these works to their favor and benefit but big deal, we atheists are still here carrying on the ancient tradition. Theism can not conquer us.

The Bible is fact? The fact is the Bible can't get rid of us!
Berenger Sauniere is offline  
Old 10-22-2001, 10:25 PM   #6
Honorary Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Coast
Posts: 5,714
Arrow

Quote:
Originally posted by QuadWhore:
It could very well be that god didn't care about the bible and never asked that it be created.
Yes, that could be the case. And in my opinion, that is what the evidence implies: that no perfect, omnipotent "God" was in any way involved in the writing of the Bible.

--Don--
-DM- is offline  
Old 10-22-2001, 10:41 PM   #7
Honorary Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Coast
Posts: 5,714
Arrow

Quote:
Originally posted by Tercel
You missed the possibility that God told someone and the story was transferred orally before finally being written into the Bible centuries or even millenia later. All true or nothing true are by no means the only possibilities, even for Genesis.
Three comments:
1.) Unless you were omniscient, you could not know with certainty what anyone missed.
2.) The fact is that I have not missed that possibility.
3.) I have nowhere stated that all true or nothing true are the only possibilities. In fact, I mentioned that once you start throwing out bits and pieces of the Bible, not taking those bits and pieces as literally true, the question arises as to what--if anything--should be taken as true.

Quote:
Well, as to that example, it seems clear to me by observation that people "sin": Thus Jesus' atoning sacrifice has meaning.
Please describe exactly how you decide what is and is not a sin and the demonstrate that people do, in fact, "sin."

And please describe the "meaning" in Jesus' alleged sacrifice if your interpretation is different than typical Christian doctrine has it.

Quote:
The "Fall" is by contrast a question of whether God created us sinful or we choose it ourselves.
If we were created by an omnipotent "God" and created by that "God" with the capacity to sin, then that "God" is ultimately responsible for our sin. Keep in mind that an omnipotent "God" could have allowed us so-called free-will and yet have created us with the quality of character such that we would make right choices.

Quote:
Oh, and it is quite possible to believe in a literal Fall without believing in a literal Garden of Eden. One could believe, without contradiction, that we Fell somehow without believing a single detail of the story in Genesis.
Of course it is possible. Obviously one can believe almost anything and do so regardless of any evidence. The variations on Christian belief are almost endless, and then there are all those competing religious beliefs each one of which tends to consider itself the only true belief system. But in my mind, the question isn't so much "can one believe part of a story but not another part" as it is "why would one want to believe part of a story and not another part when neither part is verifiable or falsifiable in the first place?"

Quote:
That would be a major and public ongoing miracle. If God was prepared to reveal Himself in such a dramatic way, why bother to write a Inerrant book - why not just zap knowledge into everone's head? The obvious answer is that God doesn't want to undeniably reveal himself at this time, thus precluding any major interference on the part of the Bible.
In other words, "God" wants to keep us in a state of confusion as to exactly what he wants of us. You thus make him out to be the ultimate trickster.

--Don--

[ October 22, 2001: Message edited by: Donald Morgan ]
-DM- is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:49 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.