Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Joe Bloe · 08-01-2007, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faid

So dave, seems that lots of us have read the bible. Any points you'd like to make?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

So what was your point again?

A few people have asked this, and I'll ask again.

I'd also like to ask about your comment that

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

I actually LIKE the "hard" parts like Leviticus and Haggai and such. I have great explanations for many of the hard parts.

I think that a question that is even harder than any of the particular hard parts is: why are these hard parts even there? Why are there so many "apparent" contradictions, absurdities, atrocities, etc in there in the first place? Why is there so much that needs to be explained away? Why is there a need for books like Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties? And why do so many Christians so often disagree on what the Bible means? Wouldn't a perfect God have done a better job of inspiring a clear and understandable book that doesn't have so many difficulties and hard parts that need to be explained? Is God insufficient or inadequate to the task?

Or, maybe, did God not oversee the writing of the Bible? Is it the fallible work of fallible humans trying to explain their understanding of what they believed to be the divine? Seen in that light, the "hard parts" are no longer hard to account for.

Dyz · 08-01-2007, 10:37 AM

I started with Genesis reading in order and am almost done with 1 Kings. With each book I make my own notes in the margins in my initial engraved, leather bound, Nelson King James Version wide margin edition study bible.

As I complete each book I search the web for various scholarship, mostly here and a few apologetic sites. Apologetic sites are rarely plausible I have found. Fetching arguments to say the least. I add more notes to the margins. I had to get a fine point pen because there wasn't enough space writing with the medium. I use the SAB when I get tired of looking at the pages though his site seems to miss a lot it is still valuable for pointing out those inconsistancies between books. The Farrell Till articles are my favorite so far. I haven't bought any secular books yet. I find it much much easier to read the bible now than I ever did when I believed. Funny how that is.

aa5874 · 08-01-2007, 10:59 AM

I have read the KJV Bible at least once, but I find it more beneficial to study the Bible rather than just reading book after book.

Anyhow after studying the Bible, I find it to be a book filled with genocide, ethnic cleansing, racism, the demonsing of the sick, the condoning of slavery, superstition, scientifically unsound claims, and highly improbable events.

But I must say that I may not have able to confidently makes those assertions without the help of the internet and IIDB. One of the greatest discovery I have probably ever made is finding the writings of the so-called Flavius Josephus through IIDB.

The Bible has taken on a total different meaning since Josephus, I now regard the Bible as theological and political propaganga

Calilasseia · 08-01-2007, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

I actually LIKE the "hard" parts like Leviticus

THAT explains SO much.

Leviticus is one of the most child-frightening parts of the entire OT.

The first seven chapters are all about setting fire to animals.

Chapter 13 is a truly Pythonesque one. I've got the New International Version before me, and here's Chapter 13 in all its grisly glory - imagine it being read by Michael Palin in a funny voice for best effect:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leviticus Ch. 13

the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, ² "When anyone has a swelling or a rash or a bright spot on his skin that may become an infections skin disease, he must be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons who is a priest. ³ The priest is to examine the sore on his skin, and if the hair in the sore has turned white, and the sore appears to be more than skin deep, it is an infectious skin disease. When the priest examines him, he shall pronounce him ceremonially unclean. ⁴ If the spot on his skin is white but does not appear to be more than skin deep and the hair in it has not turned white, the priest is to put the infected person in isolation for seven days. ⁵ On the seventh day, the priest is to examine him, and if he sees that the sore is unchanged and has not spread in the skin, he is to keep him in isolation another seven days. ⁶ On the seventh day the priest is to examine him again, and if the sore has faded and has not spread in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is only a rash. The man must wash his clothes, and he will be clean. ⁷ But if the rash does spread in his skin after he has shown himself to the priest to be pronounced clean, he must appear before the priest again. ⁸ The priest is to examine him, and if the rash has spread in the skin, he shall pronounce him unclean; it is an infectious disease.

⁹When anyone has in infectious skin disease, he must be brought to the priest. ¹⁰ The priest is to examine him, and if there is a white swelling in the skin that has turned the hair white and if there is raw flesh in the swelling, ¹¹ it is a chonic skin disease and the priest shall pronounce him unclean. He is not to put him in isolation, because he is already unclean.

¹² If the disease breaks out all over his skin and, so far as the priest can see, it covers all of the skin of the infected person from head to foot, ¹³ the priest is to examine him, and if the disease has covered his whole body, he shall pronounce that person clean. Since it has all turned white, he is clean. ¹⁴ But whenever raw flesh appears on him, he shall pronounce him unclean. ¹⁵ When the priest sees the raw flesh, he shall pronoucne him unclean. The raw flesh is unclean; he has an infectious disease. ¹⁶ Should the raw flesh change and turn white, he must go to the priest. ¹⁷ The priest is to examine him, and if the sores have turned white, the priest shall pronounce the infected person clean; then he will be clean.

¹⁸ When someone has a boil on his skin and it heals, ¹⁹ and in the place where the boil was, a white swelling or reddish-white spot appears, he must present himself to the priest. ²⁰ The priest is to examine it, and if it appears to be more than skin deep and the hair in it has turned white, the priest shall pronounce him unclean. It is an infectious skin disease that has broken out where the boil was. ¹² But if, when the priest examines it, there is no white hair in it and it is not more than skin deep and has faded, then the priest is to put him in isolation for seven days. ²² If it is spreading in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is infectious. ²³ But if the spot is unchanged and has not spread, it is only a scar from the boil, and the priest shall pronounce him clean.

²⁴ When someone has a burn on his skin and a reddish-white or white spot appears in the raw flesh of the burn, ²⁵, the priest is to examine the spot, and if the hair in it has turned white, and it appears to be more than skin deep, it is an infectious disease that has broken out in the burn. The priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is an infectious skin disease. ²⁶ But if the priest examines it and there is no white hair in the spot and if it is not more than skin deep and has faded, then the priest is to put him in isolation for seven days. ²⁷ On the seventh day the priest is to examine him, and if it is spreading in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is an infectious skin disease. ²⁸ If, however, the spot is unchanged and the has not spread in the skin but has faded, it is a swelling from the burn, and the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is only a scar from the burn.

²⁹If a man or a woman has a sore on the head or on the chin, ³⁰ the priest is to examine the sore, and if it appears to be more than skin deep and if the hair in it is yellow and thin, the priest shall pronounce that person unclean; it is an itch, an infectious disease of the head or chin. ³¹ But if, when the preist examines this kind of sore, it does not seem to be more than skin deep and there is no black hair in it, then the priest is to put the person in isolation for seven days. ³² On teh seventh day the priest is to examine the sore, and if the itch has not spread and there is no yellow hair in it and it does not appear to be more than skin deep, ³³ he must be shaved except for the diseased area, and the priest is to keep him in isolation another seven days. ³⁴ On the seventh day the priest is to examine the itch, and if it has not spread in the skin and appears to be no more than skin deep, the priest shall pronounce him clean. He must wash his clothes, and he will be clean. ³⁵ But if the itch does spread in the skin after he is pronounced clean, ³⁶ the priest is to examine him, and if the itch has spread in the skin, the priest does not need to look for yellow hair; the person is unclean. ³⁷ If, however,m in his judgement it is unchanged and black hair has grown in it, the itch is healed. He is clean, and the priest shall pronounce him clean.

³⁸ When a man or a woman has white spots on the skin, ³⁹ the priest is to examine them, and if the spots are dull white, it is a harmless rash that has broken out in the skin; that person is clean.

⁴⁰ When a man has lost his hair and is bald, he is clean. ⁴¹ If he has lost his hair from the front of his scalp and has a bald forehead, he is clean. ⁴² But if he has a reddish-white sore on his bald head or forehead, it is an infectious disease breaking out on his head or forehead. ⁴³ The priest is to examine him, and if the swollen sore on his head or forehead is reddish-white like an infectious skin disease, ⁴⁴ the man is diseased and is unclean. The priest shall pronounce him unclean because of the sore on his head.

⁴⁵ The person with such an infectious disease must wear torn clothes, let his hair be unkempt, cover the lower part of his face, and cry out "unclean! unclean!" ⁴⁶ As long as he has the infection he remains unclean; he must live alone; he must live outside the camp.

Any dermatologists reading this are probably barfing.

Then of course there Chapter 18 - the infamous part where heaps of guilt are trowelled on thickly regarding sex. Chapter 20 on punishments for sin also seems to have been put together by someone with a singularly sick turn of mind.

Scary, scary, scary stuff.

I am so glad I live in an era when medical science has freed us from bilge of this nature. If it's a choice between some creepy old guy with a towel round his neck prodding me hither than thither and telling me I'm "unclean", and a doctor saying "take this prescription to the chemist, apply this topical antiseptic three times daily and take these antibiotics", give me the doctor ANY day of the week.

Constant Mews · 08-01-2007, 11:31 AM

The bottom line, Dave, is that the collective audience here knows a damn sight more about the Bible than you do. I realize that this question is simply another piece of the Witnessing that you're trying to do here, but I ask you again:

Why try to Witness garbage pseudo-science articles instead of the Word of God? You win nothing for heaven and make yourself look like an idiot to boot.

Steviepinhead · 08-01-2007, 11:35 AM

Cool! Yet another can't-seem-to-find-those-Flood-layers so I'll start a new discussion, patented davey-dodge threads! What a surprise!

Yep, dave. I was raised Episcopalian in a little town in Joe-Jaw that was heavily Southern Baptist. One of my best friends is a Southern Baptist Focus-On-The-Family preacher. My Mom is a milk-of-human-kindness Christian. I was an acolyte and a member of the choir. I attended church camps for at least three summers in junior high and high school after moving to California.

I've read the KJV and several more modern translations. Lots of great stuff, without which one can hardly pretend to understand most of the classics of literature and myth. Some superbly poetic passages, some wonderful (and frightening and disgusting) tales, some virtually indecipherable nonsense, lots of boring old "laws" that I'm sure it would never occur to you to attempt to observe (and some of which would get you immediately arrested if you tried), and plenty of riveting morality dramas in which psychologically-realistic humans are placed between a rock and a hard place. The story of Ruth is great. Job is a classic. The Gospels are a fascinating puzzle. Paul is a smart, moralistic, narrow-minded, hard-grained fuddy-duddy. Revelations is complete batshit bug-eyed psychedelia, although filmed in trippy Technicolor...

An amazing mish-mash of authors, viewpoints, eras, and contradictions, but revealingly human to its bone.

You seem to have this odd notion that we are all "atheists," dave--Christian-haters and Bible-revilers. Get a clue: it's simply not true.

We don't hate sincere believers who respect and tolerate others in a free and secular society. (We may strenuously disagree with them in rough-and-tumble debate, but hate and discrimination that ain't.) What we "hate," or more properly loathe and revile, is anti-logical, anti-scientific, ignorant, small-minded, bigoted, deceitful nonsense purveyed by hucksters and scam-artists to credulous and unformed minds, motivated by greed, delusion, ego, arrogance, paranoia, and prejudice.

Now, how about getting back to those Flood layers, davey?

Constant Mews · 08-01-2007, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steviepinhead

You seem to have this odd notion that we are all "atheists," dave--Christian-haters and Bible-revilers. Get a clue: it's simply not true.

Right. As part and parcel of his "standard stupid fundie kit #7" Dave keeps attempting to frame his arguments as atheist vs. Christian.

But this is utterly false. Many of us are not atheists, I am myself a devout Christian.

This is about rubbish science that Dave cannot understand being pushed as "witness" to the Word of God.

Faid · 08-01-2007, 11:56 AM

Quote:

The person with such an infectious disease must wear torn clothes, let his hair be unkempt, cover the lower part of his face, and cry out "unclean! unclean!" 46 As long as he has the infection he remains unclean; he must live alone; he must live outside the camp.

I actually laughed out loud at this point...

And then I realised that this Monty Python scene would be REALITY for so many people in those days.

tjakey · 08-01-2007, 12:08 PM

Yep, read it, cover to cover even. Memorized portions of it, (like the book of Philippians) and taught both teen groups and adult Sunday school classes. Ended up an atheist. I recommend actually studying the bible to anyone who is still a “believer.” The trick is you have to read it for what it says, not what you have taught it says.

Clivedurdle · 08-01-2007, 12:19 PM

Also cover to cover probably several times. Mixtures of NEB, Jerusalem, Living, NASV, RSV, KJV.

Strange Bible Study course by Inter Varsity Press, several concordances. Manchester University Inter Faculty Christian Union Book Secretary to boot!

Please everyone - read Dake!

I am not sure people get the clear understanding of a mythical annointed one that my experience has given me. Some of the comments by the various hjists do seem to betray a lack of understanding of what was going on.

Marlene Winnell has confirmed that an excellent understanding of the Bible is very unlikely to lead to heaven!:devil1:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-01-2007, 10:37 AM	#52
Dyz Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Onthebrink Posts: 32	I started with Genesis reading in order and am almost done with 1 Kings. With each book I make my own notes in the margins in my initial engraved, leather bound, Nelson King James Version wide margin edition study bible. As I complete each book I search the web for various scholarship, mostly here and a few apologetic sites. Apologetic sites are rarely plausible I have found. Fetching arguments to say the least. I add more notes to the margins. I had to get a fine point pen because there wasn't enough space writing with the medium. I use the SAB when I get tired of looking at the pages though his site seems to miss a lot it is still valuable for pointing out those inconsistancies between books. The Farrell Till articles are my favorite so far. I haven't bought any secular books yet. I find it much much easier to read the bible now than I ever did when I believed. Funny how that is.

08-01-2007, 10:59 AM	#53
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	I have read the KJV Bible at least once, but I find it more beneficial to study the Bible rather than just reading book after book. Anyhow after studying the Bible, I find it to be a book filled with genocide, ethnic cleansing, racism, the demonsing of the sick, the condoning of slavery, superstition, scientifically unsound claims, and highly improbable events. But I must say that I may not have able to confidently makes those assertions without the help of the internet and IIDB. One of the greatest discovery I have probably ever made is finding the writings of the so-called Flavius Josephus through IIDB. The Bible has taken on a total different meaning since Josephus, I now regard the Bible as theological and political propaganga

08-01-2007, 11:31 AM	#55
Constant Mews Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: California Posts: 1,395	The bottom line, Dave, is that the collective audience here knows a damn sight more about the Bible than you do. I realize that this question is simply another piece of the Witnessing that you're trying to do here, but I ask you again: Why try to Witness garbage pseudo-science articles instead of the Word of God? You win nothing for heaven and make yourself look like an idiot to boot.

08-01-2007, 11:35 AM	#56
Steviepinhead Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 1,642	Cool! Yet *another* can't-seem-to-find-those-Flood-layers so I'll start a new discussion, patented davey-dodge threads! What a surprise! Yep, dave. I was raised Episcopalian in a little town in Joe-Jaw that was heavily Southern Baptist. One of my best friends is a Southern Baptist Focus-On-The-Family preacher. My Mom is a milk-of-human-kindness Christian. I was an acolyte and a member of the choir. I attended church camps for at least three summers in junior high and high school after moving to California. I've read the KJV and several more modern translations. Lots of great stuff, without which one can hardly pretend to understand most of the classics of literature and myth. Some superbly poetic passages, some wonderful (and frightening and disgusting) tales, some virtually indecipherable nonsense, lots of boring old "laws" that I'm sure it would never occur to you to attempt to observe (and some of which would get you immediately arrested if you tried), and plenty of riveting morality dramas in which psychologically-realistic humans are placed between a rock and a hard place. The story of Ruth is great. Job is a classic. The Gospels are a fascinating puzzle. Paul is a smart, moralistic, narrow-minded, hard-grained fuddy-duddy. Revelations is complete batshit bug-eyed psychedelia, although filmed in trippy Technicolor... An amazing mish-mash of authors, viewpoints, eras, and contradictions, but revealingly human to its bone. You seem to have this odd notion that we are all "atheists," dave--Christian-haters and Bible-revilers. Get a clue: it's simply not true. We don't hate sincere believers who respect and tolerate others in a free and secular society. (We may strenuously disagree with them in rough-and-tumble debate, but hate and discrimination that ain't.) What we "hate," or more properly loathe and revile, is anti-logical, anti-scientific, ignorant, small-minded, bigoted, deceitful nonsense purveyed by hucksters and scam-artists to credulous and unformed minds, motivated by greed, delusion, ego, arrogance, paranoia, and prejudice. Now, how about getting back to those Flood layers, davey?

08-01-2007, 12:08 PM	#59
tjakey Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 1,060	Yep, read it, cover to cover even. Memorized portions of it, (like the book of Philippians) and taught both teen groups and adult Sunday school classes. Ended up an atheist. I recommend actually studying the bible to anyone who is still a “believer.” The trick is you have to read it for what it says, not what you have taught it says.

08-01-2007, 12:19 PM	#60
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Also cover to cover probably several times. Mixtures of NEB, Jerusalem, Living, NASV, RSV, KJV. Strange Bible Study course by Inter Varsity Press, several concordances. Manchester University Inter Faculty Christian Union Book Secretary to boot! Please everyone - read Dake! I am not sure people get the clear understanding of a mythical annointed one that my experience has given me. Some of the comments by the various hjists do seem to betray a lack of understanding of what was going on. Marlene Winnell has confirmed that an excellent understanding of the Bible is very unlikely to lead to heaven!:devil1:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.