Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just to say, Ella that I liked your post and I will deal with it asap. I also just want to say that, on the basis of your posts so far, even if we make no progress from where we are, I have no problem with your brand of Christianity, nor with you.
It appears that you accept at least one of the four assumptions of the ancient interpreters: that the Bible is Divine. The Word of God. Unfortunately, the Bible never claims this for itself - ever. 2 Tim. does not mean what you may think it does, in case you feel inclined to invoke that. It is also an assumption. AS for your understanding of "inspiration" it seems to be of the type in which God told the writers what to write. Again - this only happened in certain instances, for example: the Prophets. "An Oracle of Yahweh", for example, begins off these sections of purported dictation. To extrapolate from this that ALL of the Hebrew Bible is Divine and Inspired is well.... an Assumption.
As for the antiquity of the accounts, anyone who can read Biblical Hebrew can tell you that the language evolved (just like any language) and trying to say that the majority of the Torah (Pentateuch) was written by Moses is like saying that Geoffrey Chaucer wrote How To Kill A Mockingbird. The linguistic language is entirely innapropriate for the purported time of Moses. Those scholars who came to the conclusion that much of the Bible began to be compiled around the 6th Century onwards did so from well-reasoned and evidenced conclusions, using linguistic data and the evidence that the language's evolution supplies. Though we have a mention - just a mention! - that a people/group/country (still unknown from the context) existed known as Israel, this in no way can lead one to the assumption that a written history accompnied them - especially if you're insisting on oral tradition and folkloristic stories being passed down. As Spinoza demonstrated (preceded by Ibn Ezra) about 500 years ago - Moses did NOT write the entire Pentateuch - if any of it. This has been a settled issue for hundreds of years. Due to the many anachronisms, it is quite simply impossible that a man named Moses authored the Torah. Again - this relies on Jewish Tradition alone. Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible does it claim that Moses authored the entire Pentateuch, or even a large portion of it. Nowhere. And assuming that he MUST have written it since he talked to God is just using circular reasoning gathered from the Torah itself. Surely you see this?
I notice you require evidence to back your beliefs up, but unfortunately the evidence that is out there (whether you have studied it or not) is firmly against some of your assumptions at least in this area that I am addressing. Sorry.
It makes since for the Scriptures to show the evolution of the Hebrew language. After all, they are copies. I'm not saying we have the actual documents that Moses wrote 3,000 years ago, but that they have been wonderfully preserved. I've heard how the scribes would take ritual baths before they even began to copy the Scriptures. If they made even the slightest of mistakes while copying them, they would throw all of their writing away and start over. The Dead Sea Scrolls show us a taste of how well Israel preserve their Scriptures.
Yet with that, I have another inclination as to why to take the OT as I do. Jesus, who is God in the flesh, as we believe He is. If Jesus is God, surely He would have corrected the Scriptures if they were off concerning anything. Yet He didn't change them, and even attributed the Torah (first five books) to Moses. So if Jesus attributed these books to Moses, it's safe to say these books have been wonderfully preserved. Now of course I don't expect non-Christians to see that as evidence for anything. Hardcore evidence is what they seek, and truthfully hardcore evidence is also what a lot Christians seek in building their faith.
Ultimately, all these things encourage me to find even more evidence. For I see a lot of Israel's history concerning the Exodus, the invasion of Canaan, etc., are all buried. Yet I have incentive to believe they actually happened. For one, there are a lot of historical facts, that seems to connect dots for me concerning Israel's history. There is mention of "Habiru", an unknown people who invaded areas in Canaan. There is a certain mountain called Jabal al-Lawz, which has very interesting features and is along the Exodus path. With some well documented research by archaeologists, this mountain could turn out to be Mt. Sinai. (Again, I want this mountain researched) The Exodus according to the Scriptures, would had to have happened around 1450 BC. God told Abraham, according to the Scriptures, his people would suffer for 400 years in a foreign land before coming back to Canaan. Interestingly enough, 400 years before 1450 BC, we know a foreign people called the Hyksos invaded the northern part of Egypt. The Bible tells us a new king arose over Egypt that did not know Joseph, and that was the start of Israel's slavery in Egypt. Could it be the Hyksos enslaved Israel? The timelines match up. So all these things I'm looking at, it just seems they line up but many pieces are missing. These things give me reason to look further, and seeing the OT as literal history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
Perhaps it might be better to say that one can deduce from the books the ancient authors understanding of the world as they saw it - not actual science. The authors of Genesis definitely had an Ancient Near Eastern view of the world and the universe, and this is painfully clear from Genesis 1 (which almost directly models other ANE conceptions of reality) - they did not have some advanced, God-given understanding that would last throughout the ages. As I pointed out in an earlier post - there is a reason that the allegorizors and the figural interpreters arose: it is because the evidence of the world around them, and reason, pushed them to fall back upon such interpretations. Nobody was saying that a "day" in Genesis meant an "age" until modern Geology, by the way.
Your post has been very interesting, but I think you are laboring under some assumptions that might better be examined again. Surely, in your quest for independent thinking, you did not come to these conclusions ( the ones I discussed above) on your own. No. They have been part of Judeo-Christian tradition informing our Western view of the Bible for millenia.
As Daniel writes in his book, that knowledge would increase, as time goes forward. Science has definitely increased our knowledge, and have even increased the rate at which we gain more knowledge. I would like to say the authors of the Bible did write down their observations of the world. Their language in their descriptions of the earth aren't scientific, but are their observations. Yet when it comes to Genesis, it's talking on history. If the history is accurate, we should be able to draw science from it. I have a couple of hypothesis right now, but not yet able to test them out. Yet I can tell you the Bible introduces things like adaptation, the expansion of the universe, and the spread of humans across the world. So these are some of things I think about.
No, I don't think you are off topic. Since several of us answered "allegory", I think this is a valid road to travel.
Well, my beliefs are pretty simple. I believe that the Bible is a spiritual guide to be used to bring me to a higher level of understanding about the part of my being that is of God. I am a Christian because Jesus is my pathway to God. I've always accepted the Bible as a complete, total, stand alone text that would give me all the information that I needed for my journey. Because I believe that the Bible is a story with a message (an allegory) and that the message was the spiritual instruction, I never disected the Bible the way we do in this forum.
It is not that I don't take the Bible literally, exactly. There are things that seem "over-the-top" to me, but because I was taught to look for the message within the stories, I never fretted over it. Things like Jonah and whale seem to be a story that is only there for the message. I believe that God is capable of doing anything. If He wanted to literally put Jonah in the belly of a whale for 3 days and then have the whale spit him out alive and well, God could do that. But, for me, it just seems more out of the realm of reality than within. But, since I am looking for the message, I didn't worry over it. For me to get the message, it doesn't really matter. If it was literal, fine. If not that is fine, too. I just chalked it up to parable and allegory. Since the Bible tells us that Jesus spoke in parables, it doesn't seem all that strange to me that the OT would use parables, too.
Yes, allegory is just a story with a message.
There is a thread in this forum called (something like) "Are the first (5 or 7 or some many) books of the Bible folklore?" This is where Arequipa and I came from. There, he and I were talking about whether or not the flood (Noah's) was global or localized. You might want to check out that thread as there is a lot of information about history related to Middle East of that era as well as other things that might give you something you can use.
Yes, I see where you are coming from here. My knowledge of history of this era is almost nil. So, I never investigated enough to get the timeline in my mind. So far, I haven't gotten it straight as to when things in the Bible happened and what history was happening in the general area around the events in the Bible. So, it is almost impossible for me to discuss history because I just don't have the background.
I just always assumed that the history was accurate. Some folks on here have some extensive backgrounds in history. There have been a number of discussions in the Folklore thread I mentioned before about how the histories don't match.
I wish you good luck. It is a big job, but you seem to be very dedicated.
I'll be glad to answer any questions about my beliefs. I'm certainly no expert or scholar on the Bible. I just focus on what I can learn from the Bible and from my relationship with God. I'm not sure that what I believe would be applicable to anyone else but me. I think we each have to find our own way to God and I'm not sure any two journeys are the same.
Ella
Thanks for your insight. You have helped me to understand those who don't take Genesis literally, but still hold those Scriptures as valuable. The message of the Bible is excellent, it's a statement of God's love. Yet if the things discussed in the Bible literally happened, I believe we can better understand that message. I will tell everyone if you want to see God's heart, what He purposed for man, just look at Genesis. It was a utopia God created for us. And it wasn't some boring, everyday is the same thing kind of utopia, but everyday was an adventure to learn new things and grow. There was no slavery, no sexism, no murder. Man, even the animals didn't eat each other. So I tell people who say God is unjust, that He murders, that He enslaves, and that He created a world full of disease and natural disasters, I would tell them to look at the world He created in Genesis. All you need to know about God, can be found there.
I think we dream of such a world. Wouldn't it be great to say that world actually existed! So God's message is for all of us to experience His love. If that is literal, then it brings out so much more in it's message. That's how I see it.
So I tell people who say God is unjust, that He murders, that He enslaves, and that He created a world full of disease and natural disasters, I would tell them to look at the world He created in Genesis. All you need to know about God, can be found there.
But why do we only need to read the good utopic words. Also in Genesis, Onan is killed by God for disobeying God's orders to impregnate his dead brother's wife.
But why do we only need to read the good utopic words. Also in Genesis, Onan is killed by God for disobeying God's orders to impregnate his dead brother's wife.
It's the utopic words that was God's will. If Adam and Eve by their own choice, decided to be with God and trust Him, we would have never seen the things we see today. So anything happening after the fall, is the result of going astray from God's will. From that point out, you see the consequences, but you also see the hope of restoration to God's will.
I'm not fully knowledgeable about Onan, but is he the one who still had sex with his dead brothers wife, knowing full well he did not want to take her own as his wife?
Just lifted this part because, while I am following the posting with interest, I am keeping out of it while others are doing better posts that I would.
I particularly noted this bit because it goes to the heart of the matter. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that you not only didn't take the OT to be entirely reliable as a historical account but not the NT either. Suppose you didn't believe that Jesus walked on water, was born in Bethlehem, had the baptist proclaim him as the prophesied messiah, had all those chronic wrangles with the Pharisees, didn't heal anyone, didn't stage a sermon on the mount, nor a transfiguration, didn't save Simon from drowning, still the storm, find a shekel in a fish walk away from an assassination attempt by his neighbours leaving them standing like a scene from 'Heroes' and did not in fact put in an appearance after being nailed up by Pilate.
Suppose you bought my 'Pet Theory' (TM) that the gospels are the (discrepant) creations of Greek or Greek -speaking Pauline Christians. And ,in view of the last remark I quotes, maybe you do. What then?
Will it work as allegory in the same way as the OT? As a lifetime atheist I do not factor in the god -bit, but I can understand the way it is central to Christian Faith in a Bible (if not the OCR) that,in an allegorical way, tells us about God. If you believe in God, then you can find meaningful bits in the Bible O and N. T that enhance and inform your understanding, relationship and trust in God. And it doesn't matter a hoot about whether it is accurate history, garbled folk -memories or total Myth. Neither does it matter that the Gospels are discrepant, the prophecies are retrospective and the first 7 books do not stack up as believable history.
Ok so far?
Yeah, that's pretty much it.
All that is required to be a Christian is: A belief in God. Belief that God sent his only begotten son to die for the sins of the world (and that He did). That the Bible is Holy (the story of God) and the ten commandments are a guide to spiritual betterment.
That is it. That is what makes one a Christian (instead of a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu, etc). Then came organized religion with its rules and regulations, rituals, dogma, and doctrine, etc. And, things got real complicated real fast.
There are things in the Bible that must be taken literally in order to follow the story: There were Hebrews/Jews; in a geographical area that we now know as Israel; the lists and lists of names are a genealogy; the Jews encountered all kinds of problems and ups and downs. etc.
Even within the literal items, there is allegory (using a story/an account to give a message). So, much of it is literal. Even literal doesn't always assure accuracy, though, as the other thread indicates with the various sources of history.
The NT is basically the same. The "story part" goes that Jesus fed the multitude with 5 loaves of bread and two fishes. The "message part" here is that the people's souls were "hungry" for God's message. Jesus took a few simple words of redemption and "fed" a multitude of souls. There is a physical story and a spiritual message. Is the story part literal, true, accurate? I don't know. It's the message that is important to the human soul. Most "church" calls this a miracle. Some say it is a spiritual message of a concept told to humans in a human-like situation so that they can understand (a parable). Either way, the message is the important part here.
I believe that Jesus was the Christ sent to earth by God the father. He was capable of anything - as is God. If he had wanted to make a jet airplane come down from the sky he could have. Since I believe the message is for the soul, not the flesh, I don't dwell on the "Did He or Didn't He" actually feed the stomachs of 5000 men and their women and children, too, with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fishes. Jesus came to earth to "feed" our souls with the message of God, the redeemer. The flesh is going back to dust. The soul has the opportunity to achieve immortality. The only point of reading this book is to get the spiritual messages. All the angst of haggling over the black words on white paper will just give us all an ulcer. Discussion is great. Exchanging ideas is what gives us knowledge. But so many people get so angry and hostile and threatened that the stress could induce a heart attack.
So far, AREQUIPA, you and I are doing really good. Neither of us has induced a heart attack in the other - yet.
All that is required to be a Christian is: A belief in God. Belief that God sent his only begotten son to die for the sins of the world (and that He did). That the Bible is Holy (the story of God) and the ten commandments are a guide to spiritual betterment.
That is it. That is what makes one a Christian (instead of a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu, etc). Then came organized religion with its rules and regulations, rituals, dogma, and doctrine, etc. And, things got real complicated real fast.
There are things in the Bible that must be taken literally in order to follow the story: There were Hebrews/Jews; in a geographical area that we now know as Israel; the lists and lists of names are a genealogy; the Jews encountered all kinds of problems and ups and downs. etc.
Even within the literal items, there is allegory (using a story/an account to give a message). So, much of it is literal. Even literal doesn't always assure accuracy, though, as the other thread indicates with the various sources of history.
The NT is basically the same. The "story part" goes that Jesus fed the multitude with 5 loaves of bread and two fishes. The "message part" here is that the people's souls were "hungry" for God's message. Jesus took a few simple words of redemption and "fed" a multitude of souls. There is a physical story and a spiritual message. Is the story part literal, true, accurate? I don't know. It's the message that is important to the human soul. Most "church" calls this a miracle. Some say it is a spiritual message of a concept told to humans in a human-like situation so that they can understand (a parable). Either way, the message is the important part here.
I believe that Jesus was the Christ sent to earth by God the father. He was capable of anything - as is God. If he had wanted to make a jet airplane come down from the sky he could have. Since I believe the message is for the soul, not the flesh, I don't dwell on the "Did He or Didn't He" actually feed the stomachs of 5000 men and their women and children, too, with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fishes. Jesus came to earth to "feed" our souls with the message of God, the redeemer. The flesh is going back to dust. The soul has the opportunity to achieve immortality. The only point of reading this book is to get the spiritual messages. All the angst of haggling over the black words on white paper will just give us all an ulcer. Discussion is great. Exchanging ideas is what gives us knowledge. But so many people get so angry and hostile and threatened that the stress could induce a heart attack.
So far, AREQUIPA, you and I are doing really good. Neither of us has induced a heart attack in the other - yet.
Ella
Ok. So, I, being sure that the Bible (New and Old T) is not reliable enough as fact or not enough, do not believe it, nor the god -claims for YHWH or Jesus the Christ.
I don't know whether you do or not. Perhaps the 'what then' is whether one supposes that an invisible (probably what we would call intelligent thinking and planning) entity exists and can be accessed by us mentally or is a 'spiritual way' (e.g experienced by the soul - as an incorporeal element of the bod). And I am trying to lay down comprehensible defs. here, and am not trying to mock.
I recall that you posted something that implied that you supposed that this 'God' (identifying personal title rather than generic term) could be accessed by others of other faiths. In fact (as many God -believers say) God is the same god in all faiths. If so, you choose (perhaps because it is what you are familiar with) to find the inspiration - to -contact through the Bible just as a muslim might find it through the Quran or a hindu through the methods they use.
Ok that far? Or would you say that the Bible is God's preferred vehicle and the others are...not false gods but ..inaccurate, shall we say..religions. Perhaps because they do not believe this idea that God sent a representative, shall we say, to save us from sin either by death - sacrifice or teaching example?
Let's sort that one before going any further.
P. s though. I hadn't forgotten the business of a god being needed to give us moral sensibility.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-29-2013 at 07:08 PM..
So, with all due respect to all authors who have an opinion, it is still just an opinion. Martin Luther was a Catholic Priest. Fully indoctrinated in the Catholic doctrine and dogma, I don't know that his opinion was any more accurate than any of the others.
Just checking, but you are aware that Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic Church's teachings and dogmas and began a little something called the Reformation, where Protestantism arose from? Luther was never fully indoctrinated in Catholic doctrine and dogma - he rejected it. Kind of important...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ella Parr
The Priestly author also came after the fact from a point of Jewish indoctrination. Long ago, I had to decide which "man" I would follow and/or which dogma or doctrine I would follow. I chose "none of the above". I decided I could read the book for myself.
You may have misunderstood me when I used the term "the Priestly Author". I am referring to one of the writers of Genesis - not some later priest that came "after the fact". As I pointed out in a previous post, Mosese did not write the entire Pentateuch or even a large amount of it, but it was compiled by different authors and editors and only later was it attributed via Jewish tradition to Moses. The Priestly Author (or Writer) is the term given to what's known as the P Source in Genesis - just one of several other sources. Check out some information on the Documentary Hypothesis that has been undergirding biblical scholarship for over a hundred years when you have time, as this isn't the time or place for a discussion of it.
Am I correct in assuming that you have misunderstood that aspect? If so - you might want to consider that the book you are choosing to read for yourself had an author, and one of those authors was what is commonly known as the Priestly Author (P for short).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ella Parr
At some point, we each have to decide what information we will base our own opinions on. I decided to limit the body of information to the KJV of the Bible. It is a book, like any other book. What it says is what it says. But if I am to accept the book as the authority on God (whether this is correct or incorrect), then I must let the Bible stand on its own. Likewise, I must read it for myself and draw my own conclusions.
Fair enough - but bear I mind that you are ascribing divine authority to an English translation, made by translators working with the original languages at a time when they were not as well understood as today, and the Bible you are allowing to stand on it's own is not really.... the Bible. It's a translation. But I understood the allure the KJV has to many. I, myself, was raised on it alone, and told that it was the best translation out there. Not just a translation, it was THE Bible. As if God waited all those years to unveil his "Bible" to English readers, and all those before had been mistaken. This dogma that was drilled into my head passed eventually and I searched out better translations, and then searched out the orignal languages. But to each their own - as long as they know it for what it is.
I've heard how the scribes would take ritual baths before they even began to copy the Scriptures. If they made even the slightest of mistakes while copying them, they would throw all of their writing away and start over. The Dead Sea Scrolls show us a taste of how well Israel preserve their Scriptures.
This may have been true of the Masoretes of the later ages - but not so of their predecessors, as the Dead Sea Scrolls show ample evidence of, actually. One cannot apply more modern traditions to ancient practices. That's anachronism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
Yet with that, I have another inclination as to why to take the OT as I do. Jesus, who is God in the flesh, as we believe He is. If Jesus is God, surely He would have corrected the Scriptures if they were off concerning anything. Yet He didn't change them, and even attributed the Torah (first five books) to Moses. So if Jesus attributed these books to Moses, it's safe to say these books have been wonderfully preserved. Now of course I don't expect non-Christians to see that as evidence for anything. Hardcore evidence is what they seek, and truthfully hardcore evidence is also what a lot Christians seek in building their faith.
I think this is an assumption you are making (a famous one, not new - but one anyways) that has no basis in fact. We know for a fact that the words of the original authors of the Biblical books suffered various amounts of change and editing. Denying that this is possible because Jesus wouldn't allow it flies in the face of the facts, I'm afraid. Any Biblical textual scholar would agree with this. One's standing as a Christian or non-Christian shouldn't matter either. The vast majority of competent Christian scholars know this, and it doesn't trouble their faith one bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
Ultimately, all these things encourage me to find even more evidence.
The history you write of is indeed interesting, but some of the results are open to quote a different interpretation. But this is not the time or place for that either. I do no mean to derail this thread with things that have been dealt with elsewhere on this forum.
I do not mean offense to anyone - just pointing out that many of us create our own brand of Christianity as a reaction to what others say or what we find in the Bible, whether we accept it all as literal history, or as mere allegorical meanings (cryptic) that still speak to us (relevant) because we believe it to be the Word of God (divine). This is nothing new and has been happening for a long time. We adapt, and the history of that adaptation is fascinating. There are plenty of Christians who willfully dismiss much of the Hebrew Bible and derisively label it the "Old Testament" - after all, they've been doing it ever since they split from Judaism! Is it a good thing that we create these othe realities? Well, who knows...
It's the utopic words that was God's will. If Adam and Eve by their own choice, decided to be with God and trust Him, we would have never seen the things we see today. So anything happening after the fall, is the result of going astray from God's will. From that point out, you see the consequences, but you also see the hope of restoration to God's will.
I'm not fully knowledgeable about Onan, but is he the one who still had sex with his dead brothers wife, knowing full well he did not want to take her own as his wife?
Thanks for your answer. Although we see religion differently, my impression is that you seem like a polite and probably nice person. Have a "Good Friday". (That was an ongoing expression in our office today)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
