Did Dan Brown trigger the beginning of the end for the Christian Church?

[MaggieMcCary]

Whether one allows for the chance that there may be among us descendents of Christ or not, I’d like to know why the Christian Church is so offended by such a theory. Wouldn’t such great-great-etc grandchildren of God be just the sort of loving and insightful and compassionate individuals this world obviously needs right now? And wouldn’t such a logical, grounded, biological “Second Coming” make it easier for even Darwinians and the most logic and scientifically based thinkers to accept and come to know God?

What is it about this concept that threatens the church so? Could it be that such people among us would carry more influence and command more respect than a manmade institution and this is why the possibility of their existence can’t be tolerated?

Thoughts anyone?

[Stanislaw]

er...because the davinci code is fiction?

[Asa Adams]

Nope...As long as there are believers, there will followers. Not to worry about the church...seems to survive anything...crazy christians.

[Asa Adams]

er...because the davinci code is fiction?

Another good point. Even though Danny Boy wrote that all the names and theories are "true." Didn't he? MAYBE ITS FACT IN HIS MIND... :lol:

[byquist]

Hardly! Dan Brown should be most studied for his business acumen in following P.T. Barnum's "there's a sucker born every minute."

[sHaRp12]

Christan Church is going no where. Christianity will be continued to be force fed to Americans because It benefits the country.

[earthboar]

Did Dan Brown trigger the beginning of the end for the Christian Church?
No, he is not to blame for that problem.

That would be like blaming Galileo for the end of Archimedes when he dropped the grape and grapefruit at the same time, and discovered they landed on the ground at the same time. The hope of the species is that eventually, we do ask the right questions, even if we couch them in bad fiction.

Er, one more thing...many people, such as myself, rediscovered the wonderful world of Jesus because of the DaVinci Code...even if it is by way of non-traditional understanding. Perhaps Dan Brown can be congratulated for reviving Christianity. Read Marvin Meyers' The Gnostic Gospels of Jesus. Or don't, strictly up to you. nobody's paying me to plug it.

[bazarov]

An idiot like him can't do anything to real christians. Sorry Mishkin :lol: :lol:
It's all about money...They say he's like Umberto Eco and his Rose...Yeah, then they invited Eco to have an open TV disccusion with Brown...Eco told that won't even sit at the same table ''with that man'' :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Scheherazade]

No, he is not to blame for that problem.Though I am pretty sure he is behind the recent water shortage in the UK and the break-up of Paul McCartney's marriage!

[earthboar]

An idiot like him...

Name calling is something we do when reason fails us.

[RobinHood3000]

Isn't that giving Dan Brown an awful lot of credit? He's a bestselling novelist, true, but his style's a smidgen rough, comparatively speaking (he could've done with one or two more drafts on Angels and Demons, I think), and his books don't strike me as the kind to cause major social shifting -- Rushdie, he ain't. As far as I can see, his novels are capable of not much more than entertaining the masses, provoking a little thought, and getting theologians up in a tizzy.

I wonder if the ancient Greeks regarded their mythological gods the same way today's theists regard theirs.

[grace86]

I like the way you put that Robin.

[grace86]

Well Maggie, the way I see it, if Christ was married and had children, it wouldn't have been anything to have been scoffed at. Jesus just would have reinforced the idea of marriage...it would have been in the bible...there wouldn't have been any reason for it not to be because it would have been pure.

[mtpspur]

Always amused by the supposed end of Christianity due to popular entertainment. I survived Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell--Da Vinci Code affects me not in the least and Christians will move on regardless. Oh for the days when the Bible was studied to see what It said not to shoehorn it into my expectations/biases of whicj I have plenty freely confessed. I generally keep my fiction reading separate from my Bibilical readings. I have my own problems with reading "Christian" fiction. The Left Behind series (for example) is awful as far as overwritten and padded beyond suspension of belief and read primarily to please the long suffering wife who's heard more she ever want to about The Shadow. If I want that I'll reread E. E. Smith's Lensmen series. So I currently stick to detective fiction and leave the religious fictions to those it's designed for--to provoke thought and introspection (hopefully) but usually it just seems to stir up doubts and unbelief. I'm not sure I'm qualified for this site--I read way too much drivel and not enough classics--so I apologize in advance on not being more serious or interested in "better" books. At my age I read what I like.

[Zippy]

I just don't get the fuss over Dan Brown's book. 'Sounding the death knell of the Church' - I've never heard anything so ridiculous. Holy Blood Holy Grail covered the same territory almost twenty years ago and was a much more entertaining read. We've even had comic books with the descendants of Christ theory (Gareth Ennis' Preacher).

To be frank, Jesus could touch down back on earth tomorrow, turn the Atlantic into a fruity little chardonnay and still the Church would trundle along, totally unaffected or unchanged. Those guys don't care about anything except the statis quo.

[thevintagepiper]

Christan Church is going no where. Christianity will be continued to be force fed to Americans because It benefits the country.

Christianity is most certainly going somewhere. Its increase is great in many formerly third-world countries...America simply refuses to admit it. Chinese people send missionaries to America now...did you know that? There are many active Christian churches and organizations in the USA, and they are often the most successful in things such as drug therapy, crisis pregnancy centers, etc. yet the government ignores them and refuses to fund them as they are religious (more precisely, Christian. It's sad, but very obvious).
Dan brown's book is fiction, and nothing more, though people have taken it the wrong way. In the long run I think it will have no effect on Christianity in our country today. Especially now that the movie is a failure, there is no danger in it.
Finally, Christianity is not being force fed to Americans. It does not work that way, nor should anyone believe it does....the inquisition was another story (and not a Christ-like thing to do). People become Christians by God's will and by their willingness as the result of God's grace.
If by that statement you mean all the Christianity in our country today, well, sorry, haven't you thought about all the other things we are force fed, and the things that stand out to Christians that most have never even thought twice about?

[Zippy]

Christianity is not being force fed to Americans.

I don't know about Americans, but it was certainly force fed to me, a Scotsman, in a process I can only describe as brainwashing. I've not truly believed for a very long time, but still feel guilty and slightly scared at the thought of it.

I have nothing against any religion, but it was definately forced on me. We would even be punished at school if we couldn't tell the teacher what the sermon was about on Sunday. I think that's taking it a bit far.

Sorry about the rant, but if you think that's bad you should hear me talking about nuns!

[RobinHood3000]

It takes a lot of gall and a lot of perceived superiority for a Christian missionary to go in front of a bunch of kids and refer to Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism, and various other philosophies as "fairy-tale religions." Brainwashing happens -- what's more, it works. Likewise for peer pressure. I don't mean to pick on the Christians, but as the majority, they have a somewhat larger set of anecdotes to choose from.

How many theist children today were given a truly free choice in what religion to be?

[ShoutGrace]

How many theist children today were given a truly free choice in what religion to be?

What age group defines children? Just wondering, so that I can think about your question better :D .

[Stanislaw]

heh...christian brainwashing in north america...er, maybe if ye go to the catholic schools...but last time I checked there were also public schools...and generally the media is fairly pro-anything-anti-christian dogma.

As for the book, I read it...heh, it was kinda sad, with all the hype I was expecting one helluva good story, writing style, but instead it reminded me a bit of the ol hubbard-kevin J. Anderson collaberations...personally I think Tom clancy is a better writer (and he is so dull, that he could take thirty pages to describe a military issued pencil).

[cuppajoe_9]

...and generally the media is fairly pro-anything-anti-christian dogma.Erm...are you sure you live on the same North America as me?

[RobinHood3000]

What age group defines children? Just wondering, so that I can think about your question better :D .For the sake of argument, let's say "school-age," shall we?

[ShoutGrace]

For the sake of argument, let's say "school-age," shall we?

Um, what is school age? Which school? :D

I guess your question was rhetorical, at any rate. We really can't contemplate the answer, and have any real confidence we're anywhere close to reality. I think that it would be unique for a child (say 9 or 10 years old?) to choose to become a theist if they had either atheist or vaguely non-thestic parents effecting them. That isn't a decision you can really make that young, anyway. It would be hard (I think impossible) at that age to critically assess things and come to a conclusion about what's going on.

[RobinHood3000]

Isn't that the thing, though? Kids are being presented with a decision (if they're lucky enough to receive a choice) on something that will influence the rest of their lives before they're prepared to assess the situation. As a result, they often revert to the default setting (forgive the crude wording) -- the religion of their parents. Hence, the status quo is unlikely to change anytime soon.

[Amra]

Isn't that the thing, though? Kids are being presented with a decision (if they're lucky enough to receive a choice) on something that will influence the rest of their lives before they're prepared to assess the situation. As a result, they often revert to the default setting (forgive the crude wording) -- the religion of their parents. Hence, the status quo is unlikely to change anytime soon.

Same thing happens if their parents are atheists. The children are raised on the moral values and the belief system of their parents, regardless of whether the parents are believers or atheists.

[RobinHood3000]

Ah, but which one is the majority, theist or atheist?

"I know not what course others may choose, but as for me," I'm planning on giving my kids an open choice as to whether or not to choose religion, and what beliefs to accept (if any). Hopefully small-animal-sacrifices won't come into play.

[Stanislaw]

Erm...are you sure you live on the same North America as me?

I think so...you mean the north america thats big, and is made up of mexico USA and Canada? :D

Well in western Canada, Alberta Specifically, Edmonton even further...I would say the media is fairly rooted in its non-acceptance of Dogma, and its acceptance of anti-dogma.

[Mililalil XXIV]

Whether one allows for the chance that there may be among us descendents of Christ or not, I’d like to know why the Christian Church is so offended by such a theory. Wouldn’t such great-great-etc grandchildren of God be just the sort of loving and insightful and compassionate individuals this world obviously needs right now? And wouldn’t such a logical, grounded, biological “Second Coming” make it easier for even Darwinians and the most logic and scientifically based thinkers to accept and come to know God?

What is it about this concept that threatens the church so? Could it be that such people among us would carry more influence and command more respect than a manmade institution and this is why the possibility of their existence can’t be tolerated?

Thoughts anyone?

Maggie,

Dan Brown has shown no restraint in speaking/writing before researching or learning things even some school children could have told him. He is trying to rewrite history, trying to be the "winner" that does so, as he indiscriminately accuses all before him of doing. The fact is, there are way too many personal correspondences between private citiezens of several nations and religions and backgrounds in every time period for history to have been rewritten as he claims with great prejudice and bias.

On his own website, Dan admits that perhaps simply a few of the views (all antichristian cereal book tripe) he suggests in his book might be true. The manner of his work is like the sort of sudden productions that appeared just before the widespread stupidity and chaos of the French and Russian revolutions.

Have you ever heard of John Dominic Crossan or the erroneously so-called "Jesus Seminar"? Among antichristian fanatics, Crossan and the Seminar made quite a sensation, giving the appearance of making copious use of the socalled "other gospels". The Seminar voted on which Sayings of CHRIST in the Bible and alleged elsewhere were "authentic". Those "other gospels" Crossan and company refer to are the Nag Hammadi cache documents, which Dan Brown has obviously read far less than Crossan & co., or not at all. He presumed too much about Crossan and the Seminar, whom outer-fringers like Brown also presume to be the leading experts both on the Nag Hammadi documents, and on the Gospels in general. Here is what expert Crossan himself has to say about the idea that JESUS ever married (from an anti-ecclesiastical, non-Christian, pseudognostic point of view that has nothing to gain from arguing with antichristian sentiments):
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/135/story_13529_1.html
As you can see in looking at the two page article on the above link, Crossan has ruled out the Christian view on why JESUS would never have married, but cannot even begin to entertain the false notion that JESUS ever in fact married.

Crossan and I are diametrically opposed in our views of CHRIST, yet many of his observations about the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea documents seem tenable, whereas nothing Brown writes shows any sort of genuine thought or heart.

No one ever claimed descent from CHRIST, historically speaking (that is, ruling out recent imposture), but many have and still do trace themselves back to HIS Brethren.

[cuppajoe_9]

Well in western Canada, Alberta Specifically, Edmonton even further...I would say the media is fairly rooted in its non-acceptance of Dogma, and its acceptance of anti-dogma.I'm sorry, the Alberta with the cowboys and the oil and the rampant homophobia? I live in Medicine Hat, bro, and I've had christian dogma thrown at me from all sorts of angles, media included, my entire life.

[Mililalil XXIV]

I'm sorry, the Alberta with the cowboys and the oil and the rampant homophobia? I live in Medicine Hat, bro, and I've had christian dogma thrown at me from all sorts of angles, media included, my entire life.
Maybe from a few citizens whose words echo on and on in your mind, but Canadian media is generally antichristian. There are kids that think all the world is trying to wage war with their cause (what ever that might be), just because they live under parents trying to responsibly care for their kids. If a few family friends from a "church" nag, how is that the media wieghing in favor of Christianity? As for homophobia, that fear is a different matter form hatred of the homosexual condition, which is a different matter form the view of the person in that condition. One needs to differentiate between these, then note that the fear of misconduct by or association with homosexuals is common among most heterosexual men, whatever their background, so that to call it "Christian" is a misnomer, and has really nothing what ever to do with whether or not Dan Brown makes any sense or not.

[Stanislaw]

I'm sorry, the Alberta with the cowboys and the oil and the rampant homophobia? I live in Medicine Hat, bro, and I've had christian dogma thrown at me from all sorts of angles, media included, my entire life.

Really? In Edmonton there is a pretty strong anti-"redneck" movement...only Ol King Ralph is clinging to the "redneck" ideals. :D

And rampant homophobia...Edmonton has a gay pride week now...maybe other places are more christian-biased but, edmonton is pretty left of centre.

[RobinHood3000]

People get awfully touchy about fiction, don't they?

[Stanislaw]

People get awfully touchy about fiction, don't they?
:D Nope...now if you excuse me I have to go to my Jedi Meditation room... :D

[cuppajoe_9]

Really? In Edmonton there is a pretty strong anti-"redneck" movement...only Ol King Ralph is clinging to the "redneck" ideals. :D

And rampant homophobia...Edmonton has a gay pride week now...maybe other places are more christian-biased but, edmonton is pretty left of centre.Oh. Well then I'm moving to Edmonton. Or Victoria.

[Stanislaw]

Oh. Well then I'm moving to Edmonton. Or Victoria.

heh, Victoria is nice, I always like the sea. :thumbs_up But then again Edmonton is the city of Champions! :D

[superunknown]

Did Dan Brown trigger the beginning of the end for the Christian Church?

Short answer: no.

Long answer: no.

[Gawaine]

Everyone has been saying for hundreds of years that the Christian Church was on the way out.

I have a feeling this organization is more powerful than the Da Vinci Code.

[Stanislaw]

Everyone has been saying for hundreds of years that the Christian Church was on the way out.

I have a feeling this organization is more powerful than the Da Vinci Code.

ai, I tthink that rumour was started in the christian year 33 or so... :D

[literaturerocks]

just in my opinion i dont think that a fictional bestseller will spell the demise of a religion that has survived more than 2000 years...

[Green Lady]

Browns ideas are not new, they were around long before he brought them up. These ideas may bring the demise of some churches (may being the key word) but others actually have considered Jesus having a wife. I can't believe so many people got into that books. I started reading it and it was just boring. Lots of interesting facts, terrible plot.

[Lilac Cotton]

God cannot have babies with women. Simple as that. Prophets can and they all did for the most part. Jesus may have had a wife or three of them because apparently the ban on polygamy was a priestly order not a God given commandment. Check into Abraham. He had at least two wives and no one is itchy about that!

Logic. It is all very logical but some still insist on superstitions. Imagine our surprise at that!

[Scheherazade]

Please avoid posting off-topic messages as they are likely to be edited/deleted.

[caesar]

The Da Vinci Code is a trite fiction garnished with historical junk, which is more controversial than empirical. The author’s inability to handle the so-called ‘facts’ in his fiction is evident in the lousy conclusion of the novel.

One thing I’m sure of is that if Jesus turns up today, he should fear the Church more than Dan Brown.

Almost all great religious, ideological and political movements have had their genesis in altruism of noble men, but once these movements attains popularity they, invariably, becomes corrupt and self-serving.

The Christian religious movement is no exception. Like most other religious institutions, the Church, merely uses the image of a good man for its own survival but does not embrace the spirit of his teachings.
When practice takes precedence over purpose, being Christian in letter becomes more important than being Christian in spirit.

[amanda_isabel]

did dan brown trigger the beginning of the end for the Christian chruch?

my opinion--- no. that issue has been around for a long time, ex. in 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail', which is what caused the controversy of dan brown 'stealing the idea for the DVC.'

but looking at it from a Christian's perspective, it can be a challenge to the faith of Christians and strengthen it--and if this is the case, then the end of the Christian church is nowhere near.

[rabid reader]

Whether one allows for the chance that there may be among us descendents of Christ or not, I’d like to know why the Christian Church is so offended by such a theory. Wouldn’t such great-great-etc grandchildren of God be just the sort of loving and insightful and compassionate individuals this world obviously needs right now? And wouldn’t such a logical, grounded, biological “Second Coming” make it easier for even Darwinians and the most logic and scientifically based thinkers to accept and come to know God?

What is it about this concept that threatens the church so? Could it be that such people among us would carry more influence and command more respect than a manmade institution and this is why the possibility of their existence can’t be tolerated?

Thoughts anyone?
Jesus was not suppose to give into the sins of the flesh, and the Di Vinchi's Code says he hooked up with someone who the church believes is a prositute, doesn't seem like rocket sceince why the Chruch doesn't like the book

[ShoutGrace]

Jesus was not suppose to give into the sins of the flesh, and the Di Vinchi's Code says he hooked up with someone who the church believes is a prositute, doesn't seem like rocket sceince why the Chruch doesn't like the book

I often feel sorry for the treatment given to Mary Magdalene by civilization throughout history. She has gotten what I consider to be the worst bum rap ever. There is absolutely no evidence that she was a prostitute; none whatsoever.

What is so amazing is that not only is there no reason to think lowly of her, there is great reason to think highly of her. She has been called by some the 13th apostle. She spent as much time with Jesus during his ministry as any other woman; perhaps more.

She was the very first person to see the risen Christ and had the distinct and wonderful honor of annointing Jesus sometime near the end of his life. I will have to get somewhere else to get all the exegetical facts.


but looking at it from a Christian's perspective, it can be a challenge to the faith of Christians and strengthen it--and if this is the case, then the end of the Christian church is nowhere near.

The DaVinci Code novel has been a blessing in many different ways. It gets people thinking about Jesus and related topics, and stimulates discussion and ideas. If the book had any historical or literary merit, than perhaps the advantages would not be as obvious. As is stands, however, because the book is ficticious and (considered by some) poorly written, it provides great opportunities for Christian outreach. The historical inaccuracies are easily refuted and such activities naturally promote healthy and beneficial informational diffusion.

[rabid reader]

I often feel sorry for the treatment given to Mary Magdalene by civilization throughout history. She has gotten what I consider to be the worst bum rap ever. There is absolutely no evidence that she was a prostitute; none whatsoever.

What is so amazing is that not only is there no reason to think lowly of her, there is great reason to think highly of her. She has been called by some the 13th apostle. She spent as much time with Jesus during his ministry as any other woman; perhaps more.

She was the very first person to see the risen Christ and had the distinct and wonderful honor of annointing Jesus sometime near the end of his life. I will have to get somewhere else to get all the exegetical facts.


I don't know if that comment was directed at me personnaly but i think i need to say, I really could careless. The fact that the Church focuses on this only futhers them away from what Jesus was accually saying. I was just stationg the church says she was a prositute and they were insulted by Brown's insinuation that she was married to Jesus.

[Stanislaw]

God cannot have babies with women. Simple as that. Prophets can and they all did for the most part. Jesus may have had a wife or three of them because apparently the ban on polygamy was a priestly order not a God given commandment. Check into Abraham. He had at least two wives and no one is itchy about that!

Logic. It is all very logical but some still insist on superstitions. Imagine our surprise at that!

Abraham had one wife, but in doubting God slept with his Wifes sister.

[Stanislaw]

I don't know if that comment was directed at me personnaly but i think i need to say, I really could careless. The fact that the Church focuses on this only futhers them away from what Jesus was accually saying. I was just stationg the church says she was a prositute and they were insulted by Brown's insinuation that she was married to Jesus.

I have noticed many here saying THE CHURCH, or THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, mostly I assume you are referring to the Roman Catholic Church, there is also an orthodox, english (UK), and many different brands of protestants.

And THE CHURCH (Roman Catholic) doesn't focus on this fact, infact Mary was a women who had commitied bigomy, and some called that prostitution, but I am not sure as to what you mean about the church focusing on it?

[Lector]

It doesn't matter, as far as I am concerned, wether or not Mary was a prostitute. I don't think she was, but the bigger deal here is not wether or not Jesus hooked up with a prostitute, but wether or not Jesus hooked up at all. If Jesus married a woman, which I am certain He did not, then we have some problems. The Bble talks about husbands and wives being "equally yoked" this has to do with both the man and the woman both being Christians as well as being at a similar place spiritualy. I would put forth that there has never been and never will be a woman who could be equally yoked with Jesus Christ, He is too far above everyone. Also if Mary was Jesus bride then that runs into trouble where the Bible talks about the church being the bride of Christ. I guess what all this comes down to is that both Dan Brown and the Bible cannot be right, it has to be one or the other. I don't know about you, but at this point I am not willing to put my faith in Dan Brown, some fictional author, over the Bible that has never been proven wrong for over a thousand years.

[RobinHood3000]

the Bible that has never been proven wrong for over a thousand years.There's nothing to prove either way. The premise, as it has been given repeatedly from all sides, is that proof does not exist for or against religion. Proof for a religion sucks the meaning out of faith, and proof against a religion is disregarded anyway.

Wait -- do you mean to say that the Bible was proven wrong a thousand years ago? Do tell.

[Lilac Cotton]

Nope. Hagar was not Abraham's sister in law...she was Sarah's maidservant and provided the first born son to Abraham.

This isn't off topic but it comes from a muslim. Delete it and it means only one thing...

Dan Brown's book is not well written but it is a great crime story and there are copy cat writers coming up with the same things. Why, Khalil Gibran copied the Bible and got away with it!

Discussing it as 'literature' is silly though for the academics in this crowd.* His book has little in the way of 'great' literature like say, Nietzsche's Zarathustra in which he 'borrowed' most of what the Quran has to offer and called it, The Twilight.

Original texts are what they are and are the seeds of all great story telling. They are the fundamental axis of all creationary events in literature right on down to the Exorcist which really, is quite silly. Those inhabited by devils are actually quite normal looking and can be seen without a microscope but as is always the case, books like Dan Brown's create a Galileo type stir which is not a stir at all because they do not really tamper with the more important beliefs about faith and religion. The most important one being, the need to go to war to fight oppression. Dan Brown apparently missed that and I suppose he was looking more into women's rights and he found his followers on that note.

*I will suggest that discussion of this 'landmark' tome is not the reason for this discussion however. That is a common ruse!

[Lector]

There's nothing to prove either way. The premise, as it has been given repeatedly from all sides, is that proof does not exist for or against religion. Proof for a religion sucks the meaning out of faith, and proof against a religion is disregarded anyway.

Wait -- do you mean to say that the Bible was proven wrong a thousand years ago? Do tell.

There is something to prove, have you read the Bible? there are a number of things in it, historically for example, that could be proven either right or wrong, everything that has been proven either way has always turned out to be right. Now I will grant to you that there certainly are things that cannot be proven within the Bible, however if in the areas that it can be proven the Bible is found to be trustworthy I would say that in the areas that cannot be proven it is given the benefit of the doubt.

And no I wasn't saying that the Bible was proven wrong a thousand years ago, thank you for your clarification though.

[Shield&Sword]

I was for a week in punishment because i pasted things alot didnt like and complianed, dont know who exactly and i dont want to think bad about people.

I just want to say that Hager was WIFE of Abraham peace be upon him, and from her was born the first son Ismael ( the arabic prophet) according to bible.

[Stanislaw]

Well, it is easy to disrpove fiath, and religious doctrine, but in that lies the test for believers, to believe regardless of anti-proofs, blid faith, what does it really hurt anyways? (extremists aside, as infact, there are extremests on both sides)

[ShoutGrace]

there are a number of things in it, historically for example, that could be proven either right or wrong, everything that has been proven either way has always turned out to be right.

That is an awfully broad statement. As far as I can tell, there is much controversy between scholars over the historical accuracy of the Bible.

One site (http://quinnell.us/religion/reasons/history.html)


Whether I believe that God exists or that Jesus is his Son is a question that hinges on whether or not either of them have made it experientially true to me or not; it isn't dependent on which words are printed on a 3,000 year old piece of goat hide.

I believe only because it has been made real to me. Bible inerrancy is a very heated debate; I'm only confused because some people can argue that the Bible is fallacious all day long and others can argue that it is infallible and inerrant all day long.


. . . . references in the Bible to a people called the Hittites (Genesis 15:20; Exodus 3:8, 17; Numbers 13:29; Joshua 1:4; Judges 1:26 and elsewhere). Their opinion was that the Hittites were simply one of the many mythical peoples made up by Bible writers. Some critics said they may have been a small and unimportant tribe.[sic]

Toward the end of the 19th century, Hittite monuments were uncovered at Carchemish on the Euphrates River in Syria, proving the Bible right. Later, in 1906, excavations at Boghazkoy (ancient Hattusas, capital of the Hittite Empire) in Turkey uncovered thousands of Hittite documents, revealing a wealth of information about Hittite history and culture. The centuries-old Hittite rubbish showed they were a real and formidable power. They were once one of the dominant peoples of Asia Minor and the Near East. They exercised considerable control south into Syria and Palestine.

[sic]Today, no one questions the existence of the Hittites. Volumes of books exist on the history, art, culture and society of the Hittites.

The Bible was the only known source of any information on the existence or culture of the Hittites until the late 19th century; that fact isn't going to decide my wholehearted devotion, trust and faith in a being that I can't quantify, fully understand, or prove. Might it be an influence? Who am I to say? (I don't think any of us undestand everything that influences us.)

The decision is the key, and that decision isn't going to to be made due to simple typing on a piece of paper; nor will it happen by learning that an archaeological discovery has proven that God did part the Red Sea, the Pillar of Fire has been incontrovertibly proven, and scientists have found and sequestered copious amounts of a substance that they cannot understand and suspect to be the Biblical 'manna'.


however if in the areas that it can be proven the Bible is found to be trustworthy I would say that in the areas that cannot be proven it is given the benefit of the doubt.


What I'm saying is that the benefit of the doubt isn't good enough; maybe it matters (in whatever degree) only after you have chosen to place your faith in God.

'The benefit of the doubt' isn't good enough for me. I would need it to be pervasively real; that is the true and fundamental reason why I am an enthusiastic Christian theist today. Matters like Bible accuracy come much later.

[Lilac Cotton]

....and God preferred sons to daughters and vice versa? Quran flatly negates that in both directions.

The Quran states, that if God 'wanted' a son, he had no need to 'create' one because sheesh, he created all other beings via (lets get modern here) genetic codes and sex cells.

The Bible does not exist in its original language or form. I mean they even used to try to convince folks to pray in Latin! Now one thing I'm sure of, that orthodoxy is just crazy because Isa never said, Que Paso! Usted es muy bien no? Nah. Language. The bible no longer exists in even a portion of its entirety. In Islam, we call the 'gospels' the Injeel but it isn't really a literal transliteration. The Injeel was literally one book assigned to one person, Isa (Jesus, pbuh, to you guys). Where is that ONE book? No one apparently knows. Maybe the Judas Iscariot thing will shed some light on that aspect of who was crucified and who might have not been killed that infamous day (the day that launched worldwide retribution called anti semitism).

But that doesn't mean the Bible does not still contain details that are incredibly important and poorly understood in terms of their possessing the quality of 'allegorism'. The Quran relates some of these, specific ones...for a reason. It also goes so far as to state that some of the details are 'allegorical' and some are 'factual' without bothering to tell you which is which. You have to study to get that information or what you are referring to as 'proof'. And that is what it is all about ain't it? Proof. And anything that eradicates a theory is just a big no no with the keepers of the religions...ours included and hence we have a big Holy War in progress in Iraq (no politics but for an example so please no edit).

Of course S&S, Hagar was his wife...his second wife. Well, even if she wasn't, the Quran allows a kind of marriage like that without some of the formalities. The formalities come in later when there is a child whose name must be protected. Which brings me to a very important detail which connects the Biblical with the Quranical......geneologies. It is very important.
The whole notion of orphans and adoption...all the way down to the factoid that the Arabs are basically step brothers to the Jews.....very important those bloodlines, indeed.

But is France run by a secret sect of Isa?

Who cares. No one cares about that sort of Divine Right rulership anymore now do they (facetious here). But Islam states very, very and I mean VERY clearly, the second coming of Isa (JC) is in order to settle all disputes about his whereabouts and his possible 'demise' which of course, muslims don't believe in. We believe that Jesus never died that day. Someone else did.

And now we have the Judas Iscariot testimonies....they will not reveal that...you can bet your bottom dollar there. Because, if Judas were the one on the cross that day it means only one thing. That testimony may actually be that thing I mentioned so long ago now:

The Injeel.

[Shield&Sword]

Yes for us was his wife, but i wrote in bible, because alot (christians, jews) try to negate the fact that Ismael is son of Abraham peace be upon him for some interests.
About crucifiction i talked alot, and got no answers, finally i was stopped because "i discuss alot" and religioun forum was closed for 7 days, so i dont want to enter in it (but will enter if someone else begin).

For us muslims Brown story was insulting, we believe that Jesus peace be upon him is ours, and we have the right to be relaited to him more than any other religioun. Its not written for us that he was married and lived normal life, for us he was raised and will be back to lead us.

[Lector]

ShoutGrace, thanks for your response, I checked out that site and it has some pretty interesting stuff. It said a whole lot about a whole lot of things, but mainly (at least what I got from it) was that there are many parts of the Bible that are for certain true, so much so that many archeologists use it as a source for discovering many things. However there are also many things in the Bible that don't seem to make siense, either there are reasons to believe it may be false or it is simply too unbelievable for it to be accepted as fact, but either way, all of the arguments for Biblical falacy came down to the point that it seems to the reaserhes responsible for thoses articles that the Bible is false, however they don't even have any concrete proof, a new discovery with new evidence could still prove the bible to be right once again and it is simply a lack of said evidence that makes people believe it to be false.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be implying that Biblical innerrancy is not all that impotant to you. Although i admire the faith it takes for such a statement I am not willing to concede such a possibility. For me the Bible is foundational to all that I believe; I agree that experience is extremely important to personal faith, but the bible is the only concrete evendence and guide that I have to understanding God more completely. The Bible claims to be the word of God, it claims to be completely true, if it is not than how can it be trusted at all? If it is proven to be false in the least than can it be relied upon at all? I don't think that it can, I think that if the Bible is ever proven wrong then I will not know which other parts may be wrong as well and it will make my reading and believing anything that it says very difficult.

I would appreciate your input on this issue

[RobinHood3000]

Now, admittedly, I'm not the one you were asking input from, but I hope you won't mind anyway...

I don't know if you've ever read any of the Seven Habits books, so this may or may not be familiar to you. In the course of the books is discussed the concept of life centers. Numerous centers exist around which one chooses to base their life. There's relationship-centered, hero-centered, self-centered, and even hate-centered.

I assume that, by what you write above, it would be fair to say that your life centers around religion. It's terrific that your religion is a part of your entire life (it should be), but you seem to have done so to the point where any flaw or even any assault on the integrity of the Bible could throw your entire world out of whack. As a result, I urge you to be a little more flexible in terms of on the level of integrity you wish to accept. I'm not saying you should "settle" (at least, I don't think I am) or that you should aim for less than perfection, just that you need to be realistic with your expectations (a text that is in its early thousands CANNOT be devoied of human error) and to think for yourself if the Bible falters.

[Lector]

Input appreciated. I have not read those books but would be interested in them. I agree that I do place an extremely high importance on the integrity of the Bible, but unlike you, I don't understand how I could do otherwise. To be more flexible in my belief in the infalibilty of the Bible would, in my mind, weaken extremely if not destroy my religion centered life as you might call it. If I accept that human error entering into the Bible is possible then how can I know where said errors are? How can I decipher that which is truth from that which involves human errors? How can I so unrealistic in my rigidity in believing in the infallibilty of a book that has been translated a ton of times over thousands of years? I believe that God, first of all originaly inspired the Bible, and then has through the years been preserving it by varriouse human means. For example there was a group of the poepl called the Messorites I believe who's sole purpose in life was the exact and meticulouse reproduction and preservation of the Bible. We now have some of these texts. Also we, not too long ago discovered the dead sea scrolls, which far predated and other texts that we had, but we discovered that there were virtualy no discrpencies from then till now. There are other things, but i guess what it really comes down to is faith; I believe that the Bible is %100 true, to believe otherwise would, as I said earlier and as you aluded to, seriousely rock my world.

[RobinHood3000]

Well, if that's fine with you, I have no problem with that. I sincerely hope, though, that your beliefs will not lead you to ignore or be unfairly skeptical of evidence to the contrary of Scripture if and when it appears.

[pani]

Input appreciated. I have not read those books but would be interested in them. I agree that I do place an extremely high importance on the integrity of the Bible, but unlike you, I don't understand how I could do otherwise. To be more flexible in my belief in the infalibilty of the Bible would, in my mind, weaken extremely if not destroy my religion centered life as you might call it. If I accept that human error entering into the Bible is possible then how can I know where said errors are? How can I decipher that which is truth from that which involves human errors? How can I so unrealistic in my rigidity in believing in the infallibilty of a book that has been translated a ton of times over thousands of years? I believe that God, first of all originaly inspired the Bible, and then has through the years been preserving it by varriouse human means. For example there was a group of the poepl called the Messorites I believe who's sole purpose in life was the exact and meticulouse reproduction and preservation of the Bible. We now have some of these texts. Also we, not too long ago discovered the dead sea scrolls, which far predated and other texts that we had, but we discovered that there were virtualy no discrpencies from then till now. There are other things, but i guess what it really comes down to is faith; I believe that the Bible is %100 true, to believe otherwise would, as I said earlier and as you aluded to, seriousely rock my world.

hi lector.. i am from india and new to this forum..

i am not a christian and neither is a majority of my country.. but still it has made a big impact..

i suppose we do not need to know who is right and who is wrong. we will never know because we do not understand truth .. but we can beleive in it.. and truth is that God exists fundamentally in belief and faith ... so lets keep that up and work for the comon good..