The Bible. Myth or Reality?

[Gnostic Bishop]

The Bible. Myth or Reality?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAEpc1zhcuo

As a Gnostic Christian I see literal reading of the Bible as a gross distortion of what the Bible was written to do. That being to inspire people to seek God and his best laws and rules. Literal readers just become idol worshipers and do not seek God the way Jesus instructed.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Literal reading has created and idol worshiping closed minded people who have settled for an immoral God whom we name as a demiurge as his morals, if literally true, are more satanic than God like.

Literal reading has also created a climate where scholars and experts, historians and archeologist, and all the academically well accepted information they uncover, --- is being ignored or called lies by those who are not academics of the various disciplines.

What is the point of producing good academics if literalists are going to ignore facts because of blind faith?

Remember please that if not a book of myths, then real talking serpents are somehow supposed to still exist and believers have to believe in a lot of supernatural phenomenon without any evidence whatsoever. Literalist Christians, it seems to me, have suspended rational judgement that has created in Christians a new Dark Age of thought and an Inquisitional attitude towards all other thinking. They no longer seek God and are true idol worshipers instead of the God seekers that Jesus wanted to see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvBxFXQy7-M


Do you think the Bible to be a book of myths or a book trying to show reality and history?

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

I don't think any religious text is a myth.Its based on experiences of that time.It may not look practical these days.But then, what is the proof that it didn't worked the same way in past.Its only the difference of belief or non belief .

Which religion is the true religion then?

They cannot all be true religions.

You believe in the supernatural then. Right?

Did animals talk human in the past, for instance?

Regards
DL

[Ecurb]

There is no such language as "human". Humans speak a variety of languages. Whether non-human animals speak languages or not is debatable -- clearly some primates can learn a limited form of American sign language, and animals clearly communicate with one another verbally (although the communication may or may not constitute "language", depending on how we define the word).

Also, the Bible is clearly "trying to show reality and history". Whether it succeeds is a different question.

Finally, I object to using "myth" as a pejorative term. The societies that tell what we call "myths" do not, generally, differentiate between "myth" and "history". They use the same word to describe stories about the past, whether or not WE feel the stories include "supernatural" events. Finally, the meaning of "Supernatural" is unclear. Is a dragon "supernatural", simply because we don't think it exists? How about a sasquatch? How about the notion that time is relative, and slows down as we speed up?

[Gnostic Bishop]

There is no such language as "human". Humans speak a variety of languages. Whether non-human animals speak languages or not is debatable -- clearly some primates can learn a limited form of American sign language, and animals clearly communicate with one another verbally (although the communication may or may not constitute "language", depending on how we define the word).

Also, the Bible is clearly "trying to show reality and history". Whether it succeeds is a different question.

Finally, I object to using "myth" as a pejorative term. The societies that tell what we call "myths" do not, generally, differentiate between "myth" and "history". They use the same word to describe stories about the past, whether or not WE feel the stories include "supernatural" events. Finally, the meaning of "Supernatural" is unclear. Is a dragon "supernatural", simply because we don't think it exists? How about a sasquatch? How about the notion that time is relative, and slows down as we speed up?

How shall I answer such?

Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.

Faith is a way to quit using, "God given" power of Reason and Logic, and cause the faithful to embrace doctrines that moral people reject.

The God of the OT says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18]

How can literalists reason with God when they must ignore reason and logic and discard them when turning into literalist?

Those who are literalists can only reply somewhat in the fashion that Martin Luther did.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

This attitude effectively kills all worthy communication that non-theists can have with theist. Faith closes the mind as it is pure idol worship.

Literalism is an evil practice that hides the true messages of myths. We cannot show our faith based friends that they are wrong through their faith colored glasses. Their faith also plugs their ears.

Regards
DL

[Pompey Bum]

Um, GB, what exactly makes you think Ecurb is a Biblical literalist? I'll let him speak for himself, but I'm pretty sure he isn't even a Theist. Can't you address his points without the pre-fab spiel?

[togre]

As a Gnostic Christian I see literal reading of the Bible as a gross distortion of what the Bible was written to do. That being to inspire people to seek God and his best laws and rules. Literal readers just become idol worshipers and do not seek God the way Jesus instructed.


You've given your opinion, but you have given no supporting evidence. Why should I accept that you know the best way to understand and read the Bible? Who can offer more than an opinion? Or at least an authoritative opinion? Why not look at the Bible itself? It was written over a period of 1500 years and its texts interact with one another to a degree that is unique in literature. How does the Bible treat the Bible? How did Jesus treat the Bible?

Well...that's a huge topic. It's not helped by the fact that the Bible contains many different genres of literature. There are historical accounts, poems and proverbs, letters, the proclamations of prophets (much like a sermon) and even apocalyptic visions. Even Jesus' own words contain direct statements, sermons, metaphors and parables. When Jesus refers to Herod as "that fox" it would be wrong to assume he means Herod has a bushy red tail and pointy ears. When Jesus starts a parable by saying "A certain man..." it would be wrong to focus on the man as a historical figure. The genre is a teaching tool, not a vehicle to convey historical facts. The same with the visions contained in apocalyptic sections.

However, when the genre indicates that it is conveying history, then the Bible account should be be taken literally. So for the Pentateuch (Genesis through Deuteronomy), Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1&2 Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, etc. and the Gospels and Acts, the genre markers (verb tenses, grammatical features such as "it came to pass" etc.) tell us we are expected to treat these things as history and fact.

Furthermore, that's how Jesus (and other Bible writers) treated them. Jesus quotes the Old Testament extensively. He refers to Moses as the author of the first five books. Was he too stupid to know that Moses was a myth (But he's all knowing God)? Was he just playing all with the mistakes of his age (But he never seemed shy about correcting and speaking the truth)? Or did Moses actually write them? He speaks of Jonah being in the belly of the fish three days, of Abraham, of Naaman the Syrian and on and on. Speaks of them as we would speak of George Washington and Richard the Lion-hearted--as we speak of historical figures --you know, real people.

Does the Bible contain every detail of every event ever? No. "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" John 21:30,31.

Worshiping Jesus is built on history (or his story). It is built on know what he did (live, die and rise) and how that effects us (removes sins, stills Gods wrath). We don't need to "seek God" in the sense of hunt him down or ponder what he desires. He has revealed that is clear human language and has established a track record of his faithfulness, his justice and his compassion through his historical actions toward his special people (Biblical Israel) and toward the world.




Literal reading has created and idol worshiping closed minded people who have settled for an immoral God whom we name as a demiurge as his morals, if literally true, are more satanic than God like.


Who are you to judge God? Not meant as an accusation or as an attack (although I know it sounds that way). But seriously, define yourself. What and who are you? Do you ever make mistakes? Get answers wrong on tests? Claim incorrect deductions on your taxes (honestly or maybe by pushing the limits a bit)? Do your thoughts ever flare up with derision? Lust? Selfish anger? And so on. We are (according to the Bible and according to honest experience) limited and flawed creatures.

Who is God? According to his word "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in live and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness , rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children to the third and fourth generations" Exodus 34:6,7 He is holy, righteous, pure.

But I don't see it/I don't agree that his actions match the description. Yes, and...? Is it surprising that I don't grasp holiness? I struggle with calculus, should I be able to dictate what is fitting to Almighty God?

As for being close minded--where's the evidence? Could it be that people have considered your point of view and <gasp> rejected it? Found it not persuasive? In fact, isn't that the history of Gnosticism? That it claimed to follow Jesus, but never really did? That those who read its writing found them to contradict the writing of the apostles? That they were rejected not by a power play, but because of scholarship and intellectual honesty?



Literal reading has also created a climate where scholars and experts, historians and archeologist, and all the academically well accepted information they uncover, --- is being ignored or called lies by those who are not academics of the various disciplines.

What is the point of producing good academics if literalists are going to ignore facts because of blind faith?


Really? Academics are afraid to research because some will disagree with their conclusions (or methods or preconceptions)? So what! If they have evidence it will stand on its own. You must be too young to remember when "scholars" all decided the Old Testament must have been written after the Exile, that there was no Conquest of Canaan, no King David even. And then, archaeology and other scientific discipline began to uncover inscriptions which correlated to this point and that point. All the academic "theories" had to change, but the literalists didn't. Does that mean that everything in the Bible is supported by extra-Biblical evidence. No. But I have yet to find any such evidence to the contrary to be convincing.

You lambaste "blind faith." What is faith? Trusting what you cannot prove. We all trust what we cannot prove. You trust your academics and experts. We trust doctors, mechanics and others with skills and knowledge we don't possess personally or we don't have the time to exercise. Christians choose to trust God's Word. Not to the exclusion of rational thought, but yes as more reliable than any other source. Do you think your reasoning is more reliable than God's say so?



Remember please that if not a book of myths, then real talking serpents are somehow supposed to still exist and believers have to believe in a lot of supernatural phenomenon without any evidence whatsoever. Literalist Christians, it seems to me, have suspended rational judgement that has created in Christians a new Dark Age of thought and an Inquisitional attitude towards all other thinking. They no longer seek God and are true idol worshipers instead of the God seekers that Jesus wanted to see.


Supernatural phenomenon, but their very nature, have no [physical] evidence. Suppose (for the sake of argument) God created the world is six days. He spoke, it happened. Bang! Done. You arrive on day 7. You see plants and animals. You cut down a tree you count the rings. You talk to a pleasant young lady named Eve. What do you observe? Why this world has been here for years. Eve isn't an infant. Those oaks have been growing for decades. Etc. Logical assumption. But wrong.

Supernatural phenomenon can neither be proven nor disproven. So where are we left. With the written record. Do you think Moses thought all snakes talked? Then why did he recorded that this one did? Don't explain away the text. Listen to it. Do you think it would be impossible for God to do that? Do you think Mary didn't know where babies came from? Then why was she surprised when the angel told her (a virgin) she'd give birth? Listen to the text. It recognizes this is amazing, impossible, etc. But it happened.

As far as your attacks about Dark Ages and the Inquisition, I'll grant you that Christians are imperfect and some err in trying to force or enforce their beliefs. But is it really literal Christian thought that is speaking from the bully pulpit today? Is it really Christians who silence and expel those who dissent from their line of thought?

Again, you claim to believe the words of the Bible to be idolatry and contrary to what Jesus would want. If I can't believe the words of the Bible, how can I know what Jesus would want? But if I trust the Bible as God's account of his words and actions on behalf of the world what do I hear? Jesus said, "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you posses eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me" (John 5:39).

[Gnostic Bishop]

Um, GB, what exactly makes you think Ecurb is a Biblical literalist? I'll let him speak for himself, but I'm pretty sure he isn't even a Theist. Can't you address his points without the pre-fab spiel?

I began my reply with, ---- How shall I answer such?

That is because, being new here, I was not sure of his position.

That is why I just waxed eloquent.

Regards
DL

[Pompey Bum]

Uh huh. So now address his points.

[Gnostic Bishop]

You've given your opinion, but you have given no supporting evidence.

Opinions do not require evidence. They are opinions only. Not facts till agreed upon by those debating.


Why should I accept that you know the best way to understand and read the Bible?

You can either accept my way or offer yours.


Who can offer more than an opinion?

Exactly. That is because any discussions on God are speculative by nature as he is not here to confirm anything.


Or at least an authoritative opinion?

Consent and agreement is what give authority.


Why not look at the Bible itself? It was written over a period of 1500 years and its texts interact with one another to a degree that is unique in literature. How does the Bible treat the Bible? How did Jesus treat the Bible?

Have a good look at how your blood stained bible came to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lIm05YY00w

As to Jesus. Like the Rabbinic tradition shows, a Rabbi could overrule the written word of God so to say that Jesus respected the bible would be foolish.

Jesus indicated that the Sabbath was created for men and not men for the Sabbath. He and the Jews of the day would have thought the same about their religion. It was created to serve men and not men to serve it.


Well...that's a huge topic. It's not helped by the fact that the Bible contains many different genres of literature. There are historical accounts,

Almost nothing in scriptures is historically valid. A few place and people names would be about it.


poems and proverbs, letters, the proclamations of prophets (much like a sermon) and even apocalyptic visions. Even Jesus' own words contain direct statements, sermons, metaphors and parables. When Jesus refers to Herod as "that fox" it would be wrong to assume he means Herod has a bushy red tail and pointy ears. When Jesus starts a parable by saying "A certain man..." it would be wrong to focus on the man as a historical figure. The genre is a teaching tool, not a vehicle to convey historical facts. The same with the visions contained in apocalyptic sections.

No argument.


However, when the genre indicates that it is conveying history, then the Bible account should be be taken literally. So for the Pentateuch (Genesis through Deuteronomy), Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1&2 Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, etc. and the Gospels and Acts, the genre markers (verb tenses, grammatical features such as "it came to pass" etc.) tell us we are expected to treat these things as history and fact.

Then you would be quite foolish as Jews do not do so and they know that a dead Moses could not do his own writing. If Jews do not read their own myths literally then it is really foolish for Christians to do so.


Furthermore, that's how Jesus (and other Bible writers) treated them. Jesus quotes the Old Testament extensively. He refers to Moses as the author of the first five books. Was he too stupid to know that Moses was a myth (But he's all knowing God)?

An all knowing God would not have created Satan or the requirements for him to have his own son murdered now would he?


Was he just playing all with the mistakes of his age (But he never seemed shy about correcting and speaking the truth)? Or did Moses actually write them? He speaks of Jonah being in the belly of the fish three days, of Abraham, of Naaman the Syrian and on and on. Speaks of them as we would speak of George Washington and Richard the Lion-hearted--as we speak of historical figures --you know, real people.

Believe that your God is a genocidal son murderer who would punish and kill the first born of Egypt if you like.

That would make God quite the immoral prick but then that suits how he depicted. That is why Gnostic Christians have dubbed Yahweh a vile demiurge.


Does the Bible contain every detail of every event ever? No. "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples which are not recorded in this book.

Really? Like what?


But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" John 21:30,31.

Good. If the son of God and a God then Jesus cannot have died. I guess you missed that it is immoral for you to let some other pay for your sins. That is scripture.


Worshiping Jesus is built on history (or his story). It is built on know what he did (live, die and rise) and how that effects us (removes sins, stills Gods wrath). We don't need to "seek God" in the sense of hunt him down or ponder what he desires. He has revealed that is clear human language and has established a track record of his faithfulness, his justice and his compassion through his historical actions toward his special people (Biblical Israel) and toward the world.

Then settle for idol worship and do not seek God as your hero instructed you to do. You do not care to find God while you have your scapegoat Jesus to ride.


Who are you to judge God?

Who are you to ignore scriptures that tell you to judge God and his ways and keep the good while discarding the evil?


Not meant as an accusation or as an attack (although I know it sounds that way). But seriously, define yourself. What and who are you? Do you ever make mistakes? Get answers wrong on tests? Claim incorrect deductions on your taxes (honestly or maybe by pushing the limits a bit)? Do your thoughts ever flare up with derision? Lust? Selfish anger? And so on. We are (according to the Bible and according to honest experience) limited and flawed creatures.

I guess that you do not read the scriptures that say God creates all things perfect.

Why not and how do you decide how to read individual verses literally or not? Guess work is how it looks.



Who is God? According to his word "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in live and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness , rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children to the third and fourth generations" Exodus 34:6,7 He is holy, righteous, pure.

That is not the God of the end of days. That God has promised to burn and kill the vast majority of us in his lake of fire. I guess that part is not literal to you either. Or is it?


But I don't see it/I don't agree that his actions match the description. Yes, and...? Is it surprising that I don't grasp holiness? I struggle with calculus, should I be able to dictate what is fitting to Almighty God?

God has been shown to not be all-mighty. He cannot even reproduce true so man has that power that you defective God doe not have.


As for being close minded--where's the evidence? Could it be that people have considered your point of view and <gasp> rejected it? Found it not persuasive? In fact, isn't that the history of Gnosticism? That it claimed to follow Jesus, but never really did? That those who read its writing found them to contradict the writing of the apostles? That they were rejected not by a power play, but because of scholarship and intellectual honesty?

The evidence is in the Inquisition. Show an argument that shows that institution as opened minded please.


Really? Academics are afraid to research

I did not state such.


because some will disagree with their conclusions (or methods or preconceptions)? So what! If they have evidence it will stand on its own. You must be too young to remember when "scholars" all decided the Old Testament must have been written after the Exile, that there was no Conquest of Canaan, no King David even. And then, archaeology and other scientific discipline began to uncover inscriptions which correlated to this point and that point. All the academic "theories" had to change, but the literalists didn't. Does that mean that everything in the Bible is supported by extra-Biblical evidence. No. But I have yet to find any such evidence to the contrary to be convincing.

You lambaste "blind faith." What is faith? Trusting what you cannot prove. We all trust what we cannot prove. You trust your academics and experts. We trust doctors, mechanics and others with skills and knowledge we don't possess personally or we don't have the time to exercise. Christians choose to trust God's Word. Not to the exclusion of rational thought, but yes as more reliable than any other source. Do you think your reasoning is more reliable than God's say so?



Supernatural phenomenon, but their very nature, have no [physical] evidence. Suppose (for the sake of argument) God created the world is six days. He spoke, it happened. Bang! Done. You arrive on day 7. You see plants and animals. You cut down a tree you count the rings. You talk to a pleasant young lady named Eve. What do you observe? Why this world has been here for years. Eve isn't an infant. Those oaks have been growing for decades. Etc. Logical assumption. But wrong.

Supernatural phenomenon can neither be proven nor disproven. So where are we left. With the written record. Do you think Moses thought all snakes talked? Then why did he recorded that this one did? Don't explain away the text. Listen to it. Do you think it would be impossible for God to do that? Do you think Mary didn't know where babies came from? Then why was she surprised when the angel told her (a virgin) she'd give birth? Listen to the text. It recognizes this is amazing, impossible, etc. But it happened.

As far as your attacks about Dark Ages and the Inquisition, I'll grant you that Christians are imperfect and some err in trying to force or enforce their beliefs. But is it really literal Christian thought that is speaking from the bully pulpit today? Is it really Christians who silence and expel those who dissent from their line of thought?

Again, you claim to believe the words of the Bible to be idolatry and contrary to what Jesus would want. If I can't believe the words of the Bible, how can I know what Jesus would want? But if I trust the Bible as God's account of his words and actions on behalf of the world what do I hear? Jesus said, "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you posses eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me" (John 5:39).

Enough for now. You ramble like an old man listening to himself.

I think I have given you enough to have much toi listen to yourself some more as you answer.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

Uh huh. So now address his points.

I did not like how it was put and if our friend want another answer he can put it again in a clearer way.

Rambling about animal talk that does not relate is not of interest to me.

Regards
DL

[togre]

How shall I answer such?

Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.

Faith is a way to quit using, "God given" power of Reason and Logic, and cause the faithful to embrace doctrines that moral people reject.

The God of the OT says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18]

How can literalists reason with God when they must ignore reason and logic and discard them when turning into literalist?

Those who are literalists can only reply somewhat in the fashion that Martin Luther did.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

This attitude effectively kills all worthy communication that non-theists can have with theist. Faith closes the mind as it is pure idol worship.

Literalism is an evil practice that hides the true messages of myths. We cannot show our faith based friends that they are wrong through their faith colored glasses. Their faith also plugs their ears.

Regards
DL

Not to rehash things already covered, I'd like to respond to a few specific points.

1) Isaiah 1:18 is a very interesting passage. God rebukes man for his sin. God then offers to sit and mutually discuss this problem. Come, let us reason together...But is reason the rule to which God and man must both submit? No, read the entire passage "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool." God invites the discussion, but he proposes the solution. The only acceptable solution. And one that must be revealed, not discovered by reason.

"There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it lead to death." (Proverbs 14:12)
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14)
Reason alone can never find the truth. Corrupted by sin, all are stuck in unbelief, in spiritual ignorance and darkness...unless someone (God) should come and rescue them.


2) Your understanding of Luther is shallow. He indeed did condemn reason...when used in a magisterial role. Reason is not equipped to be the supreme arbiter of all that is right or wrong. Rather it is to serve in a ministerial role, as a servant. Reason submits to revelation, but exercises itself within those limits.

3) Are you concerned that your way of understanding and speaking is closing off communication to those who accept the Bible as historical? How come we all need to accept your way of viewing things if we want to be understood by others?

[Gnostic Bishop]

Not to rehash things already covered, I'd like to respond to a few specific points.

1) Isaiah 1:18 is a very interesting passage. God rebukes man for his sin. God then offers to sit and mutually discuss this problem. Come, let us reason together...But is reason the rule to which God and man must both submit? No, read the entire passage "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool." God invites the discussion, but he proposes the solution. The only acceptable solution. And one that must be revealed, not discovered by reason.

"There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it lead to death." (Proverbs 14:12)
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14)
Reason alone can never find the truth. Corrupted by sin, all are stuck in unbelief, in spiritual ignorance and darkness...unless someone (God) should come and rescue them.


2) Your understanding of Luther is shallow. He indeed did condemn reason...when used in a magisterial role. Reason is not equipped to be the supreme arbiter of all that is right or wrong. Rather it is to serve in a ministerial role, as a servant. Reason submits to revelation, but exercises itself within those limits.

3) Are you concerned that your way of understanding and speaking is closing off communication to those who accept the Bible as historical? How come we all need to accept your way of viewing things if we want to be understood by others?

You have no need to accept anything. But if you wish to use reason and logic to discuss things than I am here to do that.

If I need faith without facts for us to chat then I cannot.

How can I talk about morality for instance while you are talking of the morality of a real talking serpent?

If we were to discuss Eden that is. But I am sure you see my point.

How could we discuss the evil nature of your God if I were to read Job 2;3 And the LORD said unto Satan: 'Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a whole-hearted and an upright man, one that feareth God, and shunneth evil? and he still holdeth fast his integrity, although thou didst move Me against him, to destroy him without cause.' ----------------- as literal and you did not?

Could we really get anywhere under that condition? Not likely.

Regards
DL

[Pompey Bum]

I did not like how it was put and if our friend want another answer he can put it again in a clearer way.

Rambling about animal talk that does not relate is not of interest to me.

Regards
DL

Oh come, you sell yourself short. I have every confidence that you can respond to Ecurb's points in a rational way without having the convenient whipping boy of Biblical literalism to fall back on. You can use all this reason and logic you like to talk to others about. Just read his comments and use your own ideas. Not someone else's prescribed deas--yours. I believe in you . :)