Printable View
I do wish many of the Christians on the forum take a look at this documentary by a Christian theologian. Afterwards you'll realize that the book shouldn't be taken completely literally because of it's messy background. There is a good Christian message in this film so don't immediately accuse it as pro-athiest.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...73048178434620
i have never taken the bible literally, i am agnostic, but recognize various social truths inherant in the bible.
That's OK. You aren't supposed to. Mythology such as we see in many of the ancient texts of the world is important in order to explain the unexplainable, so to speak. The Scriptures, depending on which ones you are talking about, have had many hands in their completion, through initial composition, editing, revision and interpretation, so there is no one person to take full credit. And the Mythology of the Ancient Near East can be seen in the Hebrew Scriptures quite clearly. Remember, they were written by humans, and humans can only use what they have. Tales of heroic adventure, of men confronting the gods, of disasters and floods and all those exciting things can be seen throughout the literature of the ANE. It's on stone tablets, but it's there.
Marcus
Says who?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus
Everything you gentlemen have said is correct, true and reasonable - assuming that the Bible was created by human beings as a manifestation of their beliefs, ideas, etc. However: if we accept the premise that the Bible is what it says it is - the revelation of God's character, inspired by God - then much of this becomes merely academic speculation. I do not believe you can subject a holy text - the transcendant word of God - to scholarly criticism like a humanly created/inspired book. Once again, like the arguments about objective morality and creation - unless you accept that God is real and Who He says He is, then everything connected to Him (Bible, creation, objective morality, etc) becomes silly and subject to dismantling by secular critics. I understand I've just opened myself up to various degrees of hostility - but I think it odd that we parse up a book with little details like scribal errors, text inconsistencies, original vs. copies, blah blah blah - but we ignore what it says.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus
In terms of the "mythology" comment: the Bible (unlike mythology) references actual historical events. If you compare mythologies from around the world, you will see a clear difference between those stories and those in the Bible. There are clear differences. The situations may bear some similarities, but the characters are vastly different, as is the idea of who God is.
You probably didn't watch the documentary because you either don't have the time or you don't think it's worth your time.
The bible is a messy piece of literature and you speak of it as if the writers were the holiest of men and the historical facts are real. Do you understand how big of an influence politics had on the contents presented in todays bible? From hebrew to latin to english...from the removal of the book of mary ...to paul's propaganda presenting jesus as "a jewish savior" in order to convert jews into christianity... Constantine's filtering of what should be in the book. The list goes on and on.
Governments edited the bible to fit their standards so it's easier to run their nation. It's very similar to how ancient Greece used mythology to keep everyone on the same page. I wouldn't consider the bulk of the writers "inspired by God".
'Governments edited the bible ' ?????
You have no idea what my education is and what I've spent time studying. I've done plenty of reading on this subject. You imply that if I had read said documentary that my mind would be changed? You're kidding, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
I said nothing about "holiest of men" - I said the writers were inspired by God; the Bible references actual historical figures, times and events.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
As my last post said: I've heard all this stuff before and it's only convincing if you don't believe in God. If God isn't real, then the Bible is nothing but fairy tales, translation errors, yadda, yadda, yadda. But: if God is real, don't you think He who is described as omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent is capable of inspiring/creating a book to guide His followers with? And, that if He is capable of doing so, then He's also capable of making sure that - despite all the obstacles that you mention - that He still gets into print the vital information that the believer needs? These discussions over translations, copyist errors, political censoring, suppression of certain books and all that, seem to infer that God helplessly watches His Holy Word get sliced, censored and suppressed. Ridiculous. He who created the universe is perfectly capable of protecting His Word and making sure that - no matter what obstacles are placed in the way - what it ultimately contains is true and vital.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
Hence your misguided opinion on the veracity of the Bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
Sorry for questioning your knowledge, zeppelin. Just wanted to make sure you knew how messy the bible is, because your comments on this forum would never hint at it.
You rapped it up pretty well, but you have to admit that there are Christians that are completely unaware of the bible's background.
Just because we have no real historical basis for much of the Bible's events, and we don't, it still is a very valuable book and yes, Red, it IS the inspired word of God. But that word was handed down to humans who were limited in language at best, and could only put that which was so profound,so powerful, and so amazing into stories that everyone could understand.
I don't know what happened there. But getting back to my point, the fact that we are human means that we need to plod along through our academic exegesis and redaction in order to understand what it says, because, again, in our limited human state, that's all we have to work with.
But don't believe for a minute that after all the academics are done, and the books and critiques are all put away, that the real seekers of truth don't simply lift their eyes to Heaven and Praise Him who is unknowable and unexplainable, but totally accessible How many times did you have a brilliant revelation which you wished to share, and when you attempted to do so, no-one could understand it? So it probably was with the writers of scripture, and most definitely with the Prophets who most of the time said things that no-one wanted to hear. Keep the dialogue going, and I will certainly neutralize any hostility that might evolve from outside sources. Everyone has a piece to the puzzle. Getting together to complete it is called community.
Shalom,
Marcus
I am with Hyperborean here (although I didn't watch the documentary) and I can see nothing wrong in looking at the Bible in its historical, political and indeed translatory context. We not only have translations from Hebrew and Greek into Latin but also into any other modern language conducted by different people in different times. Of course this will have an influence. Language develops and every translation is also an interpretation. It can be weaker or stronger than the original.
I also find it odd that meaning should entirely depend on belief or faith. I personally don't belief in God but I find the Bible quite interesting, helpful and (sometimes) even inspiring because it contains a lot of truth that are worth to be internalised even if you do not happen to be a Christian. This not only applies to the Bible. I don't belief in the existence of the Greek gods either but there is a hell of a lot of knowledge and understanding to be gained from Greek mythology. However, what I don't understand (perhaps someone can explain) is this reluctance or aversion to scrutinise the basics of one's belief, faith or convictions. If faith is strong enough wouldn't it hold up to any form of scrutiny? Do I not have to look at my faith critically in order to find out where I unwittingly intermingle faith with prejudice or subjective or even instrumentalised interpretation? ( which, in essence, can be seen as Luther's original conflict) Even if a person decides to take something literally interpretation creeps in through the backdoor: some things seem more important than others, is God more wrathful or punishing than saving ? etc.
Who wrote the Bible?
interesting...
According to Islam, the Bible was God's words revealed for Jesus,pbuh,.It was purely God's words. But then with the passing of years and through the history ,a lot of additions were added by people and mixed with God's words.
I have a question and wish someone to answer me,please..
Do Christians differntiate between God's words and human writings in the Bible?I mean how can they tell the difference?
Do they consider the additions of people in the Bilbe as holy as God's words?
thanks alot:)
As far as I know the earliest Gospel is Mark's (66-74 AD or shortly thereafter), Luke around 80 AD and Matthew around 85 AD (difficult to say of course). Not much is known of the author of the forth Gospel but it is believed that it was written around 100 AD near Ephesus. It is quite clear that the authors give their accounts, it is their words and tellings intermingled with bits and pieces apparently said by Jesus. Old testament is older of course and contains the Ten Commandmends (considered to have come directly from God) and accounts given by the prophets. Revelation (Apocalypse) is believed to have been written 94/95 AD in Patmos.
'Do Christians differntiate between God's words and human writings in the Bible?I mean how can they tell the difference?
Do they consider the additions of people in the Bilbe as holy as God's words?'
Reformers removed what they believed were apocryphal texts but these can still be found in some traditions. Whether there is scope for further removal or addition I am not in a position to say. It is unlikely that any whole books could be found now which are either merely human accretions or are hitherto undiscovered texts. However as varied translators and theologians are constantly discovering there are problematic bits within some of the books. I myself have a problem with the beginning and end of the Book of Job - but this may just be me. I am not a Biblolator and believe that God is too big to be revealed only through this anthology of texts. Nonetheless it is the only text that I read daily. I hope this comment is of a little general help to you.
Hi Ennison, this reminds me: Our new bible which my kids received at their christening does not contain the apocryphal texts (i.e. Judith etc.) whereas my old Luther Bible of 1933 does. There are also differences in English Bibles (James I. Bible etc.) and if I need translations of psalms etc. I always go through the best known versions in order to find the ones which seem most appropriate and are as closest to Luther's language style (which, of all German translations, is still the most popular).