[Closed] Anyone read the Bible?

Apparently they found the missing page...

Meehaja, I think ministers of any denomination would be happy to answer any questions you had. Most would have at least a degree in theology and so would be used to asking tough questions of the Bible and Christianity. And if one did get huffy with you, you could always go to another one! I've just been discussing theology over a couple of pints of cider at the pub with a guy who's new to it all.

Can you give me an example?

A woman underwent parthenogenesis?

Meehaja, I think ministers of any denomination would be happy to answer any questions you had.

The best bit is if you don't like the answer you can always try asking somebody else till you find one who agrees with you 🙂

That's a little unfair, as with any issue your always going to get differing views among groups of people, but most mainstream denominations believe the same basic things. Bear in mind that in the media you only see the most extreme of any religion. I'd like to think that the people in my church consider love to be the most important thing about following Christ, although some of them do seem to think that I'm a wishy washy liberal!

how well priests/vicars/ministers will take to some of my questions

If they take it badly, you've found the wrong church.

I was brought up in "Baptist fire n brimstone" circles and have read quite a lot of it as a result. I now class myself as spiritual rather than religious, but would love to find out about other religions, would start with Buddhism. I can't really get my head round the fact that the bible is such a translated text now, I don't see how it can possibly be accurate, compared to what was there in the beginning...whatever that was!

Tried to read it once, got about half way through genesis and still trying to figure it out, other, just the stories you get at school.

If they take it badly, you've found the wrong church.

Definitely!

I don't see how it can possibly be accurate, compared to what was there in the beginning...whatever that was!

But that's the fun bit - as a historical document, a collection of the oral traditions of loads of different tribes, it's fascinating. Besides, unless you can read Aramaic, you'll struggle with the original - if there even was an original.

I've read it - I've got a 1803 big family bible that's got lots of footnotes which are fascinating.

Don't believe a word of it, of course...

It's actually quite interesting looking at how the Bible has changed through translation - yes, there are some inaccuracies in most translations, but the book as a whole has survived with an incredible degree of overall accuracy.

The Dead Sea Scrolls (972 texts discovered between 1946-56 (thanks Google)) had been sat in a cave untouched for absolutely agees, and then when they were found and compared to current texts they were astonishingly true to each other.

It shows that although there have been some changes, little bits added in here and there by people who thought they should be able to allowed to add in their own wee passages (eg 1 John 5 v 7,8 "in heaven...on earth:" was added in as it helped to give 'proof' that the Trinity idea was correct), which in very essence is against what the Bible itself says in Revelation 22 v 18,19 that whoever adds to or takes away from the Bible will be subject to punishment of some form.

A really interesting book to read; I personally believe it's true and that God does exist, and I can accept that some people don't as well. But please, please don't argue someone who believes in the Bible without reading it first, as that's just a pointless argument. And try and read the whole thing, don't pick and choose, as the New Testament makes no sense without the Old and vice-versa.

whoever adds to or takes away from the Bible will be subject to punishment of some form.

All religious texts have something similar - it's a clever form of error correction, stops the text being edited or manipulated later.

But please, please don't argue someone who believes in the Bible without reading it first, as that's just a pointless argument.

Not quite sure what you're saying with this - are you saying I can't say the bible is wrong without reading it first?

Not quite sure what you're saying with this - are you saying I can't say the bible is wrong without reading it first?

Exactly. You can't say Shakespeare's plays are rubbish without reading them, much in the same way you can't say the Bible's rubbish without reading it.

are you saying I can't say the bible is wrong without reading it first?

You can if you like, but it would be far more credible/effective if you read it first.

I thought the Bible was written in Hebrew (part one) and Greek (the sequel) ? Mind you I guess that involves buying into the circular argument that Moses wrote part one.

It was, yerp. OT in Heb, NT in Greek.

I read bits of it when I was a kid - I grew up in a very religious (and dry) town in NZ that has loads of churches, mostly fundamentalist, and as part of my parents Free Babysitting campaign I went to most of them for Sunday School. Although my dad who claimed to be an atheist did stop me going to the Catholic church with my latest wee friend. That was when I found out that what I really am is a Protestant Atheist, a very Scots thing.

Not quite sure what you're saying with this - are you saying I can't say the bible is wrong without reading it first?

Exactly. You can't say Shakespeare's plays are rubbish without reading them, much in the same way you can't say the Bible's rubbish without reading it.

That's not really how it works though. Your starting point shouldn't be "it's all true", it should be up to those who believe in it to demonstrate that it's not rubbish, including all the contradictory parts.

Exactly. You can't say Shakespeare's plays are rubbish without reading them, much in the same way you can't say the Bible's rubbish without reading it.

It's possible to take general ideas from the Bible without reading it - for example before reading it I already knew that the Bible says the world was created in 4004 BC. Which is simply wrong.

This is why theology is bunk. It's a fascinating sociological and historical document, but arguing about it as if it was true makes as much sense as arguing about the truths in Alice in Wonderland.

Depends I have the synopisis of the mythical being that made us all in his image - formthat I know it is many things butaccurate description of reality is not one.

Can i have a 200 page contradictory tomb made about aethism and ask that you dont comment unless you read that

It is obvious that we need to be informed to discuss an issue but to have read it all - I imagine most believers [ in thecensus sense*] have not done that

* fell into it because my folks made me brigade but dont really go to church

FWIW I have not read all of Mein Kampf but I am aware of his narrative- can i hold a view yet { does this become a goodwin - do i win a prize?]. I think we all get your broad point but, like the book, you have overstated it somewhat.
Not doing this again so soon after the last
Be excellent to each other etc

Moses' death is recorded at the end of Deuteronomy, so he obviously didn't write the whole of the old testament as he couldn't record his own death. Also this is just before the children of Israel enter into Canaan, and a whole lineage of kings and judges including David and Solomon ruled over them before they were put into captivity by quite a few different nations. This spans a huge period of time, so Moses couldn't possibly have lived to document it all. I believe that the Bible was written by loads of different writers, but as all of the books seem to agree even though some writers didn't have the other books to hand, there must be one constant; I believe that all of the writers wrote by inspiration from God. 2 Timothy 3 v 16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..."

I already knew that the Bible says the world was created in 4004 BC. Which is simply wrong.

Where's the passage that says the world was created in 4004 BC?

Also, why would that not be feasible?

but as all of the books seem to agree even though some writers didn't have the other books to hand, there must be one constant

Errm

"thou shall not kill"

One of the ten commandments, Exodus 20 I believe

22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23And if any mischief follow, then [b]thou shalt give life for life,[/b]

Exodus 21, King James Bible

Your definition of the word "agree" is not one that I recognise.

Where's the passage that says the world was created in 4004 BC?

I thought it had been calculated? Whatever, this is my point, the exact date doesn't matter.

Also, why would that not be feasible?

Seriously? It's not feasible because of the immense quantity of evidence - fossils, radioactive decay, astronomical observations, etc etc etc

I read the copy my godmother gave me when I was sectioned, it didn't do anything for me apart from pass some time (which I suppose was a huge help in some way)

I wouldn't read it again or entertain the thought of there being a god, that being said my opinion may well be completely wrong.

I don't think anybody is saying that if you read the Bible you have to take it as literal fact. Well, nobody sane anyway.

of course not - its the word of god - it says so in it but it is not LITERALLY the word of god - can we make this any clearer for you?

I believe that the Bible was written by loads of different writers, but as all of the books seem to agree even though some writers didn't have the other books to hand,

Where's the passage that says the world was created in 4004 BC?

Also, why would that not be feasible?

why would that not be feasible

Pe eye for an eye tooth for a tooth
you might want to note god killing every thing that was not in the arc as well, there is more but i cannot be bothered listing it

Seriously? It's not feasible because of the immense quantity of evidence - fossils, radioactive decay, astronomical observations, etc etc etc

I believe the Bible is true, and that includes creation. It also includes the famous flood when Noah was around, and the huge forces that would come into play with the whole world being covered in water over just 40 days would really churn up the soil layers and muck up the dating systems used currently. I'm not sure what astronomical observations you're on about, any examples would be useful.

I've read chunks of it- found the old testament too hard going in places, some bits read more like horse breeding than religion. Was raised kinda-christian but that all focused on the new testament (I think because it's an easier sell)

gonefishin - Member

"thou shall not kill"

Murder is generally held to be a closer translation than kill- the hebrew version needs a bit of interpretation, I'm told it means more or less "don't shed innocent blood". Not sure how much of this made it across to the christian bible though.

It was written by dinosaurs in an attempt to confuse the shit out of whoever/whatever followed their reign.

Duh...

bencooper - your 'Whatever' proves poltheball's point, you're relying on other people's opinions to form your own. The Bible doesn't say anywhere when the world was created and if you'd taken the time to read it you'd know that for yourself. The two different creation stories in Genesis are not supposed to be taken literally, if you understand the context in which they were written, and the purpose for which they were written, then reducing them to ancient scientific theories is to seriously devalue them.

gonefishin - The Biblical rules on justice attempt to restrain the human desire for punishment to become revenge. Humans left to themselves strive for revenge, and so punishment becomes over the top. Take the practice of necklacing fas an extreme example, a person accused of a sometimes fairly petty crime has a tyre forced down over them and is then set alight. The book of Exodus is ostensibly about the formation of a new religious community which is supposed to stand apart ethically from it's pagan neighbours, and so Yahweh insists that punishment is fair and not excessive. I've just preached my way through Exodus, so if you want to listen to some of the sermons log onto www.sherbornebaptist.co.uk

I'm not sure what astronomical observations you're on about, any examples would be useful.

Okay, here's some examples:

We can measure the distance to other stars and galaxies pretty accurately. From this, was can tell that they are so far away that it takes thousands or millions of years for even the light from those stars to get to us.

We know how stars work - we understand a lot about the nuclear physics that allow a star to "burn" hydrogen and increasingly heavy elements, and so we can calculate how old stars (including our own sun) are.

We have studied the surface of the Moon, Mars and other planets in great detail - their surface conditions, their atmospheres, their temperatures and the gases in the air. We know that the erosion features seen on Mars must have formed billions of years ago, and the same goes for the Moon.

Now you could deny all this - you could say that physics is wrong. But to do so while using a computer that relies on quantum electrodynamics to work is ridiculous.

bencooper - your 'Whatever' proves poltheball's point, you're relying on other people's opinions to form your own. The Bible doesn't say anywhere when the world was created and if you'd taken the time to read it you'd know that for yourself. The two different creation stories in Genesis are not supposed to be taken literally, if you understand the context in which they were written, and the purpose for which they were written, then reducing them to ancient scientific theories is to seriously devalue them.

So if Genesis isn't supposed to be taken literally, then it's not true. Which is exactly what I'm saying.

The two different creation stories in Genesis are not supposed to be taken literally

Maybe someone one should produce a reprint with only the bits that are meant to be taken literally. That would save a lot of problems.

Cormorants for instance. Should I literally not eat them, or is it an allegory?

I'm not sure what astronomical observations you're on about, any examples would be useful.

It's a very effective method of controlling the masses, same as any religious 'text'.

Now you could deny all this - you could say that physics is wrong. But to do so while using a computer that relies on quantum electrodynamics to work is ridiculous.

Biblical top trumps. Quantum Electrodynamics beats god on logic.... And everything else.

OT >>> NT

I thought the NT was a grouping of texts written by several different authors, and grouped together after a vote to see what was included?

over just 40 days would really churn up the soil layers and muck up the dating systems used currently

Winner! Winner! chicken dinner!

Of course a great and all powerful being could have created the universe as was, only 6000 years ago 🙂

The two different creation stories in Genesis are not supposed to be taken literally

I keep hearing this, and I think it's sneaky.

Our 21st Century brains (mostly*) look at the biblical account of creation and go "well, that's clearly bonkers, it must be allegorical and not intended to be taken literally." But isn't this just a modern retro-fit? It was surely intended to be taken literally, it was an explanation of how the world worked, before we had any idea of how the world worked.

(* - American Fundie Creationists aside)

Also I'm meant to hate little owls. If the bible is about love, why is it preaching hatred of cute little owls.

There's something pretty messed up about a text that wants me to hate this -
[img] [/img]

everything orbits us as it says on the bible

What? Making a point like that requires evidence; let me know which passage you got that one from..

Looking at how long light takes to reach us to date it is a very logical way to date the universe, but if God created it all as I believe he did, then he also created physics, so could bend the rules with his power to put light where and when he wanted it (Gen 1 v 3 "Let there be light, and there was light"). This seems like a really pathetic argument, but as it says in Matthew 19 v 26, "With God all things are possible".

STW in puny human minds attempt to rationalise the (non) existence of God shocker. 😯

I have a few questions, and things I would like to discuss, but not sure which sort of church to go to (Choice of many) and how well priests/vicars/ministers will take to some of my questions which may come across a little naice and/or rude?

Let me save you some time.

"God moves in mysterious ways."

I believe the Bible is true, and that includes creation. It also includes the famous flood when Noah was around, and the huge forces that would come into play with the whole world being covered in water over just 40 days would really churn up the soil layers and muck up the dating systems used currently. I'm not sure what astronomical observations you're on about, any examples would be useful.

Well I'm out, been there before with someone who was convinced there was an arc. He quoted massively dodgy contexts of how such a boat could exist.

Didn't you study physics A level?