This is topic Bible is a Perfect Text and Accurate History in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=049912
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
I hesitate to put this on Hatrack because I can see the responses get very heated and go beyond my intention. To be direct, what is your reaction to this statement? How true is this?

I have done some minor research and don't believe this at all. On the other hand, I have heard this stated as fact so many times that it is driving me up the wall. And that isn't from just literalists, but people who I think should know better. The problem is, if you say it isn't than you are seen as anti-Bible or anti-religious. I believe in God and I believe the Bible contains the Word of God. I just don't believe it is "a perfect text and accurate history." That is the main reason for my hesitation.

This isn't about "I hate God," but rather wanting a better response to those who imply that scientists and historians have pretty much given the Bible a thumbs up. The only ones who seem to challenge the perfection of the Bible and its history are athiests. I guess a related question is if you have to believe this about the Bible in order to be a believing Christian?

Just for a minor background detail, this comes up whenever I read about my own religion. It is always used to prove the superiority of their version of faith and the inferior version of my own.

[ September 01, 2007, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
 
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I saw a facinating documentary about all the things that were cut or edited from the bible.
I don't think any text is perfect and accurate as long as peopel can get their hands on it and alter it to suit their purposes.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
To be direct, what is your reaction to this statement? How true is this?
The Bible was a work penned by man.
It rebelled.
It evolved.
There are many copies.
They make no sense.
They offer internally inconsistent contradictions.
Same copies are taught differently by everyone.
Some things are read literally by some people.
Some things are read figuratively by some people.
Some things are translated by the word.
Other things are not translated literally.
Some explicit statements are handled explicitly.
Some explicit statements are tacitly ignored.
Different Christian factions have vastly different ways of doing this.
Different Christian factions translate this perfect text differently.

There is absolutely nothing in the Bible which has not ended up being a matter of interpretation.

This includes the big things, like the nature of god, creation, life, the universe, everything, jesus.

The bible is only as perfect a text as we could write it. The bible is only as accurate a history as we can inerrantly interpret it. That is to say, not very. The bible as a perfect text that exists to be inerrantly interpret does not exist anymore even if at one point there was a perfect version created by beings endowed with the perfect truth in the perfect language by which this truth was endowed.

There is way way way way way too much wrong with the notion.
 
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
Here are some comments I wouldn't mind a response to. They are very common:

quote:
The only places in the Bible that disagrees with science is were it is deemed a miracle by God
quote:
Actually the Old Testament has had the strictest rules ever in its copying than any other ancient text. Priests had to follow rules like they could not copy whole words at a time they had to copy each individual letter so each word was a pain from small words and bigger words; spacing had to be exact in margins between lines, centering, and outside margins; and if there were more than 3 errors in the WHOLE copied document it was burned. That is just a few examples of how strict the copying of the Old Testament was, as you can see there was no room of error.

As for the New Testament, original manuscrips and texts are around, science proves dates and handwriting to be valid. On top of that each translation has been scrutinized and all can be traced back to the original Greek language, it is a statistic that each translation on average does not have more than 15 errors.
quote:
If the Bible was appealing to the people in a political or cultural way then the message would have to shift to accommodate each of those political or cultural agendas.
quote:
"There is no evidence of a global flood at the time the bible claims (or really any time, in fact) and not only that but Egypt was flourishing long before this "flood" and nothing ever interrupted it."

Bull. There is plenty of evidence, even non-christian scientists agree. Read some magazines now and again.
These quotes come from here, but they are representative of many arguments I have seen and heard.
 
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
 
"The Bible was a work penned by man.
It rebelled.
It evolved.
There are many copies.
They make no sense"

You're going to make me die of laughter, you jerk! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
The Bible is clearly not perfect considering that even the first two chapters of Genesis (the two creations) are contradictory.

EDIT: Even if you dispute the idea that the two creations are contradictory it is impossible to avoid the fact that they contain many events that are impossible (Adam naming the millions of species on earth in under a day).

[ September 01, 2007, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Threads ]
 
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
 
There's also some universal similarities between several different creation stories from across the globe.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Bible is a Perfext Text and Accurate History
quote:
To be direct, what is your reaction to this statement?
My reaction is that somebody didn't use a spell checker. [Wink]
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
While I agree the Bible certainly has mistakes, some ranging form trivial to fundamentally wrong, I think it's a greater mistake to think that God was powerless to do anything, and that the Bible has become some crazy compendium of thoughts retaining about 1-5% of it's original intent.

Christians should not underestimate God's efforts in creating the book.
 
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
 
On the topic of Genesis, that brings up something that's been on my mind. Is it possible for the first two chapters to co-exist? To be more specific, I mean do literalists believe that both of the first two chapters occurred?

I was always taught that there was a huge gap in time between the writing of the chapters; and one of them (the first I believe?) was newer because it explained a lot more about creation, and gave women and animals a more significant role. That is to say, having the two differing chapters was meant to better explain different aspects of creation to Christians. And while that makes perfect sense to me, it just always seemed in my head that you'd have to not read the Bible literally in order to side with that interpretation.

Does anyone know if it is widely believed that both chapters of Genesis occurred historically? Perhaps I'm missing something....I hope I wasn't too confusing in my question >_<
 
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Occasional:
Here are some comments I wouldn't mind a response to. They are very common:

quote:
The only places in the Bible that disagrees with science is were it is deemed a miracle by God
quote:
Actually the Old Testament has had the strictest rules ever in its copying ...
[yadda yadda]
That is just a few examples of how strict the copying of the Old Testament was, as you can see there was no room of error.
Isn't pi=3 somewhere in the Bible?

Also, the middle letter in the entire Pentateuch or Torah text was noted in ancient times and in modern times. It's not the same letter, therefore some errors crept in despite the efforts to avoid them. So it's not a perfect text, not even the first five books are perfect.

Sorry, no linkage.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Isn't pi=3 somewhere in the Bible?
Perhaps. But it's well within the realm of a rounding error, so I consider that particular "inaccuracy" one of the cheapest shots against Biblical literalism that someone can make. The instant I hear it, I realize I'm dealing with someone either unfamiliar with the material or really, really unreasonable.

What's amusing to me is the number of Biblical literalists who are themselves so unreasonable that, rather than shrugging it off as a simple issue of significant digits, they've come up with an explanation that includes the thickness of the container in question and thus the difference between its inside and outside edges.
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Occasional:
The only ones who seem to challenge the perfection of the Bible and its history are athiests. I guess a related question is if you have to believe this about the Bible in order to be a believing Christian?

I don't know what flavor of Christians you've been hanging around, but the idea that the Bible is a textually inerrent history book isn't current in any of the Christian groups that I hang around. Those would be mostly mainline protestant and some Roman Catholic circles. Both theological seminary and local church.
 
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
I hope dkw is right, but it seems like I always run into the literalists. Maybe they are just louder.

It's been known for over 3000 years that pi is not an integer. I don't consider that a cheap shot nor unreasonable against biblical literalists, perfectionists and infalliblists. And certainly not against the specific assertion that it never contradicts science.

The verse is I Kings 7,23, btw:

quote:
23 Now he [Hiram] made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and thirty cubits in circumference.


[ September 01, 2007, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
 
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Even Biblical literalists don't really take the Bible literally. Like when Christ says if thine eye offend thee then pluck it out, they interpret that metaphorically. There's a whole lot of metaphor in the Bible, and even if one considered some version of it to be perfect word for word as God intended in English then there would still be a lot to discuss when deciding which parts were metaphorical and how we are to understand them.

Literalism is an important part of fundamentalism, the idea that nothing is ever supposed to change, and it puzzles me. I consider that impulse to be one of fear more than anything else.

Mormons believe in continuing revelation, and in eternal progression, so we embrace change. We consider that people are able to learn more and more as they progress, milk before meat, line upon line and precept upon precept. I like that about the beliefs of the LDS.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Right. See how the unit of measurement there is the cubit? We're dealing with one significant digit, there; we're not talking about tenths of a cubit in any other dimension, so I think it's unreasonable for them to be accusing the Bible of inaccuracy here.
 
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
Tom, I see your point about significant digits, but 31 cubits would be more correct than 30 without invoking fractional cubits. And this is Solomon's Temple the text is talking about, so some precision is not too much to ask.

Pure speculation: it is Hiram, "the Widow's Son" mentioned in the verse, beloved of Masons who believe in esoterica. So perhaps it is an intentional error with meaning to those with hidden knowledge?
 
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
 
When I stopped taking the Bible so seriously, my faith grew much stronger.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dkw:
quote:
Originally posted by Occasional:
The only ones who seem to challenge the perfection of the Bible and its history are athiests. I guess a related question is if you have to believe this about the Bible in order to be a believing Christian?

I don't know what flavor of Christians you've been hanging around, but the idea that the Bible is a textually inerrent history book isn't current in any of the Christian groups that I hang around. Those would be mostly mainline protestant and some Roman Catholic circles. Both theological seminary and local church.
Same goes for me. As a matter of fact, pretty much the only place I ever hear an argument for biblical literalism is here.
 
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 0Megabyte:
"The Bible was a work penned by man.
It rebelled.
It evolved.
There are many copies.
They make no sense"

You're going to make me die of laughter, you jerk! [Big Grin]
Yeah, I was totally expecting that post to turn into the intro to The Terminator.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Threads:
The Bible is clearly not perfect considering that even the first two chapters of Genesis (the two creations) are contradictory.

EDIT: Even if you dispute the idea that the two creations are contradictory it is impossible to avoid the fact that they contain many events that are impossible (Adam naming the millions of species on earth in under a day).
They are not contradictory, and it doesn't say that he named them all in a day.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Morbo:
I hope dkw is right, but it seems like I always run into the literalists. Maybe they are just louder.

It's been known for over 3000 years that pi is not an integer. I don't consider that a cheap shot nor unreasonable against biblical literalists, perfectionists and infalliblists. And certainly not against the specific assertion that it never contradicts science.

The verse is I Kings 7,23, btw:

quote:
23 Now he [Hiram] made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and thirty cubits in circumference.
That's just silly. You're assuming that this object had a thickness of 0. If it was 30 in circumference and 10 across, that means that means the walls were .7 cubits thick. With a cubit being about 18 inches (let's say), that's a little over 12.5 inches.

This is exactly the kind of criticisms that are so often leveled against the Bible:

1. Make a lame assumption.
2. Show that the Bible makes no sense based on that lame assumption.
3. Conclude that the Bible makes no sense.

Lovely.

So. Is the Bible a perfect text? Depends what you mean? Does it read the way a 21st century would write it? No. Is it self-contradictory? Only by design in order to communicate information in a concise way. The fact that you don't know how something is to be read doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense.

As far as it being an accurate history, what do you mean by that? Do you mean an objective, complete history, where all events are given equal importance? No, of course not. But then, who ever claimed otherwise? It's a didactic history, and tells what it tells in such a way as to teach certain ideas. Events that would teach incorrect ideas aren't included. That's not the way we'd write a history book, but that's not the purpose of the Bible.

Note, please, that I'm referring to the Tanach. The 24 books that Jews call the Bible. I have nothing to say about the Christian additions.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Isn't pi=3 somewhere in the Bible?
Perhaps. But it's well within the realm of a rounding error, so I consider that particular "inaccuracy" one of the cheapest shots against Biblical literalism that someone can make. The instant I hear it, I realize I'm dealing with someone either unfamiliar with the material or really, really unreasonable.

What's amusing to me is the number of Biblical literalists who are themselves so unreasonable that, rather than shrugging it off as a simple issue of significant digits, they've come up with an explanation that includes the thickness of the container in question and thus the difference between its inside and outside edges.
Why is that unreasonable? It seems obvious to me.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Saephon:
On the topic of Genesis, that brings up something that's been on my mind. Is it possible for the first two chapters to co-exist? To be more specific, I mean do literalists believe that both of the first two chapters occurred?
Yes.
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Threads:
The Bible is clearly not perfect considering that even the first two chapters of Genesis (the two creations) are contradictory.

EDIT: Even if you dispute the idea that the two creations are contradictory it is impossible to avoid the fact that they contain many events that are impossible (Adam naming the millions of species on earth in under a day).
They are not contradictory, and it doesn't say that he named them all in a day.
quote:
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Ok, you're right in that it doesn't specify how long it took Adam to name them, however you still chose to ignore the real issue. How did Adam have enough time to name millions of species?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Why is that unreasonable? It seems obvious to me.
Because the precise thickness of the container, or even its precise dimensions, is largely irrelevant to the story being told. Shorting its span by a cubit, all things considered, isn't something that's worth wasting any thought on. It's one of those questions that will forever not matter in the least.
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
This is exactly the kind of criticisms that are so often leveled against the Bible:

1. Make a lame assumption.
2. Show that the Bible makes no sense based on that lame assumption.
3. Conclude that the Bible makes no sense.
A blanket statement like that is just asking for trouble. Is it a "lame assumption" to say that the Bible cannot be taken literally because its creation story is wrong beyond any reasonable doubt?
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
In that case, why bother with the circumference at all? If the writer had not been mathematically ignorant, he'd have realised that one of the two numbers is sufficient.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Threads:
Ok, you're right in that it doesn't specify how long it took Adam to name them, however you still chose to ignore the real issue. How did Adam have enough time to name millions of species?
For one thing, Adam lived to be 930 years old. For another, how did God create the world? For yet another, how many species were there at the time? You assume there were millions. Why?

There are theories that species evolve not by random mutations, but rather that the genome includes the potential for massive variations and that environmental cues can be responsible for what appears to be speciation. Who knows? But at least recognize that your question is predicated on an assumption that you can't substantiate.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
In that case, why bother with the circumference at all? If the writer had not been mathematically ignorant, he'd have realised that one of the two numbers is sufficient.
But that's not true. He could have given the diameter and the thickness, or he could have given the circumference and the thickness, or he could, as he did, have given the diameter and the circumference.

In a math textbook, where walls are infinitely thin, you can get one value from the second. But in the real world, you need two of the three to get the third.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Why is that unreasonable? It seems obvious to me.
Because the precise thickness of the container, or even its precise dimensions, is largely irrelevant to the story being told. Shorting its span by a cubit, all things considered, isn't something that's worth wasting any thought on. It's one of those questions that will forever not matter in the least.
<shrug> To you.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
In that case, why bother with the circumference at all? If the writer had not been mathematically ignorant, he'd have realised that one of the two numbers is sufficient.
But that's not true. He could have given the diameter and the thickness, or he could have given the circumference and the thickness, or he could, as he did, have given the diameter and the circumference.

In a math textbook, where walls are infinitely thin, you can get one value from the second. But in the real world, you need two of the three to get the third.
Yes, but I was responding to Tom's suggestion that the thickness is not very interesting. But since you seem to be posting again, how about some response to my varves in the young-earth thread? You know, the one where you asked for evidence of an old earth and then completely ignored what you got?
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Threads:
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
This is exactly the kind of criticisms that are so often leveled against the Bible:

1. Make a lame assumption.
2. Show that the Bible makes no sense based on that lame assumption.
3. Conclude that the Bible makes no sense.
A blanket statement like that is just asking for trouble. Is it a "lame assumption" to say that the Bible cannot be taken literally because its creation story is wrong beyond any reasonable doubt?
Non sequitur. You say it's wrong beyond any reasonable doubt. But (a) that's not what I was referring to, and (b) I disagree.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
Yes, but I was responding to Tom's suggestion that the thickness is not very interesting. But since you seem to be posting again, how about some response to my varves in the young-earth thread? You know, the one where you asked for evidence of an old earth and then completely ignored what you got?
I'll go look. I generally skip over your posts. I actually only read this one because I'd scrolled down and didn't see it was you. Don't take it the wrong way, but you irk me, and replying to you tends to get me in trouble.

Seeya over on the young earth thread.
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
As someone who just spent two years talking to tens of different people a day about their belief in the Bible, my experience has been that very, very few Christians (who made up the vast majority of those I talked to, especially when it comes to people that had any belief in any part of the Bible) took a literal stance. Most of those who did were Born Again Christians in the non-denominational range. There were a few members of the Assembly of God faith who believed that way, but not many.

Personally I'm not a Bible literalist, I recognize errors and corruptions exist in the text; however I'm always a little miffed at the idea that the Bible is obviously so full of error and contradiction and internal inconsistencies. I've heard a lot of people say it, but very few people actually show any evidence. Certainly I think it would be easy to find inconsistencies if one decided to read the text in such a way as to generate them, but I hardly find that convincing. In terms of errors, I'm not aware of any serious ones. There's the kind that Morbo is talking about which I agree with both Tom and Lisa on (talk about internal inconsistencies!) And then there's historical problems which basically comes down to which record you trust. Obviously it would be impossible in the world as we understand it for Joshua to make the Sun stand still in the sky, or for the world to appear out of chaos by the Word of God and then populate itself based on His pattern, but I think we we've established a belief in the Bible at all (meaning we're participating in a discussion about how literally to take it) I think we've established were working within the dictates of a faith and a world view that does believe that can happen. At least I'm not sure I really would define the view some have as the Bible as inspiring, but not actually true stories as belief in the Bible. But to each his own.

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
quote:
[Do] you have to believe this about the Bible in order to be a believing Christian?
Perhaps some specific denomination with which I'm not framilar will require this, but "Christian" in general, no.


quote:
The only places in the Bible that disagrees with science is were it is deemed a miracle by God
I suppose if you define "miracle" as "act of God" (which isn't a toally unreasonable defenition) then, yes. Since the Bible isbasically an account of how God has dealt with His people... I'm not sure I'd make such a statement since it's almost meaningless, the whole thing is about a continuious series of miracles. It's like saying a baseball stat book is always in agreement with the MLB except when it comes to pitching and hitting. The context of statements like that normally makes the statment mean something like: "the history recorded in the Bible in terms of major charecters and world events correlates with archeology and other research" in which case I'd have to admitt that I know little in that arena, but I doubt it.

quote:
Actually the Old Testament has had the strictest rules ever in its copying than any other ancient text. Priests had to follow rules like they could not copy whole words at a time they had to copy each individual letter so each word was a pain from small words and bigger words; spacing had to be exact in margins between lines, centering, and outside margins; and if there were more than 3 errors in the WHOLE copied document it was burned. That is just a few examples of how strict the copying of the Old Testament was, as you can see there was no room of error.

As for the New Testament, original manuscrips and texts are around, science proves dates and handwriting to be valid. On top of that each translation has been scrutinized and all can be traced back to the original Greek language, it is a statistic that each translation on average does not have more than 15 errors.
If we were on the gong show I could've played "Mary Had a Little Lamb" to that one.

quote:
If the Bible was appealing to the people in a political or cultural way then the message would have to shift to accommodate each of those political or cultural agendas.
I don't even know what that one means, sorry.


quote:
"There is no evidence of a global flood at the time the bible claims (or really any time, in fact) and not only that but Egypt was flourishing long before this "flood" and nothing ever interrupted it."

Bull. There is plenty of evidence, even non-christian scientists agree. Read some magazines now and again.
Who the heck cares? That's always been an argument that held almost no interest to me. I believe the Bible, one expert agreeing with me doesn't increase my faith any more than one disagreeing. When the Apostles asked Christ "Lord, increase our faith" he didn't quote statistics or explain the scientific method, who told them that their faith would increase through service in the Kingdom.

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
For one thing, Adam lived to be 930 years old. For another, how did God create the world? For yet another, how many species were there at the time? You assume there were millions. Why?
I assume there were millions because thats how many we have today and I see no plausible explanation for how that many species could have appeared in 6000 years if they were not created during God's supposed creation. There is no evidence for the rapid amount of evolution that would have been required to produce the millions of species that we see today in 6000 year time span.

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
There are theories that species evolve not by random mutations, but rather that the genome includes the potential for massive variations and that environmental cues can be responsible for what appears to be speciation. Who knows?
But there isn't any evidence for that. For example, we've never observed an entirely new mammal species appearing in

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
But at least recognize that your question is predicated on an assumption that you can't substantiate.
My assumption is substantiated because it is only logical to assume that the vast majority of the species that existed today also existed 6000 years ago. We don't know of any method that could produce a rapid production of new species in such a short amount of time. Its intellectually dishonest of you to act like you've discredited question by presenting some unfounded theory.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
It's been years since I read anything about the Bible, its history, and its interpretation, but I sed to read quite a lot about it and there were several theories that rang true to me. (I apologize in advance to Lisa, whom I respect highly but will prolly get rightfully annoyed at this)

One that stuck with me was that the main purpose of the Bible was to forge the tribes of Israel into one race. As they came together different versions of scriptural tales were combined, not always perfectly (different Genesis stories, three slightly different sets of Ten Commandments, etc), but the goal of giving Jews a unified history and mythology was achieved and it was this common bond that helped them remain Jews during the times when Jews were largely imprisoned or enslaved.

The leaders knew that it would be easy for any race, when scattered and immersed in a different culture, to lose their identities over the generations. By having stories of their people to pass along, by keeping specific dietary and other restrictions that no one else shared, by keeping their own worship and holidays, they managed to avoid being absorbed into other cultures.

This theory is also the only thing that makes the story of Job plausible to me. Seen as literal truth, which is how I was taught it, it makes me think that the Almighty is a cruel bastard indeed. But seen as a useful metaphor for the Jews in captivity to hold fast against all the hardships they would endure to be someday rewarded for their forebearance, it makes a great deal of sense.

The New Testament also benefits when you look at it as a collection of books brought together to encourage and inspire Christians to go make more Christians. Each of the Gospels, when read in the order they were apparently written, gets progressively more miraculous.

The Bible itself is a masterpiece of poetry, moral instruction, action tales, romance, and history, and even when I believed I never quite understood the absolute necessity for it to be literally 100% true. I can remember back when the Good News Bible was being published there was an outcry from many of the people in my congregation. One woman wept openly that "those people" thought they could rewrite the words of Jesus from the original, completely convinced to the core of her being that two thousand years ago everyone in the Middle East spoke in Shakespearian English.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
To be direct, what is your reaction to this statement? How true is this?
The Bible was a work penned by man.
It rebelled.
It evolved.
There are many copies.
They make no sense.
They offer internally inconsistent contradictions.
Same copies are taught differently by everyone.
Some things are read literally by some people.
Some things are read figuratively by some people.
Some things are translated by the word.
Other things are not translated literally.
Some explicit statements are handled explicitly.
Some explicit statements are tacitly ignored.
Different Christian factions have vastly different ways of doing this.
Different Christian factions translate this perfect text differently.

There is absolutely nothing in the Bible which has not ended up being a matter of interpretation.

This includes the big things, like the nature of god, creation, life, the universe, everything, jesus.

The bible is only as perfect a text as we could write it. The bible is only as accurate a history as we can inerrantly interpret it. That is to say, not very. The bible as a perfect text that exists to be inerrantly interpret does not exist anymore even if at one point there was a perfect version created by beings endowed with the perfect truth in the perfect language by which this truth was endowed.

There is way way way way way too much wrong with the notion.
*plays Battlestar Galactica theme music*

[Hail]
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
What's amusing to me is the number of Biblical literalists who are themselves so unreasonable that, rather than shrugging it off as a simple issue of significant digits, they've come up with an explanation that includes the thickness of the container in question and thus the difference between its inside and outside edges.
The thread exists to amuse you, then.
 
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
We are arguing science here when the question is one of history.

Lets not bother with yet another thread of Evolution/Evil-lution, and skip to the straight human history part.

There are some theories I've heard, but don't have the facts on. Could anyone enlighten me on the following:

1) The Timing of Jesus's birth and the Roman Census. The story goes that Mary and Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem in order to fulfill the requirements of a Census the Roman's had ordered. Yet historians have documented dates of when those censuses were taken, and they are off by a couple of years.

2) Their is no record of a mass child execution that the Bible has Herod ordering.

3) The end of the Jewish imprisonment in Babylon, and the return to Jerusalem is documented to have happened on different dates as that given by the Bible.

oh,

and as far as the PI thing...

I've looked into it, and do not find the Bible guilty of misrepresenting PI. However, there was a Kentucky politician who, upon reading the above passage, did come to the wrong conclusion--that PI = 3. He then tried to legislate that all state school books should "be corrected" so that PI =3, not some irrational number.

That is the danger, that the wrong information will be extracted from the Bible and forced upon the world.

It seems the greatest danger of Biblical Literalism is when the Literalist misinterpret the Bible.
 
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
"We are arguing science here when the question is one of history"

Thank you for noticing. I am talking about the history of the text and the history the Bible presents. Most literalists have pretty much rejected scientists (except for one or two minor pick and choose instances), but they seem to rally around the idea the text has never changed and the history is exact.

How about this; what are some books I could refer innerantists to that would be evidence the Bible text and history is not perfect and exact?
 
Posted by katdog42 (Member # 4773) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_raven:


and as far as the PI thing...

I've looked into it, and do not find the Bible guilty of misrepresenting PI. However, there was a Kentucky politician who, upon reading the above passage, did come to the wrong conclusion--that PI = 3. He then tried to legislate that all state school books should "be corrected" so that PI =3, not some irrational number.

That is the danger, that the wrong information will be extracted from the Bible and forced upon the world.

It seems the greatest danger of Biblical Literalism is when the Literalist misinterpret the Bible.
Leave it to one of us Kentuckians!
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_raven:
I've looked into it, and do not find the Bible guilty of misrepresenting PI. However, there was a Kentucky politician who, upon reading the above passage, did come to the wrong conclusion--that PI = 3. He then tried to legislate that all state school books should "be corrected" so that PI =3, not some irrational number.
Nope. It was Indiana.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Threads:
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
But at least recognize that your question is predicated on an assumption that you can't substantiate.
My assumption is substantiated because it is only logical to assume that the vast majority of the species that existed today also existed 6000 years ago.
Lots of things are "only logical to assume" in the absence of any hard data. It doesn't make them true. Just useful until data comes around. But it makes them very weak arguments, since they're only assumptions.
 
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Threads:
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
But at least recognize that your question is predicated on an assumption that you can't substantiate.
My assumption is substantiated because it is only logical to assume that the vast majority of the species that existed today also existed 6000 years ago.
Lots of things are "only logical to assume" in the absence of any hard data. It doesn't make them true. Just useful until data comes around. But it makes them very weak arguments, since they're only assumptions.
There is plenty of hard data that clearly shows that not all of the earth's millions of species could have been created in a few thousand years.

EDIT: Alright, Dan_raven has a point and my posts have partially derailed this thread so I won't continue this debate.
 
Posted by katdog42 (Member # 4773) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_raven:
I've looked into it, and do not find the Bible guilty of misrepresenting PI. However, there was a Kentucky politician who, upon reading the above passage, did come to the wrong conclusion--that PI = 3. He then tried to legislate that all state school books should "be corrected" so that PI =3, not some irrational number.
Nope. It was Indiana.
Oh, good... I'd much rather blame it on those Hoosiers.
 
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Please, Kentucky, except my apologies.

Indiana-- [No No]
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Even fundamentalists such as my own Seventh-day Adventist church do not hold that the Bible is verbally-inspired (word-for-word), and incapable of ever being in error about anything. There are some obvious scribal glitches in the text. We do hold the Bible is essentially correct, and is supremely reliable in everything that matters.

Actually, the Bible is not nearly in error as much as some people have claimed. Most of the claimed errors merely reveal the ignorance of the critic, or a failure to recognize poetic devices, and a failure to treat such things in a fair manner.

The old cavile about I Kings 7:23 and the value of pi, as some posters here have already shown, is based on a failure to comprehend what was really being described. Basins for the sanctuary most likely had curved lips. You would need an indication of the interior measurement to determine volume and capacity, and an indiction of the exterior measurement to determine how much space it would take up in the sanctuary.

In Genesis, the first statement is that the animals went in by twos. The second statement is that they went in by sevens. But a little scholarship will show that it was the "unclean" animals (mainly predators and scavengers) who went in by twos, and the "clean" animals went in by sevens. Noah then sacrificed one each of the clean animals as a thank offering after the Flood Waters receded, and the earth began to produce vegetation again. The ratio of one mated pair of predators to three pairs of mated "prey" approximates what is necessary for the populations to be balanced.

Really, whenever I hear anyone claim there are all kinds of contradictions in the Bible, I have to ask for them to be cited. Then I or others can proceed to show how each claim is mistaken. But it seems like no matter how often we do this, someone keeps coming up with the same already refuted criticisms.

The Bible is in fact amazingly accurate in everything it says, in every field. Especially the Old Testament shows a remarkable preservation of meaning through the ages--a tribute to the carefulness of Jewish scribes. Admittedly, Christian scribes were not always so careful, as evidenced by the fact that we have many ancient manuscripts that contain minor variations, so that translators generally follow a policy of comparing them, and going by the majority, where this can be done.

Bar none, the Bible has proven to be the most accurate source of historical information in existence. Every claim that it was mistaken has been later refuted by further historical research. Yet there is a large number of historians these days who assert that the Bible is not reliable historically--but that is because the fashionable belief among most professional Bible scholars is that no miracles ever happened. Since so much of Jewish history is connected to miracles, some would deny it all, and claim it was all made up.

Of course anything connected with the Exodus is considered fair game for the faithless revisionists. For example, most scholars now actually deny that Joshua ever existed, and all the details given of his military compaign to subdue the inhabitants of the promised land. It is interesting that the Bible says that Joshua only burned three cities to the ground--Jericho, Ai, and Hazor. Interestingly digs in these places have found a layer of burned ash about two feet thick that dates to the time when Joshua was said to exist. No other ancient city in Israel has such a layer of ash. A former pastor of my church, who now heads the Biblical archaeology department at Southern Adventist University, is directing a dig at Hazor. He visited my local church recently for our tenth anniversary (he was our first pastor), and mentioned finding this layer of ash at Hazor.

Seventh-day Adventists still have faith in the Bible. As a result, our dig at Hazor is one of only two Christian-sponsored digs in Israel. There are dozens of digs sponsored by Jewish groups, universities, etc. But the other denominations, the great unversities of America, Britain, and Germany, which only a few decades ago were the main sponsors of archaeological digs in Israel, now have lost their faith and hence their interest in Biblical archaeology.
 
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
 
"I hate God,"


I am suffering from a hangover and don't really feel like responding to anything else at this time, however I do want to say something. That phrase is completely idiotic and has been used as an example time and time again, despite the fact that I have NEVER EVER EVER heard that used.

Nobody would ever say that seriously because everyone realizes that by saying that they are saying that god exists.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Bar none, the Bible has proven to be the most accurate source of historical information in existence.
um
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_raven:
as far as the PI thing...

I've looked into it, and do not find the Bible guilty of misrepresenting PI. However, there was a Kentucky politician who, upon reading the above passage, did come to the wrong conclusion--that PI = 3. He then tried to legislate that all state school books should "be corrected" so that PI =3, not some irrational number.

That is the danger, that the wrong information will be extracted from the Bible and forced upon the world.

It seems the greatest danger of Biblical Literalism is when the Literalist misinterpret the Bible.
Here's the skinny from Snopes. It was Indiana, more than a century ago. The accounts of recent attempts to do this are false.
 
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Bar none, the Bible has proven to be the most accurate source of historical information in existence.
um
That's about as far as I'm getting. [Blushing]

I don't get it, but hey, let's go play outside, it's such a nice day!
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Earendil18:
There's also some universal similarities between several different creation stories from across the globe.
... if they are "universal" similarities, should they not occur in *all* creation stories around the globe rather than *several*? [Wink]
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JonHecht:
"I hate God,"
...
Nobody would ever say that seriously because everyone realizes that by saying that they are saying that god exists.
"I hate the Gilmore Girls"
 
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by Earendil18:
There's also some universal similarities between several different creation stories from across the globe.
... if they are "universal" similarities, should they not occur in *all* creation stories around the globe rather than *several*? [Wink]
Sorry, universal human themes/symbolism yadda yadda [Wink]
 
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
 
I've got one quick question for the Biblical literalists among us. The story of Noah and the ark is probably one of the biggest stretches in logic in accepting the literal truth of the Bible. There are countless questions that have been asked on the subject, but I just want to ask one.

We're always taught that Noah was commanded to take two (or seven) of every animal on Earth into the ark. Or, as it says in the King James Version:

quote:
And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
So if God wanted Noah to take a sample of every animal in the whole world (or, as he said, "every living thing of all flesh"), did that include fish? Why would God want to save fish from the flood by putting them on a boat? And if Moses wasn't commanded to take fish on the ark, is the Bible really a perfect and accurate account of that incident?

Not the toughest question about the whole Noah's Ark incident, but I'm curious how you all interpret this passage [Smile]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I think it's one of those passages where, of all the possible "gotchas," this would be the lamest. While I can imagine God making it clear that he expected Noah to preserve the saltwater fish (assuming the rain from Heaven was freshwater), I'm willing to write this one off as something that God didn't need to spell out explicitly.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
When I cared, I was more concerned with omissions, such as where Cain's wife came from, or clear contradictions, such as how many beings were at Jesus' resurrection or exactly how and when Judas died. It took a while, but I mostly lost the interest in Biblical gotchas. Unless, of course, someone starts telling me why homosexuality must be bad because it says so in Leviticus or similar. Then all bets are off.
 
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
 
A more important question to me about the flood is, "If the entire Earth is covered in water, won't all the freshwater fish ummm... die? I mean, they're in salt water, that usually kills them. Also, adding all the fresh water to the Earth would dramatically alter the salt content of the oceans, and I thought the balance in the ocean was such that a massive melting of the poles would result in the death of key species that can't handle freshwater... umm... yeah, I just see a lot of death resulting from this."

And after the flood, did Noah go around the globe and plant animals on the continents where they belonged? Platypus, you go to Australia. Rhinos, you go to Africa. Beavers, you go to north America. Polar bears, you go to the north pole. Penguins, you're headed to the south pole. There are so many wildly different species that occur in one place and one place only. To think that Noah had the presence of mind (and time) to save them all and put them back...

The flood is something that I never could believe. I massive flood, maybe, but one that covered the entire earth? Unlikely. I boat large enough to save all the species of the world? Doubly unlikely.

But a flood large enough to cover a significant portion of the world that was known at that time? Maybe. The known world at that point would have been pretty small compared to the known world today.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
And rescuing the animals indigenous to the known areas, while still herculean, would be a great deal easier than rescuing every animal everywhere.
 
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
 
Maybe there was a halocline?

quote:
The Bible was a work penned by man.
It rebelled.
It evolved.
There are many copies.
They make no sense.
They offer internally inconsistent contradictions.
Same copies are taught differently by everyone.
Some things are read literally by some people.
Some things are read figuratively by some people.
Some things are translated by the word.
Other things are not translated literally.
Some explicit statements are handled explicitly.
Some explicit statements are tacitly ignored.
Different Christian factions have vastly different ways of doing this.
Different Christian factions translate this perfect text differently.
Ah, but you left out the most important part! And it has a plan.

I don't consider the Bible to be a history or science textbook. I grew up in a tradition that claimed that every detail of the Bible is completely true, but I've come to believe that this is not the case. I think that "inspired by God" means exactly what it says -- inspired, not dictated. That means that there will be inaccuracies due to faulty memories and such, and that's fine.
 
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
 
Thank you, Shigosei, I learned a new word today.
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
I do rather think, at the least, if the Old Testament were meant to be taken as literal history (and, for the record, I do not believe this), then far more species ought to be showing signs of the kind of inbreeding researchers see in the cheetah.
 
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
 
"Stories are equipment for living." ~ Kenneth Burke

I honestly think that's what the Bible's all about. It's not an accurate historical account, but a collection of myths to help an ancient group of people live their life and give it meaning and structure.

Is it reality? Doubtful, but there are some principles that seem to reappear across the globe. Be kind to your neighbor etc.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sterling:
I do rather think, at the least, if the Old Testament were meant to be taken as literal history (and, for the record, I do not believe this), then far more species ought to be showing signs of the kind of inbreeding researchers see in the cheetah.
Including humans. You also have to wonder which of the inhabitants of the ark was carrying the gonorrhea and the syphilis.
 
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
Hey, God did say EVERY living thing.
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
Getting pairs of gonorrhea and syphilis to go up the ramp must have been a chore and a half.
 
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
Petri dishes weren't exactly growing on trees back in those days.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
It may not have been pairs. After all, bacteria don't have cloven hoofs and don't chew their cud. Maybe they were supposed to go up in sevens. I wonder how Noah sacrificed just one, though.
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
If syphilis and gonorrhea aren't unclean, there's definitely a sense of humor beyond my understanding at work.
 
Posted by enjeeo (Member # 2336) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Occasional:
The Bible is a Perfect Text and Accurate History.
Anyone who insists that the Bible is a perfect text is themselves trying to render history inaccurate. The Bible has been mistranslated many times, sometimes deliberately, sometimes no doubt by accident. It's been edited for various reasons, including the changes made by King James who rendered it more sexist and derogatory towards women, and (in my opinion) many modern English language versions have removed layers of meaning, and in some cases beauty, from the earlier versions.

There are historically accurate accounts or descriptions in the Bible, but it's definitely stretching the truth to claim that the Bible is historically accurate in its entirety. But then what written history is?
 
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
 
"But then what written history is?"

The Bible, duh. It says so right there in it!
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by enjeeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Occasional:
The Bible is a Perfect Text and Accurate History.
Anyone who insists that the Bible is a perfect text is themselves trying to render history inaccurate. The Bible has been mistranslated many times, sometimes deliberately, sometimes no doubt by accident. It's been edited for various reasons, including the changes made by King James who rendered it more sexist and derogatory towards women, and (in my opinion) many modern English language versions have removed layers of meaning, and in some cases beauty, from the earlier versions.
King James didn't change anything in the Bible. It's like Stephen King says about the movies based on his books. No matter what they do, the books are still there, unchanged. Same here. King James produced a flawed translation, but it didn't change the Bible, which remained untouched.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
So Lisa, you would be among those who believe in the verbal inspiration and perfection of the Bible text in its original languages. (I know you would not include the Greek New Testament in this, but the middle portion of Daniel was written in Aramaic. Hence the plural, even for you.)

For my money, the New American Standard Bible is generally the translation that reflects the best scholarship, though in comparing half a dozen different translations, I will sometimes find some other version that renders a verse, clause, or phrase better or more clearly. Sometimes even the New International Version says it best, though I usually do not give as much weight to it as the NASB, NKJV, or NRSV.

I think you will find though that many experts in the writings we Christians call Old Testament (even Jewish scholars) will tell you there is clear evidence of changes in the Hebrew text, where scribes were forced to update certain terms to preserve the original meaning, as the meanings of certain words changed over two millennia.
 
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
 
quote:
King James didn't change anything in the Bible. It's like Stephen King says about the movies based on his books. No matter what they do, the books are still there, unchanged. Same here. King James produced a flawed translation, but it didn't change the Bible, which remained untouched.
Well, we could talk about the First Council of Nicaea or the many times that books were either left out or changed, but I think there is something important here. No matter what version of The Bible that you have in your hands there is no possible way that you have the original, the version that any of us have is one that has been decided upon and edited by councils and Kings, and if thats the case, then that process itself introduces imperfection and inconsistency.

You are correct, The Bible may still be there, but I am highly skeptical that we can or ever could have access to it.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
So Lisa, you would be among those who believe in the verbal inspiration and perfection of the Bible text in its original languages.
Yes and no. We've been through this here before. The Torah (Pentateuch) was dictated word by work to Moses, and what we have now, except for the possibility of a few places where the vowel "o" was written with or without a waw, is the same thing that Moses wrote down.

The books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the 12 Minor prophets, were written under the influence of prophecy. A lesser perception of God than Moses had, but still a very high one. The content is from God, but the precise wording was chosen by the prophets themselves.

The books of Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra/Nehemiah and Chronicles were written under yet a lesser degree of perception of God, which we call Ruach HaKodesh. That means Holy Spirit. The concepts are from God, but the content and wording is from the authors.

Yes, that means that Daniel is not a book of prophecy. But telling the future in visions is not what prophecy is, or what it's about.

So you can't say something categorical about "the Bible", as such, since the Bible is made up of different sections that have different levels of coming from God.

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
(I know you would not include the Greek New Testament in this, but the middle portion of Daniel was written in Aramaic. Hence the plural, even for you.)
Fair enough.

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I think you will find though that many experts in the writings we Christians call Old Testament (even Jewish scholars) will tell you there is clear evidence of changes in the Hebrew text, where scribes were forced to update certain terms to preserve the original meaning, as the meanings of certain words changed over two millennia.
Nah. No such thing ever happened. And when it comes to "Jewish scholars", there are Jews who are scholars who advocate the documentary hypothesis. Being Jewish isn't a failsafe against stupidity. However, there's zero evidence of the kind of changes you're talking about. The text was passed down as part of a living tradition. Changes in means such as the kind you're talking about were dealt with orally. The text was not changed.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Humean316:
quote:
King James didn't change anything in the Bible. It's like Stephen King says about the movies based on his books. No matter what they do, the books are still there, unchanged. Same here. King James produced a flawed translation, but it didn't change the Bible, which remained untouched.
Well, we could talk about the First Council of Nicaea or the many times that books were either left out or changed,
We could, but it'd be irrelevant. The folks at Nicaea could only effect what Christians did or said. We (Jews) maintained the integrity of the Hebrew Bible without paying any mind to the Christians.

quote:
Originally posted by Humean316:
but I think there is something important here. No matter what version of The Bible that you have in your hands there is no possible way that you have the original,
Wrong. Factually wrong. The version we have is the original. Christian mileage may vary.
 
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
 
So, you have the very, physically original text, that is not, in fact, an edited copy of a copy?

As that's what the original means, the actual, physical original. The First Edition, so to speak.

Care to tell us where you're keeping it, so all of us can learn the wisdom of the uncopied, error-less version?
 
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
 
"We (Jews) maintained the integrity of the Hebrew Bible without paying any mind to the Christians."

You assume your religion is correct, and theirs is wrong.

Haven't you read Blackblade's posts, for example, about his Mormon faith, and how he KNOWS, since he feels God, that it's right?

The Christians disagree with you. They claim you're wrong.

Which of you am I supposed to trust? Which of your contradictory beliefs is accurate?

Of course, you're still not using any evidence for the truth of your religion. It's perfectly valid for you to dismiss another person's religion, however.

But don't you see, since you dismiss the beliefs of the Christians, since you can so easily believe they're wrong, how I can dismiss your beliefs the same way?

From my perspective, your beliefs have no more hold on factual accuracy than Christian claims do from yours.

Can you understand that?
 
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
So Lisa, you would be among those who believe in the verbal inspiration and perfection of the Bible text in its original languages.
Yes and no. We've been through this here before. The Torah (Pentateuch) was dictated word by work to Moses, and what we have now, except for the possibility of a few places where the vowel "o" was written with or without a waw, is the same thing that Moses wrote down.
[...]
quote:
Originally posted by Humean316:
but I think there is something important here. No matter what version of The Bible that you have in your hands there is no possible way that you have the original,
Wrong. Factually wrong. The version we have is the original. Christian mileage may vary.
So the fact that the ancient word count of the Torah differs from the modern word count, and that the middle letter changed from ancient times to now doesn't register as change? [Dont Know] It does to me.

I admit that the Torah was copied far better than almost any other ancient text. But to claim it's completely error-free is an extraordinary claim that demands scrutiny.

No linkage, Lisa, but you have no trouble with telling people to research your positions, so I'll do the same.

GIYF (Google it yourself, friend)
 
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
 
Lisa, the thing I still cannot fathom is the certainty in which you say things like:

"...the Torah was dictated word by word to Moses..."

"...written under the influence of prophecy..."

"...written under yet a lesser degree of perception of God..."

I cannot see any reason to take these statements as true, and no one has been able to explain to me why I should. Maybe these books were just written, without divine influence, and then claimed to be from God, or under the influence of prophecy, later on. And since many of your statements start with this type of assertion, with no admission to the possibility that it could be different, it invalidates, IMO, everything else in the post.

I can say that I believe (and am willing to argue and criticize other peoples' beliefs) that God did not dictate to Moses. But I can also concede that it is possible that God dictated to Moses. The possibility is there, even though in my eyes it is so remote as to be impossible. But I can admit that it is still there.
 
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
 
"Surety you crave! Sauron gives none. If you sue for his clemency you must first do his bidding."

Control.

Created by animalistic, cunning humans to wield power over others.

Still just an opinion, but the whole book to me reeks of human nastiness. Carrot and stick methodologies, reactive answers instead of constructive answers, contradictions, and an easily manifested, social-based "us vs them" mentality.

Fear of others, fear of self, fear of God. Too much fear.
 
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
 
That sucks you feel that way, Earendil, because you're probably not seeing the big picture. The Book speaks of human nastiness, reward and punishment,and an "us-versus-them" mentality, but that pretty shallow interpretation of its message. I imagine you never read very much of it, and certainly were not receptive to it if you have.

quote:
Originally posted by 0Megabyte:

[qb]Which of you am I supposed to trust? Which of your contradictory beliefs is accurate?[qb]
"Just listen to your heart. That's what I do."

-Napoleon Dynamite
 
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
That sucks you feel that way, Earendil, because you're probably not seeing the big picture. The Book speaks of human nastiness, reward and punishment,and an "us-versus-them" mentality, but that pretty shallow interpretation of its message. I imagine you never read very much of it, and certainly were not receptive to it if you have.

quote:
Originally posted by 0Megabyte:

[qb]Which of you am I supposed to trust? Which of your contradictory beliefs is accurate?[qb]
"Just listen to your heart. That's what I do."

-Napoleon Dynamite
Oh, don't get me wrong, I probably should've added the plus side to the equation. There are some good principles contained therein. I just think people get lost in the details, and in the process hurt others and themselves.

I don't think it's shallow so much as taking a step back and looking at its message in the context of human history. We like myths, and we have a knack for blowing things out of proportion (nbc,cbs,thelatestgossip). I think we need to find considered reasons, not myths, as to how to act towards ourselves.

I'm coming from a big picture. From one dust speck to another, I don't think the Bible has cornered the market of Truth. That is what my heart tells me.
 
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
 
I don't think so either. But I believe that there are many roads toward the truth, and the Bible is one of them.

As for its message in the course of human events, I think that has more to do with human events than with the message, if that makes any sense.
 
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
 
Ah, I believe I understand you now.

It does make sense, and is one of the reasons I'm giving things such scrutiny. I'm more concerned with human nature, and how the Bible (or any other philosophy/"history") helps or hinders our race in that regard.

Subsequently, that means I'm also looking at the Bible as a cause of certain dysfunctions. Not because it doesn't contain certain truths, but because it contains very human er...patterns. That's the best I can describe it at this point. That's why I mentioned the fear, carrot & stick, etc. because I'm looking at these as...elements which are not constructive for the human mind and spirit.

And then I zoom the picture past the solar system, past the galaxies, and consider the vastness of it all and say "Surely we shouldn't be treating each other this way. Jesus, Buddha, etc spoke of peace, forgiveness, love."

Enter the contradictions. Enter sociology, anthropology, history, studies on man and mythology, and personal experience...You see where I'm coming from? I want the best for our race, and hitting each other with sticks because we're all interpreting things differently, isn't a constructive use of our time on this planet. [Smile] I don't think throwing religion completely out is the answer, but neither do I think we should be allying ourselves under separate umbrellas.

What makes humanity its best? What doesn't? What is working, and what isn't?

These are the questions I'm trying to answer.
 
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Speed:
And if Moses wasn't commanded to take fish on the ark...
I'm the only one that noticed this? [Razz]
 
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nighthawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Speed:
And if Moses wasn't commanded to take fish on the ark...
I'm the only one that noticed this? [Razz]
Good catch! Now how does it matter to an individual's life what Moses took, or did not take with him on the quantum dimensionally folded ark? It's like watching a movie and nitpicking all the "impossible" things that shouldn't have been able to happen. It's a story, it's a lesson, not a historical account. Does the lesson cause constructive results or destructive results? Was it created by human nature or by a divine source?

See? [Wink] We're worrying about the car radio, when the engine is firing on one piston, the bumper is falling off, and the kids are fighting in the backseat! And yet we keep fighting over what's coming out of the radio!
 
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
 
Ok, I wanted to address this earlier. The theory I'm going with for the moment is that, just as the bible says, there used to be different kinds of animals, and they were far fewer in number than what we consider separate species today, maybe in the thousands. Also, there was, as the Bible says, a firmament in the heavens, which probably blocked much of the harmful radiation that strikes us to day. Now the firmament came down, and also the earth pretty much fractured like on the cover of Fragile, by Yes. All this water was released from beneath the surface, and all the water fell from the surface, and the continents were shoved out, and the mountains and the deeps were formed (this implies that the earth was more smoothly spherical prior to the flood.) This is probably where all the fossils came from, because fossils generally do not form unless under certain extreme situations. Normally, everything rots and is eaten by scavengers.

Now the sun comes out for the first time, and something that was not possible before happens: a rainbow. A nice little detail that I'm happy was not missed. But then all the animals (including humans) become prone to mutations in their DNA because of all the solar radiation that strikes us. Our lives become shortened because of this, and natural selection starts to affect all the creatures, in such a way that all this speciation occurs, but without the problematic issue of an increase in complexity. De-evolution, rather.

And so here we are, with dinosaur bone being discovered in Montana with soft tissue still intact.
 
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 
I'm not even going to address most of your post.

But, just because I'm curious:

quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
And so here we are, with dinosaur bone being discovered in Montana with soft tissue still intact.
Link?
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Link
 
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
Ok, I wanted to address this earlier. The theory I'm going with for the moment is that, just as the bible says, there used to be different kinds of animals, and they were far fewer in number than what we consider separate species today, maybe in the thousands. Also, there was, as the Bible says, a firmament in the heavens, which probably blocked much of the harmful radiation that strikes us to day. Now the firmament came down, and also the earth pretty much fractured like on the cover of Fragile, by Yes. All this water was released from beneath the surface, and all the water fell from the surface, and the continents were shoved out, and the mountains and the deeps were formed (this implies that the earth was more smoothly spherical prior to the flood.) This is probably where all the fossils came from, because fossils generally do not form unless under certain extreme situations. Normally, everything rots and is eaten by scavengers.

Now the sun comes out for the first time, and something that was not possible before happens: a rainbow. A nice little detail that I'm happy was not missed. But then all the animals (including humans) become prone to mutations in their DNA because of all the solar radiation that strikes us. Our lives become shortened because of this, and natural selection starts to affect all the creatures, in such a way that all this speciation occurs, but without the problematic issue of an increase in complexity. De-evolution, rather.

And so here we are, with dinosaur bone being discovered in Montana with soft tissue still intact.
Very interesting! Perhaps further research into our genetic history might support this. Again, though, we have a tendency to take these interpretations and wreak dysfunction on ourselves and others.

Certainly, let's continue the discussion, but let's look forward as well. What can we do now, that might help us understand ourselves better and to avoid the pitfalls of our ancestors?
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Morbo:
So the fact that the ancient word count of the Torah differs from the modern word count, and that the middle letter changed from ancient times to now doesn't register as change? [Dont Know] It does to me.
Me too. But you're mistaken. The vav in the word gachon is the middle one of the abnormally sized letters in the Torah (big ones and small ones). Not of all the letters in the Torah. This is verifiably true. The idea that there are 600,000 letters in the Torah (not words, Morbo) is from the Zohar Chadash, and is a Kabbalistic idea that need not be taken literally, as that would require that the Torah was at one time almost twice the size that it is not. Nobody suggests that, whether they accept the Torah as being what it purports to be or not. I have no problem whatsoever saying that I don't take the Zohar Chadash literally.

quote:
Originally posted by Morbo:
I admit that the Torah was copied far better than almost any other ancient text. But to claim it's completely error-free is an extraordinary claim that demands scrutiny.
Like I said, there are full writings of "o" (and "i") and non-full writings of them. There are places where some copies say "vayehi" and others say "vayihiyu". There's no change in meaning between these variants. But those are the full extent of the versioning differences. It's the equivalent of "color" and "colour".

quote:
Originally posted by Morbo:
No linkage, Lisa, but you have no trouble with telling people to research your positions, so I'll do the same.

GIYF (Google it yourself, friend)
I didn't have to. I had the above link bookmarked, because you're hardly the first person to make these erronious claims.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The White Whale:
Lisa, the thing I still cannot fathom is the certainty in which you say things like:

"...the Torah was dictated word by word to Moses..."

"...written under the influence of prophecy..."

"...written under yet a lesser degree of perception of God..."

I cannot see any reason to take these statements as true, and no one has been able to explain to me why I should.
I'm not sure if you're expecting or wanting a response to this. I acknowledge your rejection of these facts. Do I need to convince you that they are true? I mean, do you want me to try? I don't feel the need to, but if it's important to you, I can make a stab at it.
 
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
 
"Just listen to your heart. That's what I do."

My heart watches all the religions and admits to itself finally that to believe any one over the others is silly.

But what my heart says has nothing to do with truth. Neither does yours.

When listening to their heart alone, to decide the truth, people quite clearly come to false conclusions. How can I trust my own heart, my own beliefs alone, any better?

What I need, then, is evidence. And to act from a place of skepticism. To hold everything as "not guilty" of truth until shown otherwise.

My standard of evidence isn't perfect, and I notice myself accepting things without much evidence, because I'm human and there's vastly too many things to fact-check. But I can try, especially with the really big, really important things, such as my ultimate fate and how we came here.
 
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Javert:
I'm not even going to address most of your post.

But, just because I'm curious:

quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
And so here we are, with dinosaur bone being discovered in Montana with soft tissue still intact.
Link?
Actually, I saw it on History channel, on the "States" show.

As for listening to one's heart, well, that wasn't exactly a logical proposition. Did you see who I was quoting there, Megabyte?
 
Posted by enjeeo (Member # 2336) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:
Originally posted by enjeeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Occasional:
The Bible is a Perfect Text and Accurate History.
Anyone who insists that the Bible is a perfect text is themselves trying to render history inaccurate. The Bible has been mistranslated many times, sometimes deliberately, sometimes no doubt by accident. It's been edited for various reasons, including the changes made by King James who rendered it more sexist and derogatory towards women, and (in my opinion) many modern English language versions have removed layers of meaning, and in some cases beauty, from the earlier versions.
King James didn't change anything in the Bible. It's like Stephen King says about the movies based on his books. No matter what they do, the books are still there, unchanged. Same here. King James produced a flawed translation, but it didn't change the Bible, which remained untouched.
If you want to argue that the original Jewish bible was perfect and historically accurate, do so. But the original post did not limit discussion to your particular (more narrow) definition of what constitutes 'The Bible' and the subsequent discussion has clearly included the Christian Bible and translations of both. To dismiss every comment that refers to these as if they were off-topic is just being deliberately and unnecessarily obtuse. Are you joining the discussion, or just turning your nose up at it?
 
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
 
Not to bring back the whole the-bible-says-pi-is-3 argument... oops, too late. Well, as long as we're here.

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
That's just silly. You're assuming that this object had a thickness of 0. If it was 30 in circumference and 10 across, that means that means the walls were .7 cubits thick. With a cubit being about 18 inches (let's say), that's a little over 12.5 inches.
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
The old cavile about I Kings 7:23 and the value of pi, as some posters here have already shown, is based on a failure to comprehend what was really being described. Basins for the sanctuary most likely had curved lips. You would need an indication of the interior measurement to determine volume and capacity, and an indiction of the exterior measurement to determine how much space it would take up in the sanctuary.
I think you have it the wrong way around. Postulating a thickness actually makes the 10 -> 30 figures even worse. Unless you mean that the distance "from brim to brim" is the outer diameter and the "circumference" is the inner circumference, but that doesn't really make much sense.

That said, I'm with Tom on this one. There's only one significant figure here. (Not that anyone knew about significant figures in those times, afaik.)
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mike:
I think you have it the wrong way around. Postulating a thickness actually makes the 10 -> 30 figures even worse. Unless you mean that the distance "from brim to brim" is the outer diameter and the "circumference" is the inner circumference, but that doesn't really make much sense.
Why not? Because that's not the way you'd do it? I mean, never mind that doing it that way gives you nice, clean, easy numbers to remember for the diameter and circumference. No, they'd never do something like that.

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. You're criticizing the text without taking into account why it might have been written as it is. You're starting off wanting to find problems, and sure enough, you'll find them whether they're there or not.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by enjeeo:
If you want to argue that the original Jewish bible was perfect and historically accurate, do so. But the original post did not limit discussion to your particular (more narrow) definition of what constitutes 'The Bible' and the subsequent discussion has clearly included the Christian Bible and translations of both. To dismiss every comment that refers to these as if they were off-topic is just being deliberately and unnecessarily obtuse. Are you joining the discussion, or just turning your nose up at it?
Since the vast majority of the quibbles have been aimed at the Hebrew Bible, I have no problem sticking with that.

Furthermore, I stipulate that the Christian additions are both imperfect and inaccurate, so for me, the question devolves to the remaining part, which is all I care about in the first place.
 
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
Why not? Because that's not the way you'd do it? I mean, never mind that doing it that way gives you nice, clean, easy numbers to remember for the diameter and circumference. No, they'd never do something like that.
Perhaps they would. But as far as I can tell there's no indication that the circumference would be measured on the inside. "From brim to brim" could certainly be interpreted either way, but just plain "circumference" is a stretch. If you see such an explicit mention as unnecessary, that's cool.

You were thinking of the outer diameter and inner circumference, right? Just trying to keep you honest here. Because Ron had it the wrong way around.

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. You're criticizing the text without taking into account why it might have been written as it is. You're starting off wanting to find problems, and sure enough, you'll find them whether they're there or not.
I am not criticizing the text at all. If I wanted to do that I'd do some research and choose something a little more substantial than a casual measurement that I, after all, don't see any problem with anyway. I was just pointing out the error in Ron's logic that it appeared you were making as well (again, if you honestly were thinking about it the other way around, then I apologize).

I realize you're somewhat under fire in this thread, and that can be a difficult position. It can be hard to keep track of all the details of all the positions you're arguing against. I just want to point out that your last paragraph (especially the last sentence) does not apply to me or my position on this topic. [Smile]
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mike:
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
Why not? Because that's not the way you'd do it? I mean, never mind that doing it that way gives you nice, clean, easy numbers to remember for the diameter and circumference. No, they'd never do something like that.
Perhaps they would. But as far as I can tell there's no indication that the circumference would be measured on the inside. "From brim to brim" could certainly be interpreted either way, but just plain "circumference" is a stretch. If you see such an explicit mention as unnecessary, that's cool.
Dude, you try making it based on the specs 30 around and 10 across without it being the way I'm reading it. It can't be done. Pi is not equal to 3, and anyone who has ever built something circular knows it.

quote:
Originally posted by Mike:
You were thinking of the outer diameter and inner circumference, right? Just trying to keep you honest here. Because Ron had it the wrong way around.
Yes. That's why I said it's the thickness of the walls. I didn't get the rim thing, unless it's a rim pointing inwards, which seems like it might be hard to use.

quote:
Originally posted by Mike:
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. You're criticizing the text without taking into account why it might have been written as it is. You're starting off wanting to find problems, and sure enough, you'll find them whether they're there or not.
I am not criticizing the text at all. If I wanted to do that I'd do some research and choose something a little more substantial than a casual measurement that I, after all, don't see any problem with anyway. I was just pointing out the error in Ron's logic that it appeared you were making as well (again, if you honestly were thinking about it the other way around, then I apologize).

I realize you're somewhat under fire in this thread, and that can be a difficult position. It can be hard to keep track of all the details of all the positions you're arguing against. I just want to point out that your last paragraph (especially the last sentence) does not apply to me or my position on this topic. [Smile]
Fair enough. I withdraw it in your case. I maintain it as a general comment about many of the people in this thread, though. And many elsewhere as well.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Dude, you try making it based on the specs 30 around and 10 across without it being the way I'm reading it. It can't be done. Pi is not equal to 3, and anyone who has ever built something circular knows it.
Again, it's entirely possible that the precise dimensions just weren't relevant to the text.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Dude, you try making it based on the specs 30 around and 10 across without it being the way I'm reading it. It can't be done. Pi is not equal to 3, and anyone who has ever built something circular knows it.
Again, it's entirely possible that the precise dimensions just weren't relevant to the text.
That makes no sense. These were building specs. They were relevant as hell. We're talking about an actual physical object. One that would have to be rebuilt if it got damaged or destroyed.

You're making the mistake of looking at this as a purely religious text. Such categories didn't exist back then.
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2