The Bible In A Nutshell

Drakona · Post by **Drakona** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 6:21 pm

Bettina's Bible-Sticker thread made me curious about how people see the Bible. Clearly I and the sticker writer have very different ideas of what's actually in there. And it's a big, thick book--who actually has time to read the whole thing in order to form an opinion?

So... now I'm curious what other people see. Esepcially people who have read it, or pieces of it, and claim it's all nonsense and mumbo jumbo (I'm thinking Tricord, from his post in that other thread, but there are others...)

Can you give me a quick, paragraph-long summary of what you think is contained in those ~2000 pages?

-------

Here's mine:

The Bible consists of the old and new testaments. The old mainly gives the history of Israel as led by God, and its thesis is that man is sinful and needs God. The new testament gives the life of Jesus and the history of the church; its thesis is that God provides forgiveness for sin and regeneration of sinful character through Jesus' death. Along with this, the Bible also contains an ancient history, an eschatology, poetry, spiritual advice, moral advince, examples of good and bad behavior in God's eyes, teaching about the nature of God, and instructions for the church.

fyrephlie · Post by **fyrephlie** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 8:56 pm

Xciter wrote:My take, it's a book that has been written, read, translated, mutilated and re-written so many times over the years that it basically fictional at this point.

phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=8822

please read page 1 of this... notably mine and lothar's first few posts, then maybe edit your paragraph a little bit.

umm... Drakona: see that link too.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:02 pm

Xciter wrote:My take, it's a book that has been written, read, translated, mutilated and re-written so many times over the years that it basically fictional at this point.

Thats my take also.. However I will add that it is also a book full of hate.

Edit on Christmas day. I wanted to add something I forgot. I found it extremely empty also.

Bettina

roid · Post by **roid** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 12:58 am

my take on the Bible is that when i left it behind i never wanted to hear from it again. I am confident in my not needing to care what's in it because i live in a religiously free (and religiously apathetic haha, go australia) country.

Unfortunately because of my past i do know a lot about the bible, if there were a way i could erase that information i might actually consider it. It's like trying to teach an old dog new tricks, me trying to live without fear of God.

That's the Bible in a nutshell for me: I expect people to respect my apathy towards it. I have issues with the Bible, so shove it in my face like some nieve "I live in a perfect Brady Bunch world" JW Cult or "Jesus loves you.. cept if your gay then your gonna BUUUUURN!" self righteous fundie - well... i'm sure living is easy with eyes closed.

The Bible in a nutshell to me is scar tissue.

(wub wub)

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:54 am

Like Drakona said. It consists of the New and Old covenant (and contains many smaller convenants within). It's holds history which has been proven to be accurate. It is also a love story; God's effort and sucess to bring man's mistake full circle to make a way allowing fellowship with him. It is both metiphorical and literal at the same time but not in every instance. It is Divinely inspired and maintained. That is to say that the truth in it continues and is revealed to those who seek Him regardless of typo's, mistranslation or whatever.

There is more, but a paragraph is a paragraph.

World War Woodi · Post by **World War Woodi** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 2:00 am

A book of mythology perhaps based on some history in some parts. Unfortunatly the moral parts are far outwieghed by the immoral parts to me.

I see all religions simularly and definitly question how anyone could take them litirally, or interpret them as prophetic. I respect that some do and try to use religion to seek a honest and peaceful direction in thier lives, but I often wonder why they need the book to do it.

More often then not I have observed religion being at the root or the reason for interfering, or just completly destroying peoples lives. Giving the religious a sense of "God" givin rightousness that puts them above others. I use the name god generically, Allah or whatever your preference applies.

Personally I cannot accept a god that requires my worship. I could thank Him for my existance, my free will if He so required, but worship Him ? Why would the most powerful being or spirit in the universe need this ?{ I realize its beyond the scope of the topic. apologies. }

I have several problems with most religions, but I've already over written the topic.

WWW

Iceman · Post by **Iceman** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:12 pm

The Bible contains the old and the new testaments.

The Old Testament is more than a history of Israel as led by God. It describes in detail the fallible nature of humankind, it is a documentary of the fall of humankind and why we cannot possibly earn our way into heaven. It documents the way God dealt with humankind for thousands of years in his attempt to prepare us for the ultimate gift he was planning for us ... Grace. The New Testament describes primarily two things; God's incredible grace and his gift of salvation through his Son and it gives us examples of how we should try to live our lives in just about any circumstance imaginable.

I don't claim to know all of God's purposes for the Bible but these reasons, I feel, are a big part of it.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:15 pm

As a friend who went to a bible college calls it:

The Greatest Fairytale Ever Told.

TheCope · Post by **TheCope** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:35 pm

I think the bible is a really good read. Complete delusion, but a good read.

Shoku · Post by **Shoku** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 3:34 pm

The Bible is God's instruction book for mankind, inspired by God, but written by imperfect men during a period of about 1,600 years. Several of these writers include in their records compilations from eyewitness documents made by earlier writers, not all of whom were inspired. The holy spirit guided the compilers in determining which portions of older human documents should be included, thus authenticating these earlier texts as being reliable. From the time of their compilation forward, these extracts from older documents became part of the collection of inspired writtings that are now known as the "Bible." These Sacred Scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation, form one complete book, one complete library, all inspired by the one Supreme Author, God. They should not be divided into two parts, so that one part is given less value. The "Old Testament" and the "New Testament" are essential to each other. The latter supplements the former to make the one complete book of divine truth. The 66 Bible books, all together, form one library of instruction inspired by God for mankind. The Bible fills all our needs for wise direction. In addition to outlining God?s purpose, the Bible reveals God's personality. The Bible gives us a clear view of God?s standards. These are sometimes stated as laws. More often, however, they are reflected in principles taught by means of object lessons; God had certain events in ancient Israelite history written down for our benefit. These candid accounts show what happens when people work in harmony with God?s purpose (or will), as well as the sad outcome when they go their own way. Though the Bible is not a science textbook, it is scientifically accurate. For example, at a time when most people believed that the earth was flat, the prophet Isaiah referred to it as a ?circle? (Hebrew, chugh, which here carries the idea of ?sphere?). (Isaiah 40:22) The idea of a spherical earth was not widely accepted until thousands of years after Isaiah?s day. Furthermore, Job 26:7?written more than 3,000 years ago?states that God is ?hanging the earth upon nothing.? Says one Bible scholar: ?How Job knew the truth, demonstrated by astronomy, that the earth hangs self-poised in empty space, is a question not easily solved by those who deny the inspiration of Holy Scripture.? The style of reporting found in the Bible also strengthens our confidence in this age-old book. Unlike myths, the events covered in the Bible are linked to specific people and dates. (1 Kings 14:25; Isaiah 36:1; Luke 3:1, 2) And whereas ancient historians nearly always exaggerated the victories of their rulers and hid their defeats and mistakes, the Bible writers were candid and honest?even about their own serious sins. Fulfilled prophecy gives conclusive evidence that the Bible is inspired of God. The Bible contains many prophecies that have been fulfilled in detail. Obviously, mere humans could not be responsible for this.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 5:32 pm

The Bible is the story of humanity coming towards a better knowledge of God. It is the one indispensable book to be read to understand the last 2000 years or so of western (and some eastern) civilization.

fyrephlie · Post by **fyrephlie** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 6:21 pm

i have a friend tha refers to the bible as 'that scratch paper left in your hotel room by the gideons'

Phoenix Red · Post by **Phoenix Red** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 6:30 pm

The bible is an interpretation of right and wrong from a very long time ago, given chiefly in metaphor.

(disclaimer: some I think is right, some I think is not, I do not believe in god)

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 12:59 am

The Bible: written by man, inspired by God. God inspired the writers thoughts, not the words, the authors used their own words. This is why the Bible is not "inerrant". It wasn't meant to be a science textbook, or even a perfect history record, and so it is not a problem that 2 Sam 23:8 records that Josheb killed 800 men and 1 Chr 11:11 records 300. To use an important theological term: "Big Whoop".

It's not about the numbers, it's about God and Man and the relationship between them that was broken and healed at great cost.

Kilarin

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 1:49 pm

The bible is a semi-fictional work written and edited exclusively by human beings. It contains some of our earliest history, and many biblical events we know to have happened substantially as they are depicted in the bible.

The scriptures are NOT "the word of god" because god does not exist. They are written by human beings, who were NOT "god's stenographer".

However, alongside the historical narative exists many untruths, presented in the same way which have confused millions of people. And caused millions of deaths, and in impossible amount of suffering.

The Bible has been edited for inconsistencies, but very poorly, over the last thousand years, and the bible we have today is a result of religious doctrine, and not some attempt to seek the truth about god.

There is very little which modern man can take from the bible today, except the Christian teachings of Jesus, an unusual man, who never claimed to be the son of god.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 4:28 am

The Bible consists of the old and new testaments. The old mainly gives the typical story of follow God or you will be destroyed. Natural calamity and wars are ascribed to God to drive this point home. The prophets especially delivered this message. The prophets were full of hate and were ultimately killed by their own people. It became clear that this was not an effective life-philosophy.

The New Testament was realized when it was obvious that the Old Testament was terribly ineffective in describing God or the well-lived life. Virtues of God such as jealousy, vengeance, and hate were replaced with those of compassion, forgiveness, and love. The punctilious moral code was replaced with \"love God with all your heart\" and \"do unto others as you would have them do unto you,\" and it was emphasized that following these is self-rewarding.

Unfortunately, after this, the authors decided that the investigation into God and the well-lived life was complete.

Tricord · Post by **Tricord** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:59 pm

Drakona wrote:Here's mine:

The Bible consists of the old and new testaments. The old mainly gives the history of Israel as led by God, and its thesis is that man is sinful and needs God. The new testament gives the life of Jesus and the history of the church; its thesis is that God provides forgiveness for sin and regeneration of sinful character through Jesus' death. Along with this, the Bible also contains an ancient history, an eschatology, poetry, spiritual advice, moral advince, examples of good and bad behavior in God's eyes, teaching about the nature of God, and instructions for the church.

Apart from the historical value, you need the existence of God to embody any additional value within the bible. Hence, the book makes for a very poor manuscript for someone who does not embrace the concept of God as described within it. It is not universal.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 5:36 pm

the bible is a dogmatic religious book that spells out how to act, and how to get God's approval to move on to heaven. this is why most people care about the bible: they want to be on the train that brings them to heaven after life. Although there are other insights and beautiful stories in the bible, and people may claim other reasons (which sometimes are true), this is the main reason the bible remains so popular. Take out the afterlife portion, and it kills the religion just like it would with islam and the Koran. It is based upon fear. If you do not believe in the teachings, you end up in hell no matter what you do (at least that's the way most people believe it).

The bible cannot be proven as a scientific fact, therefore it is a book that requires a leap of faith, or an emotional belief not based on a scientific analysis. Even if the bible was 100% historically consistent, it does not make the bible correct. That is a false notion people believe in, and it is a silly point to argue about.

Have you ever been involved in a news story? I have, and involved in some major ones. I have been interviewed on BBC world service and many major newspapers. The resulting stories were far from accurate and far from what the original meaning of what I said. I once mispoke and said the wrong thing, and said \"That's not what I meant, here is what I mean\" and they snipped the previous part and ignored the latter. So even if the records of what I \"said\" are 100% accurate and are passed down for 3000 years intact 100%, that still doesn't mean what I said was written down correctly.

There is no way to verify that the information written in the bible is all true. There is no way to verify Jesus said all that he said. You weren't there. But this is still the secondary point; I don't even necessarily wish to debate this as being the crux of my argument.

The primary point is: even if Jesus did say everything that is written, it still doesn't mean he actually was the son of God! There is no way to scientifically verify his 'miracles.' There is no way to prove he is the son of God, or that what is in the bible are actually God's commands. Believing what is in the bible are God's wishes is a leap of faith, nothing more.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:15 am

Birdseye wrote: The primary point is: even if Jesus did say everything that is written, it still doesn't mean he actually was the son of God! There is no way to scientifically verify his 'miracles.' There is no way to prove he is the son of God, or that what is in the bible are actually God's commands. Believing what is in the bible are God's wishes is a leap of faith, nothing more.

.....so OF COURSE it isn't true. Trying to or relying on proving everything "scientifically" is more nonsense than that which you just tried to describe. It smacks of too much time in college and that you have a lot more of life to live my friend. This is what you believe, however, and that's cool, but I used to think the same thing. I also used to think that there was nothing wrong with abortions.. used to. Science will fail you eventually Birdseye.

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 3:02 am

Never read a single line of the bible. And after a good half lifetime of watching/talking to people who have read it/believe in it I never will. I can form my own opinions about our existence w/o that \"reference\", thank you very much

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 5:31 am

Duper wrote:
Birdseye wrote: The primary point is: even if Jesus did say everything that is written, it still doesn't mean he actually was the son of God! There is no way to scientifically verify his 'miracles.' There is no way to prove he is the son of God, or that what is in the bible are actually God's commands. Believing what is in the bible are God's wishes is a leap of faith, nothing more.
.....so OF COURSE it isn't true. Trying to or relying on proving everything "scientifically" is more nonsense than that which you just tried to describe. It smacks of too much time in college and that you have a lot more of life to live my friend. This is what you believe, however, and that's cool, but I used to think the same thing. I also used to think that there was nothing wrong with abortions.. used to. Science will fail you eventually Birdseye.

Hi Duper,

Actually I think you have sold me quite short. I'd like you to read my 2500 word post in Zuruck's religion thread about my own viewpoints, viewtopic.php?t=9085
Then proceed with further comments. I think you'll see that science is only one part of my philosophical view, although I do think it is an important part of any philosophical view.

Rather than sit there and flame me, I'd rather have an intellectual discussion based on the merits of argumentation and logic.

Thanks,
Birdseye

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:26 pm

I'd also like to add that I'm not necessarily opposed to believing something on the basis of a personal subjective experience, rather my response was a rejection (as some here have postulated) that Christianity can be scientifically validated.

I think we actually agree.

Behemoth · Post by **Behemoth** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:18 pm

If you could scientifically prove the things you hold as you're \"faith\" then it would not be faith exactly now would it?

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:39 pm

Birdseye wrote: I'd like you to read my 2500 word post in Zuruck's religion thread about my own viewpoints, viewtopic.php?t=9085
Then proceed with further comments. I think you'll see that science is only one part of my philosophical view, although I do think it is an important part of any philosophical view.
Birdseye

I just wanted to say that I read your entire 2500 word post and I liked it very much. You spoke from the heart and it didn't need any interpretation. I believe that too, and I've always believed this part.

I am part of the universe, the universe is part of me, we are in a sense one.

And I just hope in the year 2006 I don't hear the words "Faith" and "Science" in the same sentence.

Bettina

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:05 pm

Bet51987 wrote: And I just hope in the year 2006 I don't hear the words "Faith" and "Science" in the same sentence.

Why should there be such a division?

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:57 am

Duper wrote:Why should there be such a division?

Since Drakonas post was a hit and run, I don't mind answering that here...

Faith... The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. The body of dogma of a religion. (the trusting part is what killed me)

Science... The method of obtaining reliable...though not infallible...knowledge about the universe around us. This knowledge includes both descriptions of what happens and explanations of why it happens. On Earth and everywhere.

Religious faith is not science. It never was and never will be. It is just an inert belief in a row of "text" read over and over by those who believe in god. To most, they were words of comfort knowing that there was a hereafter where they would be rejoined with lost loved ones. This is the way it should have been.

However, unsatisifed with remaining in the church, they try to enter the science classrooms with ridiculous ideas of Intelligent design or cling to claims that anything older than 10k years isn't true...or neanderthal man never was. They try to inject those ideas by political threats, power, and money...by placing jerks on a school board and red flags into every unproven area of a science book. Whole states like Kansas have to go to court to get rid of the huge ball and chain strapped to evey kid willing, and wanting to get a "real and truthful" education. No wonder I get ticked.

Again..faith is not science and it was the church who forced the division. Think oil and water.....put them in a blender and let it run for an hour. What you have left will look as one, but in time, they will return to what they really are....

Bettina

Behemoth · Post by **Behemoth** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 1:43 pm

Bet51987 wrote:
Duper wrote:Why should there be such a division?
Again..faith is not science and it was the church who forced the division. Think oil and water.....put them in a blender and let it run for an hour. What you have left will look as one, but in time, they will return to what they really are....
Bettina

Quite an interesting analogy, as i tried to point out earlier faith and science are NOT the same and can not be the same, if you have trouble trusting anyone i can see why you blatantly attack conservative or christian ideologys.

However, science and faith do not NEED to be the same for science to prove that the things people hold their "faith" in are actually true, it has been done already many times and it will continue to until you dont have room to question or attack at any other slant.

Drakona · Post by **Drakona** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 2:10 pm

Wow, what wonderful replies--some of them surprised me quite a bit.

I was mostly looking for people to describe what they think the Bible says, so I wasn't expecting a lot of comments about what the Bible is or represents to you. Though I guess things like Roid's \"The Bible in a nutshell to me is scar tissue\" are more accurate that way.

And I smiled when I read this from Birdseye - \"the bible is a dogmatic religious book that spells out how to act, and how to get God's approval to move on to heaven.\" - because I think that's what a lot of people, Christians included sometimes, falsely think. I've always thought that was funny because the old testament doesn't really talk about heaven, and the main point of the new testament is that you can't be good enough to get there. Doesn't seem to stop a lot of people from thinking that the rules are the important part, and if you follow them, you're golden. (Not to debate you or anything, Birdseye, and I know you said more than that--it just made me smile.)

And the comments about science and faith interest me... but rather than muss this one, maybe I'll make a thread on that.

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 2:13 pm

Birdseye wrote:The bible cannot be proven as a scientific fact

I think you're statement about scientific facts is right, but not much follows from it. Many types of claims, besides religious ones, cannot be proved scientifically, e.g., metaphysical, ethical and aesthetic claims. It's not that I have anything against science, it's just that there are limits to what it can do.

Birdseye wrote:therefore it is a book that requires a leap of faith

Depends on what you mean by 'leap of faith'. I'd say it's possible to develop a plausible, coherent and viable worldview based on the Bible.

Birdseye wrote:The primary point is: even if Jesus did say everything that is written, it still doesn't mean he actually was the son of God! There is no way to scientifically verify his 'miracles.' There is no way to prove he is the son of God, or that what is in the bible are actually God's commands. Believing what is in the bible are God's wishes is a leap of faith, nothing more.

What you're basically saying is that the Bible is possibly false and I agree with you. I think that since human minds are finite, most, if not all, human beliefs are possibly false. However, the other side of the coin is that the Bible is possibly true. It seems that for some people, the fact that the Bible is possibly false is enough to dismiss it, while for others, the fact that it is possibly true is enough to accept it.

Shoku · Post by **Shoku** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 6:00 pm

Birdseye wrote:The primary point is: even if Jesus did say everything that is written, it still doesn't mean he actually was the son of God! There is no way to scientifically verify his 'miracles.' There is no way to prove he is the son of God, or that what is in the bible are actually God's commands. Believing what is in the bible are God's wishes is a leap of faith, nothing more.

Yes, the belief that Jesus was the Son of God does take faith. Even the apostle Paul admitted that when he said:

"If Chirst has not been raised up, our preaching is certainly in vain, and our faith is in vain." -1 Corinthians 15:14

However, there is a "scientific" disipline that can add value to what is stated in the Bible, especially about Jesus. This disipline is the examination of other ancient texts. The study of ancient texts is more than just some classical scholar reading old manuscripts; it is a meticulous examination of not only what is written, but how it was written, where it was written, when it was written, and by whom it was written.

If Jesus did not perform any miricles, then we would not expect non-Christian sources to state that he did perform them. And yet the Talmud, a collection of Jewish writings from the middle ages, which are written accounts of oral tradition passed down through the preceeding centuries, admit quite frankly that Jesus did indeed perfom the miracles stated in Christian writtings from the first century. And these Jewish writings admit this even though Jewish tradition does not accept Jesus as the Messiah.

In other words, when those who oppose you admit you did something that can be potentially harmful to them, then that is very good evidence that you probably did do it.

Tricord · Post by **Tricord** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:12 pm

Drakona wrote:I was mostly looking for people to describe what they think the Bible says, so I wasn't expecting a lot of comments about what the Bible is or represents to you.

If you're just fishing for comments about what people think the bible says, all you can do is evaluate their personal study of the manuscript. Which in itself isn't very interesting, since if I'd want to know more about it, I could just do some reading. I have a bible right here on my bookshelf, back from the schooldays. If I don't know all the bible says yet, it's right here at hand for reference.

No, to me it is a great deal more interesting to find out what people think the bible is or represents to them. Why do people care for the bible, or why don't they. What does it do for you or for me.

Either way, the bible cannot pretend to be sufficiently timeless in order not to get outdated. I state this as a fact. The bible carries a message that may in some regards be timeless, but the way that message is brought forth is horribly dated. I state this as an opinion. You may argument that the bible is not yet outdated, but in that case it will be at some point in the future.

There is nothing wrong with reiterating the christian message. Review, rehash, repack it. Most priests do this very well in their lectures, usually set in a more contemporary context.

I recognise that the bible brings a message to people, and a good one at that. But the literal wording is worthless and shouldn't be worshipped or scrutingly examined as is now by devout catholics.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:33 pm

Behemoth wrote:
Bet51987 wrote:
Duper wrote:Why should there be such a division?
Again..faith is not science and it was the church who forced the division. Think oil and water.....put them in a blender and let it run for an hour. What you have left will look as one, but in time, they will return to what they really are....
Bettina
Quite an interesting analogy, as i tried to point out earlier faith and science are NOT the same and can not be the same, if you have trouble trusting anyone i can see why you blatantly attack conservative or christian ideologys.

However, science and faith do not NEED to be the same for science to prove that the things people hold their "faith" in are actually true, it has been done already many times and it will continue to until you dont have room to question or attack at any other slant.

Blatant attack? Its religion thats doing the attacking from what I've been reading...

Bettina

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 8:52 pm

Bet51987 wrote:Its religion thats doing the attacking from what I've been reading.

Trust me, the attacks are going both ways.

Which is sad, in my opinion, because I think it's a war that never needed to be fought.

Kilarin

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:07 pm

Drakona wrote:
And I smiled when I read this from Birdseye - "the bible is a dogmatic religious book that spells out how to act, and how to get God's approval to move on to heaven." - because I think that's what a lot of people, Christians included sometimes, falsely think. I've always thought that was funny because the old testament doesn't really talk about heaven, and the main point of the new testament is that you can't be good enough to get there. Doesn't seem to stop a lot of people from thinking that the rules are the important part, and if you follow them, you're golden. (Not to debate you or anything, Birdseye, and I know you said more than that--it just made me smile.)

Actually, you are right, I misspoke. Looking at my comments again they were really pointed at modern commonly held beliefs *about* the bible and Christianity. The more I actually learn of the bible, the more I think people are intepreting it (potentially) different from the intended meaning -- this especially in regards to what Jesus says. I'd really like to hear what you have to say about the new testament and especially what you mean about "main point of the new testament is that you can't be good enough to get there (heaven)"

Thanks,
Birdseye

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:13 pm

De Rigueur wrote:
Birdseye wrote:The bible cannot be proven as a scientific fact
I think you're statement about scientific facts is right, but not much follows from it. Many types of claims, besides religious ones, cannot be proved scientifically, e.g., metaphysical, ethical and aesthetic claims. It's not that I have anything against science, it's just that there are limits to what it can do.

I agree. Having experienced some amazing things in Lucid Dreaming and Meditation, I understand this all too well when I try to talk about my experiences to other people. I was simply responding to Lothar's previous assertions that it can be scientifically validated.

De Rigueur wrote:
Birdseye wrote:therefore it is a book that requires a leap of faith
Depends on what you mean by 'leap of faith'. I'd say it's possible to develop a plausible, coherent and viable worldview based on the Bible.

I don't think any one book can create such a view, but I'd be interested to hear your argument.

De Rigueur wrote:
Birdseye wrote:The primary point is: even if Jesus did say everything that is written, it still doesn't mean he actually was the son of God! There is no way to scientifically verify his 'miracles.' There is no way to prove he is the son of God, or that what is in the bible are actually God's commands. Believing what is in the bible are God's wishes is a leap of faith, nothing more.
What you're basically saying is that the Bible is possibly false and I agree with you. I think that since human minds are finite, most, if not all, human beliefs are possibly false. However, the other side of the coin is that the Bible is possibly true. It seems that for some people, the fact that the Bible is possibly false is enough to dismiss it, while for others, the fact that it is possibly true is enough to accept it.

The fact that something might possibly be true seems to be a silly reason to follow a religion. Since so many religions 'might be' true, why follow this specific one?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:42 pm

Birdseye wrote:The bible cannot be proven as a scientific fact

Birdseye wrote:I was simply responding to Lothar's previous assertions that it can be scientifically validated.

"Scientifically validated" and "scientifically proven" are two different things. I don't think I ever said it could be scientifically proven (but if I did, I'm going to write it off to sleep deprivation, since I know better. Science doesn't prove anything, it only validates or falsifies.)

I also haven't said the whole Bible can be scientifically validated, only that some parts of it can be. Furthermore, there's a lot of "unusual" evidence (such as answered prayer) that makes me believe the rest of it, and that I think (taken as a whole) should at least be slightly disturbing to those who think it's totally bogus.

The general (secular) history of the Bible can be scientifically validated. Look at the cities, the major people, the animals, the coins, the battles, the groups of people described in the Bible... and then look at archaeological and anthropological studies of the middle east. They match up pretty darn well -- they're validated continuously, and to my knowledge, never falsified. (I have a few extra DVD's of "The Bible vs The Book of Mormon", which I'll send to anyone who asks. It analyzes both books from a secular-history perspective, and while it's meant as a tool for Christian outreach to Mormons, I think anyone who's interested in the way either book stacks up against history should watch it.)

The history of the manuscripts can also be scientifically tested, by which I mean, Xciter's claim that the Bible has been "re-written so many times" can be scientifically tested. Xciter's claim is clearly false, as was discussed in the thread fyrephlie linked to (fyrephlie is no defender of the Bible, he's just someone with a good awareness of the history of the text.)

I agree with you that this doesn't prove the text is actually true (and, really, I don't see why you even bother to argue this -- when has ANYONE said otherwise?) All this proves is that, if you're going to argue against the Bible, "it's been rewritten" or "its historical accounts are all borked" are crappy arguments that everyone but Mobi should be mature enough to avoid.

Tricord wrote:all you can do is evaluate their personal study of the manuscript. Which in itself isn't very interesting...

It actually is interesting to me to evaluate people's personal study of the manuscript... what methods do they use to study? Have they studied it enough to validly hold the opinions they hold as strongly as they do? When they studied it, what did they think was important, and what did they think was incidental? What parts of the text stood out to them as "this is what it's all about"?

For example: I find it interesting that Birdseye -- and a lot of other people (including many Christians) -- think that the Bible is a book that "spells out how to act, and how to get God's approval to move on to heaven". As Drakona mentioned, one major theme of the Bible (both testaments) is that the whole idea of acting right to get God's approval is horribly flawed since nobody could possibly be good enough to gain God's approval. The other major theme of the Bible is called "the gospel": Jesus' death and resurrection provides forgiveness and regeneration for everyone who asks. At least, those are the things we both picked out as major themes (as did Iceman and some others.)

Another interesting example: some people I've talked to seem to think the Bible should be read like a series of riddles or koans. As if, when Jesus said "I am the bread of life", this statement should be read and pondered completely on its own. I would argue the statement isn't a riddle at all, but a reference to specific events that took place during the thousands of years of religious history contained in the Old Testament.

Apart from mere curiousity... I find it helpful to know what people *think* the Bible says, because often it sheds a lot of light on their arguments. For example, knowing Birdseye thinks the Bible is meant to teach people how to gain God's approval makes some things he's said in the past make more sense.

Drakona · Post by **Drakona** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:49 pm

Tricord wrote:
Drakona wrote:I was mostly looking for people to describe what they think the Bible says, so I wasn't expecting a lot of comments about what the Bible is or represents to you.
If you're just fishing for comments about what people think the bible says, all you can do is evaluate their personal study of the manuscript. Which in itself isn't very interesting, since if I'd want to know more about it, I could just do some reading. I have a bible right here on my bookshelf, back from the schooldays. If I don't know all the bible says yet, it's right here at hand for reference.

No, to me it is a great deal more interesting to find out what people think the bible is or represents to them. Why do people care for the bible, or why don't they. What does it do for you or for me.

Yeah, actually, I agree. I wasn't criticizing, just making an observation--perhaps that didn't come across. I had originally wanted to find out just what you said--how much different people actually knew about the Bible, on what experience they based their statements about what it said and where it came from. But when I think about it, a lot of reasoning is emotion and bias. For some, what they know about the Bible is that it's old and church is irrelevant and dishonest and childhood in church sucked and... And for them, that's what's in there. That's probably actually a very accurate answer.

That is to say, not everyone answered the question I asked, but I think I like the question you answered better. I really appreciate the honesty and genuineness of the replies, and people have said some interesting stuff.

Diedel · Post by **Diedel** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 4:09 pm

Reading the bible without inspiration (by the Holy Ghost) will confuse you at best.

It's a very complex book, saying a lot of things about the nature of mankind and the nature of God.

@Bettina:

If you see hatred in the bible, it's because of what it says about the nature of mankind.

If you cannot see the love in it, it is because of yourself, not because of the book. And if you chose to hate instead of seeking (that) love, it's your decision. Don't make others responsible for it.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:29 pm

Diedel wrote:Reading the bible without inspiration (by the Holy Ghost) will confuse you at best.

It's a very complex book, saying a lot of things about the nature of mankind and the nature of God.

@Bettina:

If you see hatred in the bible, it's because of what it says about the nature of mankind.

If you cannot see the love in it, it is because of yourself, not because of the book. And if you chose to hate instead of seeking (that) love, it's your decision. Don't make others responsible for it.

I don't hate the bible. I said it was full of hate. Gods revenge on this and that...Calling me a sinner before I was born, and tons of other stuff. I read it all...and found no comfort, or belief, in its words.

I still live a moral life though, but I got that from my dad.

Bettina

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 8:16 pm

Bet51987 wrote:
Diedel wrote:Reading the bible without inspiration (by the Holy Ghost) will confuse you at best.

It's a very complex book, saying a lot of things about the nature of mankind and the nature of God.

@Bettina:

If you see hatred in the bible, it's because of what it says about the nature of mankind.

If you cannot see the love in it, it is because of yourself, not because of the book. And if you chose to hate instead of seeking (that) love, it's your decision. Don't make others responsible for it.
I don't hate the bible. I said it was full of hate. Gods revenge on this and that...Calling me a sinner before I was born, and tons of other stuff. I read it all...and found no comfort, or belief, in its words.

I still live a moral life though, but I got that from my dad.

Bettina

Bet ... God took "revenge" on those who DID NOT DO WHAT HE TOLD THEM. The Bible is pretty clear on this. Everyone is a sinner. Adam brought that into our race when he disobeyed God. You should know this, growing up in the church. It's basic doctrine.

The Bible In A Nutshell

The Bible In A Nutshell

Re: The Bible In A Nutshell

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: