Constance Ardeth
Soli Deo Gloria
I'm curious as to what the results will be.
Do You Believe What the Bible Says?
- Thread starter Constance Ardeth
- Start date
AMVabel
Member
If you don't mind me slotting in here, I'm planning on studying Theology so this is a really interesting discussion for me.
As far as my personal view goes: I don't know. As far as we can speak about the Bible as a historical narrative: parts of it are true (and parts of it are not). The first important thing to consider when we speak about the Bible is that it's been translated more times than I can count on my fingers and toes (I have all four limbs in tact). That means going from scriptural to Roman alphabets, which presents us with translation issues almost straight away. After that, we have to consider the fact that even in English, we have multiple versions. I've studied three alone in various contexts without even having been to university yet. Now, we have a problem with interpretation.
After that, we have to consider certain other parts of the Biblical narrative starting with the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible). Genesis and Exodus live up to a number of difficulties in interpretation. For a very potted tour: Genesis mentions the Philistines, who wouldn't have been around at that point, whilst Exodus gives us 430 years of supposed oppression of the Israelites by the Egyptian Empire but doesn't go particularly far into it. Additionally, Moses is actually an Egyptian name, which means that the inconsistencies in Exodus can't be explained by 'Israelite fantasism' (Diarmaid MacCulloch, A History of Christianity). Judges fares a little better, and religious historians are generally able to slot it into the time period surrounding 1200BCE without too much difficulty. Personally, I find the final three books of the Pentateuch really intriguing because of the mystery surrounding the Ark of the Covenant.
The New Testament holds up a little more easily. The language is closer to modern languages (such is the passage of time) which means there are fewer (which isn't to say there are none) issues with translation. Additionally, what we can see of Christian philosophy surrounding ethics, morality and divinity can be traced to other philosophies (in particular, Graeco-Roman philosophies), which means that we're able to map out philosophical influence in the meta-narrative surrounding the text. This, then, gives us an enhanced idea of what exactly is going on in the world at the time the texts were written (or, indeed, the period the texts are reflecting) and that means it's easier to hold these texts to scrutiny. For the most part, they do fit.
On a more general note, it's important for people who don't believe not to dismiss the Bible. The Bible may principally be sacred scripture, but it's also a historical text. As a text which supposedly bears witness to real events, it has a responsibility (which it largely upholds) to fit the occurrences surrounding it. As such, The Bible can be read and studied as a real historical narrative if supplemented with the right materials - and if you're looking to discard Christianity as a fairy-story, you have to know which parts you're able to discard or you look like a bit of a gump!
As far as my personal view goes: I don't know. As far as we can speak about the Bible as a historical narrative: parts of it are true (and parts of it are not). The first important thing to consider when we speak about the Bible is that it's been translated more times than I can count on my fingers and toes (I have all four limbs in tact). That means going from scriptural to Roman alphabets, which presents us with translation issues almost straight away. After that, we have to consider the fact that even in English, we have multiple versions. I've studied three alone in various contexts without even having been to university yet. Now, we have a problem with interpretation.
After that, we have to consider certain other parts of the Biblical narrative starting with the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible). Genesis and Exodus live up to a number of difficulties in interpretation. For a very potted tour: Genesis mentions the Philistines, who wouldn't have been around at that point, whilst Exodus gives us 430 years of supposed oppression of the Israelites by the Egyptian Empire but doesn't go particularly far into it. Additionally, Moses is actually an Egyptian name, which means that the inconsistencies in Exodus can't be explained by 'Israelite fantasism' (Diarmaid MacCulloch, A History of Christianity). Judges fares a little better, and religious historians are generally able to slot it into the time period surrounding 1200BCE without too much difficulty. Personally, I find the final three books of the Pentateuch really intriguing because of the mystery surrounding the Ark of the Covenant.
The New Testament holds up a little more easily. The language is closer to modern languages (such is the passage of time) which means there are fewer (which isn't to say there are none) issues with translation. Additionally, what we can see of Christian philosophy surrounding ethics, morality and divinity can be traced to other philosophies (in particular, Graeco-Roman philosophies), which means that we're able to map out philosophical influence in the meta-narrative surrounding the text. This, then, gives us an enhanced idea of what exactly is going on in the world at the time the texts were written (or, indeed, the period the texts are reflecting) and that means it's easier to hold these texts to scrutiny. For the most part, they do fit.
On a more general note, it's important for people who don't believe not to dismiss the Bible. The Bible may principally be sacred scripture, but it's also a historical text. As a text which supposedly bears witness to real events, it has a responsibility (which it largely upholds) to fit the occurrences surrounding it. As such, The Bible can be read and studied as a real historical narrative if supplemented with the right materials - and if you're looking to discard Christianity as a fairy-story, you have to know which parts you're able to discard or you look like a bit of a gump!
Constance Ardeth
Soli Deo Gloria
Whew! Looks like you have done a lot of research. I respect your opinion, though I cannot agree with you when you say that you only believe parts. You said "Genesis mentions the Philistines, who wouldn't have been around at that point", but here's the thing: I know from the Bible, that everything God says is true, so if God said that the Philistines were around at that point, then they were! We cannot rely on science for a good many things. It has been proved wrong countless times. We must trust the Creator, not the creation. 
AMVabel
Member
Equally, I respect your opinion, but if possible I'd like to offer a different perspective on the debate that might help my point without discarding the Word of God.
The Bible is constantly being translated and reinterpreted (even in the preface to the New Revised Standard Version, it refers to no less than three other versions of the text). Additionally, people - not God - wrote the Bible, though God may have given the Word and the order of events. This means that the Word of God can be confused and misinterpreted when put in writing and then transposed through countless centuries.
Furthermore, I think you really do need to be mindful of the historical narrative surrounding the text. Genesis gives an account of primeval history, so when the Philistines are mentioned in Genesis 5 and Genesis 10 as having contact with Abraham, we know this can't have been true because the Philistines were in conflict with Israel during a set period of time between 10th century and 12th century BCE, which occurred after Genesis. I think here is where I once again refer to the point about the Bible being set in a historical narrative: God may have given the Word, but that doesn't mean that its bearers were able to transcribe it either accurately or immediately.
Finally, when you say science has been 'proved wrong', I would be really interested in the specific instances to which you are referring. I will not discount that scientific research has been fabricated (see: the MMR scandal), but in terms of empiricism, we can generally be certain that scientific theory is correct. The best way I've seen this be put is by Alister McGrath, who is a renowned religious apologist. He points out that some things that aren't empirically proven can still be working hypotheses until someone else is able to prove them in future: Darwin's theory of natural selection (which is now almost certainly true in light of advances in genetic biology) is a good example of this. McGrath also points out that religion is a good example of a working hypotheses. It has certainly been challenged, but not yet proven wrong in its entirety. Helpful further reading on the emergence of this viewpoint in a religious context would be to go back to Aristotle, who was a Greek Religious Empiricist.
To cover myself in case of you falling back on the Word of God argument regarding Creationism, it's important also to think of the Bible as a text with multiple interpretations. This is an idea which predates the New Testament at least, going back to Plato.
The Bible is constantly being translated and reinterpreted (even in the preface to the New Revised Standard Version, it refers to no less than three other versions of the text). Additionally, people - not God - wrote the Bible, though God may have given the Word and the order of events. This means that the Word of God can be confused and misinterpreted when put in writing and then transposed through countless centuries.
Furthermore, I think you really do need to be mindful of the historical narrative surrounding the text. Genesis gives an account of primeval history, so when the Philistines are mentioned in Genesis 5 and Genesis 10 as having contact with Abraham, we know this can't have been true because the Philistines were in conflict with Israel during a set period of time between 10th century and 12th century BCE, which occurred after Genesis. I think here is where I once again refer to the point about the Bible being set in a historical narrative: God may have given the Word, but that doesn't mean that its bearers were able to transcribe it either accurately or immediately.
Finally, when you say science has been 'proved wrong', I would be really interested in the specific instances to which you are referring. I will not discount that scientific research has been fabricated (see: the MMR scandal), but in terms of empiricism, we can generally be certain that scientific theory is correct. The best way I've seen this be put is by Alister McGrath, who is a renowned religious apologist. He points out that some things that aren't empirically proven can still be working hypotheses until someone else is able to prove them in future: Darwin's theory of natural selection (which is now almost certainly true in light of advances in genetic biology) is a good example of this. McGrath also points out that religion is a good example of a working hypotheses. It has certainly been challenged, but not yet proven wrong in its entirety. Helpful further reading on the emergence of this viewpoint in a religious context would be to go back to Aristotle, who was a Greek Religious Empiricist.
To cover myself in case of you falling back on the Word of God argument regarding Creationism, it's important also to think of the Bible as a text with multiple interpretations. This is an idea which predates the New Testament at least, going back to Plato.
Context: I'm an Atheist, so the answer is pretty obvious, however, I'll entertain explaining, maybe, why.
Short Answer: No.*
Long Answer: Not really. Too many translations, too many inconsistencies, too many fundamental errors. It contains so many unfalsifiable claims that it may as well be tantamount to a discussion over which version of Superman is the "most accurate." Regardless of the way it is analyzed--philosophically, ethically, historically--there are so many errors and so many contradictions that it baffles the imagination to even try. It was cobbled together by a bunch of Romans who clearly didn't have any political machinations in mind whatsoever,** followed up with several rewrites by various kings throughout history that also totally didn't have a bunch of political machinations in mind either.
To crack open my own Bible here, I do believe it says...
"So give back to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." (Matthew 22:21)
I buy not this novel of short tales, probably best left as separate and not combined.
*From a strictly faithless point of view.
**Yes, I'm aware there were multiple councils that presided over the general construction of the Bible as a book. They are actually quite fascinating. Don't remind me.
Short Answer: No.*
Long Answer: Not really. Too many translations, too many inconsistencies, too many fundamental errors. It contains so many unfalsifiable claims that it may as well be tantamount to a discussion over which version of Superman is the "most accurate." Regardless of the way it is analyzed--philosophically, ethically, historically--there are so many errors and so many contradictions that it baffles the imagination to even try. It was cobbled together by a bunch of Romans who clearly didn't have any political machinations in mind whatsoever,** followed up with several rewrites by various kings throughout history that also totally didn't have a bunch of political machinations in mind either.
To crack open my own Bible here, I do believe it says...
"So give back to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." (Matthew 22:21)
I buy not this novel of short tales, probably best left as separate and not combined.
*From a strictly faithless point of view.
**Yes, I'm aware there were multiple councils that presided over the general construction of the Bible as a book. They are actually quite fascinating. Don't remind me.
Zireael
Member
I don't believe what the Bible says, but I do believe in the message it (usually) seems to carry. Granted, I haven't read much of it at all, but from the passages I've seen, it seems to have some good morals and lessons in it.
Then again, I believe society would be perfect if we all just kept to one simple rule: "don't be a douche", however vague that may be
Then again, I believe society would be perfect if we all just kept to one simple rule: "don't be a douche", however vague that may be
PuddingPalGal
Member
Heck to the NO. I was forced to read it in elementary school. A lot of contradictions, violence towards innocent people and so much more. I'm ok with people believing in it but I dont think its very...good.
Natalija
Queen of LaLa Land, state of Capital Bulshit :P
Used to. Vhen I was a kid and didnt know any beter, and vhen I had it shoved down my throat at sunday masses and the nonsense (not to use a stronger word) preached there. Now... HELL NO. And vhat pisses me off most is when someone refers to it as a "good book". Nothing, not 1 thing is good about it. Evryone is entitled to a opinion ofc, but I prefer to stay far away from people who think of it that way.
Riz Faber
Member
I do believe in and worship God and I do believe that Jesus is my savior. Do I believe every little thing the Bible says? Definitely not.
Look, my parents never forced their Christian religion down my throat as seems to be the case in many Christian households. My mother is a Christian and my father is an Atheist so obviously there were different influences in my life growing up. My mother never forced me to go to church with her, but I liked going because I was in the church choir and I got to have tea and snacks with all my friends afterwards. As I got a bit older and actually started paying attention to what the preacher was saying, I decided to read the book for myself. I was SUPER into reading at that age. And most of the Bible, I really enjoyed reading. The stories of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah and the Ark, Moses and the Exodus, Joseph the dreamer, etc. As a child, I loved all of the stories in the Bible. I loved the stories of kings and wars and all the drama and stuff. No one can argue that it is a GREAT story.
I probably read the entire book cover to cover before I was 11 years old. Which is where my Atheist dad came in with his logic and science and all that stuff. He never told me the things weren't true, he just put the stories into perspective for me. Like pointing out at what time the Bible was written, how many of the stories were passed down orally through the generations before they were written down, and how many times they've been translated into other languages. He also pointed out how different the world was 2000+ years ago and how the people would have interpreted certain things to fit with the things they knew about the world at that time.
I also like to keep in mind exactly who these people were who were writing and translating the Bible all these years. You know, men. And while the Word of God might be perfect and pure or whatever, men definitely aren't. I trust God, but I don't trust men. And by 'men' I'm not being sexist, I mean like mankind in general. There was nothing stopping those dudes from adding a few sentences here and there or changing up a word just slightly in a way that would be beneficial to themselves. Mankind can be greedy and sneaky and all kinds of things. Especially once they discovered how much power this book had over the common people of the world. Just think, we give a shit load of money to the Church just because the Bible tells us to. There definitely had to be corruption in the Church at some points. Like when they believed that their Bible gave them the right to murder people who didn't believe the same thing as they did or when they decided that homosexuals will go to hell and should thus be punished on earth as well.
Which is just something I can rant about for hours so don't even get me started. The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin and you can't touch a woman while she's on her period because she's dirty and handicapped people aren't allowed to go to church or be in the presence of God. Those are some of the examples that I think are bullshit, because the God I love and worship is a God of Love. And I can't see Him being all hateful, unfair and punishing like that. But that's just my opinion.
In short, no, I do not believe in everything the Bible says. And I hope this post made sense because I'm already half asleep writing it XD.
Look, my parents never forced their Christian religion down my throat as seems to be the case in many Christian households. My mother is a Christian and my father is an Atheist so obviously there were different influences in my life growing up. My mother never forced me to go to church with her, but I liked going because I was in the church choir and I got to have tea and snacks with all my friends afterwards. As I got a bit older and actually started paying attention to what the preacher was saying, I decided to read the book for myself. I was SUPER into reading at that age. And most of the Bible, I really enjoyed reading. The stories of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah and the Ark, Moses and the Exodus, Joseph the dreamer, etc. As a child, I loved all of the stories in the Bible. I loved the stories of kings and wars and all the drama and stuff. No one can argue that it is a GREAT story.
I probably read the entire book cover to cover before I was 11 years old. Which is where my Atheist dad came in with his logic and science and all that stuff. He never told me the things weren't true, he just put the stories into perspective for me. Like pointing out at what time the Bible was written, how many of the stories were passed down orally through the generations before they were written down, and how many times they've been translated into other languages. He also pointed out how different the world was 2000+ years ago and how the people would have interpreted certain things to fit with the things they knew about the world at that time.
I also like to keep in mind exactly who these people were who were writing and translating the Bible all these years. You know, men. And while the Word of God might be perfect and pure or whatever, men definitely aren't. I trust God, but I don't trust men. And by 'men' I'm not being sexist, I mean like mankind in general. There was nothing stopping those dudes from adding a few sentences here and there or changing up a word just slightly in a way that would be beneficial to themselves. Mankind can be greedy and sneaky and all kinds of things. Especially once they discovered how much power this book had over the common people of the world. Just think, we give a shit load of money to the Church just because the Bible tells us to. There definitely had to be corruption in the Church at some points. Like when they believed that their Bible gave them the right to murder people who didn't believe the same thing as they did or when they decided that homosexuals will go to hell and should thus be punished on earth as well.
Which is just something I can rant about for hours so don't even get me started. The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin and you can't touch a woman while she's on her period because she's dirty and handicapped people aren't allowed to go to church or be in the presence of God. Those are some of the examples that I think are bullshit, because the God I love and worship is a God of Love. And I can't see Him being all hateful, unfair and punishing like that. But that's just my opinion.
In short, no, I do not believe in everything the Bible says. And I hope this post made sense because I'm already half asleep writing it XD.