94 replies to this topic

[Zythe]

Just plain crazy? I mean, the Bible's meant to be interpreted... right?

[Wolf O'Donnell]

This is a subject I wouldn't like to touch with a ten mile bargepole, specifically because the moment you talk about these sort of things, you're bound to get into heated arguments with lots of hate being bantered around and lots of people actively misunderstanding other people's posts.

However, I will say this...

If you take all of the Bible literally, then you've got a few problems:
1). If Cain and Abel were Adam and Eve's only offspring, how did they reproduce?
2). If all of the Bible must be obeyed, then it is Biblically sanctioned to buy slaves from neighbouring tribes/states/nations.

[Alakhriveion]

Let me explain why I approved this: At the end of the "Homosexuality" thread, discussion had turned to Christian Fundamentalism. This thread is to continue that subject appropriately. Wolf, I promise I'll mod it within an inch of it's life.

[arunma]

Thanks Alak, because I'm probably not going to mod this one (personal bias, and I can tell I'll get involved in the debate).

[Alakhriveion]

Korhend also should do some moderating...

[thabto81]

Fundamentalism, by its very nature, cannot exist. For instance, no one literally believes that God is a shepherd and that we are all literally sheep. You'd be foolish to think so. Therefore, the only way to read the bible is metaphorically.

[SOAP]

I think the Bible is mostly metaphorical. It'd take a man of either great faith or incredible naïvety to believe that the Bible is an accurate "History Book" and that everything in it really happened exactly how it was written down. I don't think it's chocked full of lies of lies either. The lessons within the stories are true and they guide us and teach us even today. It’s like the Hitchhiker’s Guide to spiritual living in a world that cares too much about materials things. With in-depth examples.

[Goose]

I cant wait to see Arunma launch an attack on us all.

I think the stories in the bible are supposed to teach us things. Like the whole thing is just a collection of parables and letters to others telling them how to live their lives correctly.

[Nevermind]

Kind of like Aesop's Fables. Each Story has a moral of what the good and bad outcomes of a situation are.

And in reply to Wolf, the Bible does actually mention Adam and Eve producing more children, including daughters, Seth of whom is the only other child mentioned. As well as it mentions inhabitants living outside the Garden of Eden whilst Adam and Eve are there. There's a place called Nod, which is where Cain goes after he killed his brother, and there is reference to other persons inhabiting Nod. Although his wife is never mentioned, Cain did have one, and he had children, which means that there were other people roaming around somewhere. Directions to Nod aren't provided, all we know is that it was east of the Garden.

Maybe a little overdone, but hey, it's a response.

[davogones]

I think the Bible is mostly metaphorical.

The history in Genesis is mostly metaphorical, in the sense that much of it is not meant to be taken as a literally true account. The history in the rest of the Bible is literal, IMO. Some people think it's metaphorical because of the miracles, but I think the miracles really happened. Much of the Bible is not history, but rather advice or admonition. Advice as such can't be literal or metaphorical, but the language you use to get the point across can. The Bible uses a lot of metaphors and parables to gets its points across, especially in the New Testament. But admonitions are often directly stated as well.

The problem with fundamentalists in general is that they assume their holy scriptures come straight from the mouth of God. Since most think God does not lie to us, they are compelled to view the history as literally true. However, by the very fact that scripture goes against what we see with our own eyes and minds, we see that scripture is fallible and thus was made by man. There is no infallible scripture, no matter how God-inspired, as long as humans were involved in its making. It's easier to believe that man-made scriptures (made only indirectly) are wrong, rather than that reality and our minds (both made by God DIRECTLY) are wrong.

[arunma]

I cant wait to see Arunma launch an attack on us all.

Wow, is my niche that well ingrained? Well, I'll try not to disappoint you!

Fundamentalism, by its very nature, cannot exist. For instance, no one literally believes that God is a shepherd and that we are all literally sheep. You'd be foolish to think so. Therefore, the only way to read the bible is metaphorically.

I'm sorry, but you've improperly defined fundamentalism. Even during the Scopes trial, William Jennings Bryan, when asked how literally he took the Bible, responded that when the Bible calls the church "the salt of the earth," he obviously doesn't take that to mean that human beings really turn into salt. What you've done here is define fundamentalism as a belief that omits all metaphor. We're all quite aware that the Bible uses metaphor. In fact, many of us evangelicals are still capable of understanding the allegorical meaning of the creation story. The point is, we know that some passages have a literal meaning, others have an allegorical meaning, and still others have both. If you're arguing against a belief that embraces literalism to the extent you have described, then you're arguing with a form of Christianity that doesn't even exist.

Crazy, yes. Fundamentalism isn't the brightest view of Christianity.

Why is that? I see it as another flavor of Christianity, important to certain individuals, but not a requirement of orthodoxy.

I think the Bible is mostly metaphorical. It'd take a man of either great faith or incredible naïvety to believe that the Bible is an accurate "History Book" and that everything in it really happened exactly how it was written down.

This really depends on the extent to which you take the Bible as metaphor. If you simply believe that the creation account is metaphorical, that's acceptable. If you believe that Jesus doesn't exist, but rather that the Gospel is an elaborate story cooked up by the apostles to make the world a better place, then you're supporting a heresy.

1). If Cain and Abel were Adam and Eve's only offspring, how did they reproduce?

I'm not the biggest evolution Nazi out there. But as has already been said, the Bible records that Adam and Eve had other children.

2). If all of the Bible must be obeyed, then it is Biblically sanctioned to buy slaves from neighbouring tribes/states/nations.

The funny thing about this is that the Protestant commentators of the slavery era (men like Matthew Henry and Adam Clarke) specifically said that slavery wasn't the will of God, and that it was wrong for Christians to own slaves. The American Baptist churches even had a schism over the issue. Churches in the south used to commission slave-owning missionaries, and the north said this was wrong. Hence we now have the Southern Baptist Church, and the northern churches which obeyed the Gospel despite the culture of their time.

The fact is, a lot of things happen in the Biblical narrative that aren't condoned by Scripture. There are also laws concerning murder, rape, and adultry. That doesn't mean that these things are condoned. Furthermore, everyone seems to think about Hebrew or Roman slavery, and conjure images of black people in cotton fields. In New Testament times, slavery wasn't really all that bad. Slaves had full civil liberties, and were even allowed to own their own slaves. For some people, slavery was the only means by which they could live under a roof and eat three meals a day. Yet Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 1:9-10, "We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers–and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine." The word for slave traders (or "menstealers" in the KJV) refers to people who kidnap either free men or the slaves of others, and sell them as slaves. So the New Testament perspective on slavery is that involuntary servitude is wrong. It's also important to note that the Greek word for servant and slave are precisely the same word.

As for Old Testament slavery, the laws were written to govern Israelite slavery. They also stated that escaped slaves from Gentile lands were to be given protection by the Israelites.

[Alakhriveion]

As for Old Testament slavery, the laws were written to govern Israelite slavery. They also stated that escaped slaves from Gentile lands were to be given protection by the Israelites.

Also that no slave can be kept for more than seven years, unless they WANTED to stay with their masters, in which case they would have to nail their ears to his door and not leave. Just wanted to mention it, I like that law.

[SOAP]

This really depends on the extent to which you take the Bible as metaphor. If you simply believe that the creation account is metaphorical, that's acceptable. If you believe that Jesus doesn't exist, but rather that the Gospel is an elaborate story cooked up by the apostles to make the world a better place, then you're supporting a heresy.

It's only heresy if you claim to be Christian. Which I don't. But anyways, I believe Jesus existed. And by far, I had very little reason to believe that the Gospels were made up. The very fact that they contradict each other leads me to believe the Apostels were tryin desperately to describe something none of them could fully explain. Whether it actually happened the way they described or not they were telling it from their POV. If it was completely made it up, surely they would've gotten together and made sure their stories were straight before telling the world about it.

[Zythe]

In history we are learning about "The Monkey Trial", and this man in some southern state was taken to court for teaching Darwin's theory of evolution. There ended up being a ridiculous court case, where some lawyer bashed his fundamentalist opponent by saying things like "Do you believe the miracle of Jonah" happened and "How can light have come before the Sun" etc. etc.

And it really struck me, that a lot of these fundamentalists, seemed to have the same stupidity disease that plagued the KKK. No logic whatsoever.

However, the things about Noah's arc and The 10 Plagues of Egypt were proved to have existed. Something about a Greek volcano was recorded to have made the plagues happen and something about a flood where the Black Sea broke and overtook all of Eurasia.

Personally, as a Christian, I can't understand why one would honestly believe things could happen exactly as the Bible says. For example, I'm sure the "Seven Days", was a metaphorical way of describing the universe in seven stages. And the Big Bang fits in there somewhere, just that theory is flawed (what with matter and antimatter having to have existed beforehand for there to have been anything to explode or be expelled) without some scifi dimensional tear.

Anyway, I'm going OT. And I've summed my opinion.

[arunma]

It's only heresy if you claim to be Christian. Which I don't. But anyways, I believe Jesus existed. And by far, I had very little reason to believe that the Gospels were made up. The very fact that they contradict each other leads me to believe the Apostels were tryin desperately to describe something none of them could fully explain. Whether it actually happened the way they described or not they were telling it from their POV. If it was completely made it up, surely they would've gotten together and made sure their stories were straight before telling the world about it.

You know, with a little analysis it can be shown that the Gospels don't really contradict each other. But at first glance, it can sometimes look that way. Of course, if the church had really wanted to falsely pass of the Bible as the word of God, they would have altered it. So the fact that the Bible appears as it does today is good evidence that it hasn't been tampered with.

[Zythe]

But it has. A lot. No arguments. Versions have been altered every couple years. For one thing, when it was being published around 200ad, some Jew told some guy only to print (I think it was 23) of the chapters. And the stuff about Mary Madgalen was altered. And the stuff about the Virgin (not really a virgin) Mary. Yep.

[Reflectionist]

except that mary was a virgin....

[Korhend]

source?

[Nevermind]

Yeah:

Not mine.

[arunma]

But it has. A lot. No arguments. Versions have been altered every couple years. For one thing, when it was being published around 200ad, some Jew told some guy only to print (I think it was 23) of the chapters. And the stuff about Mary Madgalen was altered. And the stuff about the Virgin (not really a virgin) Mary. Yep.

Uh, you should be careful about throwing around facts. It's easy for people to make up stuff in these sorts of debates. As Korhend said: source?

[Zythe]

My RE teacher told me that the word in the original Hebrew was "pure" which was changed to "sinless" when altered to Greek and then "virgin" when altered to Roman. The thing about versions, I got from a show on the Da Vinci Code on Channel 4, where they exposed it as fake.

[MikePetersSucks]

The problem with fundamentalists in general is that they assume their holy scriptures come straight from the mouth of God. Since most think God does not lie to us, they are compelled to view the history as literally true. However, by the very fact that scripture goes against what we see with our own eyes and minds, we see that scripture is fallible and thus was made by man. There is no infallible scripture, no matter how God-inspired, as long as humans were involved in its making. It's easier to believe that man-made scriptures (made only indirectly) are wrong, rather than that reality and our minds (both made by God DIRECTLY) are wrong.

Straight Up, Davo! I agree 100%. I'm not a Christian though, so I don't believe the bible or anything. I do believe that Jesus had some nice ideas though, so....yea.... *waves a pagan flag?*

[arunma]

My RE teacher told me that the word in the original Hebrew was "pure" which was changed to "sinless" when altered to Greek and then "virgin" when altered to Roman. The thing about versions, I got from a show on the Da Vinci Code on Channel 4, where they exposed it as fake.

Sorry, but that's false. Whatever the DaVinci Code said about this issue is absolutely false. First of all, there's no "original Hebrew" in the New Testament, because the New Testament was originally written in Greek (some people think that Matthew may have originally been written in Aramaic, but that is uncertain).

However, there is another issue with the virgin birth, which I can cover. We have the original Hebrew of the Old Testament, and the original Greek of the New Testament. Isaiah 7:14 says, "the virgin shall concieve." The Hebrew for virgin is "almah," which refers to a young woman. The apostle Matthew later quotes this prophecy and applies it to the birth of Jesus. Some people have difficulty with this, because Matthew quotes from the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament that people used in Jesus' time. The Septuagint translates this word as "parthenos," which some think that Matthew incorrectly read as "virgin."

The problem with this logic is twofold. First of all, it assumes that the Gospel was made up, and that the apostles looked through the Old Testament to find a story that would fit the prophecies. But if this were the case, would it really matter whether the story they made up was an accurate portrayal of Old Testament prophecy?

Secondly, parthenos means the same thing as almah, both words refer to young women, and they only refer to virgins by implication. Matthew goes on to state that Mary had had no sexual relations before giving birth to Jesus, so I have no idea why people still press this issue.

[backin1982]

1). If Cain and Abel were Adam and Eve's only offspring, how did they reproduce?

Adam and Eve were the first chosen male and female of God. There were other people in the world.. they were just the "chosen" ones.

I'm not the biggest evolution Nazi out there. But as has already been said, the Bible records that Adam and Eve had other children.

Yes, they did have other children, and when those children were old enough, they took them to a nearby city to get them married..and so on.But really, i do not believe EVERYTHING in the bible can be true, considering it took a long time to write, and it was written by multiple people. There has to be some misguided facts or stories.

Just plain crazy? I mean, the Bible's meant to be interpreted... right?

Yes and no.. it is meant to teach also. But through it people should also spread the word of him and teach others.

[Zythe]

Sorry, but that's false.  Whatever the DaVinci Code said about this issue is absolutely false.  First of all, there's no "original Hebrew" in the New Testament, because the New Testament was originally written in Greek (some people think that Matthew may have originally been written in Aramaic, but that is uncertain).
 
However, there is another issue with the virgin birth, which I can cover.  We have the original Hebrew of the Old Testament, and the original Greek of the New Testament.  Isaiah 7:14 says, "the virgin shall concieve."  The Hebrew for virgin is "almah," which refers to a young woman.  The apostle Matthew later quotes this prophecy and applies it to the birth of Jesus.  Some people have difficulty with this, because Matthew quotes from the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament that people used in Jesus' time.  The Septuagint translates this word as "parthenos," which some think that Matthew incorrectly read as "virgin."
 
The problem with this logic is twofold.  First of all, it assumes that the Gospel was made up, and that the apostles looked through the Old Testament to find a story that would fit the prophecies.  But if this were the case, would it really matter whether the story they made up was an accurate portrayal of Old Testament prophecy?
 
Secondly, parthenos means the same thing as almah, both words refer to young women, and they only refer to virgins by implication.  Matthew goes on to state that Mary had had no sexual relations before giving birth to Jesus, so I have no idea why people still press this issue.

I also saw a show on Nat Geographic (and again on Disc Civillisations) about how they found this tombstone and some censuses in Damascus or somewhere that they say "proved" that Jesus had older brothers and sisters.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

I also saw a documentary stating how it is very likely that Jesus and a person named Issa are one and the same, and how Issa is buried in India.

Still, that's all I'm going to say in this debate now. Frankly, these type of debates really scare me.

[Zythe]

Wouldn't his name have been Yeshua? Anyway, please, if it's not breaking the rules, it does apply to the literalness of the Bible, so can you tell me who Issa was? At least PM it to me, I just think it would make for a good discussion...

[arunma]

I also saw a show on Nat Geographic (and again on Disc Civillisations) about how they found this tombstone and some censuses in Damascus or somewhere that they say "proved" that Jesus had older brothers and sisters.

I'm sure they might have proved that Jesus had brothers and sisters, but I don't see how it would be possible to prove that any of them were older. I'd very much like to see a website, or something. Because the discovery of the tomb of any Biblical character would have made headline news.

I also saw a documentary stating how it is very likely that Jesus and a person named Issa are one and the same, and how Issa is buried in India.

There's an Indian myth about a man named Issa. The myth could very well be about Jesus; I'm not very surprised. Christianity was brought to India directly by the apostle Thomas. Just as Judean myths have been created about Jesus (ever read "the infancy Gospel of James?"), it makes perfect sense that Indian myths would also be invented. In any case, this myth is based only on a couple sets of manuscripts which aren't very old, so academically speaking, it's not all that reliable. If I'm not mistaken, the myth was only discovered by a Russian person around 1900.

Furthermore, many Hindus and universalists use this myth to prove that Jesus studied Buddhism, that Jesus was a Yogi, that Jesus supported Hinduism, and all sorts of other heretical ideas. But I've actually read the myth. Issa preaches against Brahmins and Kshathryas (the two upper castes), he tells them to "listen not to the Vedas" (the Hindu Scriptures), and he tells them to destroy their idols and worship the one true God who created heaven and earth. It ends with Issa going back to Judea, possibly at around age 29. Does this sound like a Jesus who supports Hindu idolatry? I don't think so. Unfortunately, a lot of misinformation goes around about these myths. Heck, the chances that the myth is even slightly true is slim to none.

Wouldn't his name have been Yeshua? Anyway, please, if it's not breaking the rules, it does apply to the literalness of the Bible, so can you tell me who Issa was? At least PM it to me, I just think it would make for a good discussion...

Issa sounds very similar to Isa, the Islamic name of Jesus. That might have something to do with the myth.

[Nevermind]

Isn't Yeshua 'Joshua'? We were taught the Jesus in Hebrew was 'Iesu'.

And as for all these documentaries, you can't really believe anything you see on TV, not even documentaries anymore. I mean I just watched one about half an hour ago about the Bible Code and some Rabbi/Mathematician/Cryptologist who used to work for U.S.S.D. or whatever it is stated that the bible code was written by a supernatural being who can see into the future and see the choices that we have made. He then contradicted himself in one sentence, saying that this being had seen the choices we will make and then secreted them in the bible, telling us what would happen, but that the choices were still ours. In other words he is saying that we can make a choice because of free will so our path isn't set in stone, but those choices are already predetermined, which basically means the path is set in stone.