Is the Bible fiction? patriarchal?

[ambermystique]

"In my Social Inequality class we got on the subject of patriarchy (a class with a majority of women tends to do that a lot). We progressed on to patriarchy within religions. (My professor actually made mention of Goddess worshipping religions and Wicca specifically!) Most agreed that patriarchy exists within most Christian religions. (Although one girl said that even if patriarchy does exist in Christianity, women still shouldn't hold leadership positions...huh, to each his/her own.) Anyway...Then the Bible was brought into the mix. There were the people who said that the Bible is the word of God simply translated into human language. (Common Christian belief, right?) Then I thought about the fact that most of the books in the Bible are written by men, give or take a couple (i.e. The Book of Ruth and some of the Psalms...etc.). I also started to think about the Bible like a story that has been passed down through the ages (which it is in essence). I think of stories in my family and even cultural stories, and I see how they've changed so incredibly much through the years. Sometimes the characters change sexes, the men become women, the women become men. Sometimes a fight between two people is changed to a war of nations. Know what I'm talking about? I was wondering if anyone else thought that maybe it is possible that the Bible is completely different from what it was intended to be? Or if the Bible is just the fiction in the minds of many, many men? Also, I though about how much of history is written by the winners (the winners or upper class or whatever group holds the most power are who tell their side of the story in history) then maybe the accounts of occurrences in the Bible aren't even correct. I was always told that even if I didn't believe the lessons and/or rules in the Bible, at least know that much of the New Testament is historically accurate. I was just wondering everyone else's opinion on the subject. My professor said we'd pick up the discussion next class period, thought I'd see if any of you have some different opinions and/or ideas."

ambermystique

[Galaxia]

Ω

[ambermystique]

I read recently about the changes "Little Red Riding Hood" went through. The first version would have been an R-rated movie, the next version was a step down, and it eventually got changed to the story we know today.
I think that the Brothers Grimm stories are all like that. (i.e. really really scary and demented) I am not sure if its Brothers Grimm, but I know that Alice in Wonderland (Alice and the Looking Glass) was really horrible in the beginning to.
Just seems that those have only been around for a short time, while the Bible has been around 10's of times longer. Any book with that many interpretations is bound to have author's bias, right?
amber

[MysticMama]

I think the Bible is filled with great wisdom - but that wisdom is not without error, embellishment, inconsistencies and other human created "facts".

Patriarchy - yes, uh huh, lots of it!

[dionysus]

hello, alot of the bible has been taken out " o ya i have a degree in theology and comparitive religions" but there is alot of it that is true if you have read alot in the bible you know that there were books that were taken out becouse there were said not to be a direct revelation from god they had to have 5 of 7 instances and if not there were removed by king david like the bigest was the key of soloman witch is an equivelent the the book of shaddows. but if you want to talk about the storys there is alot of changes starting with adam and eve as you should know eve was not the first woman it was lillith lillith was the one who was said to be dirty and was cast off she later saduced lucifer and had a child arodia who was the teacher and said to be the messia of witchcraft and thats where paganism . lillith was later known as Diana if you have any questions freetwist@yahoo.com
have a good day,
Dionysus Vondesdoulas[/QUOTE]

[Ben Trismegistus]

I wouldn't call it "fictional" - I'd call it "mythological", or "allegorical". Not literal truth, but a way to express truth in a literary way.

As to patriarchal, it was a product of its time. All the societies existing at that time were patriarchal (in fact, there's no solid evidence that a matriarchal society has ever existed), and the Bible grew out of that.

[Seren Mara]

Here is my opinion. The Bible is not fictional. Some of it is allegorical. It is extremely patriarchial due to the period of time it describes, where societies were patriarchal - pretty much what Ben just said.

[Planetary Eulogy]

I dislike the terminology of "patriarchy" and "matriarchy" inasmuch as it implies that these are artificial systems of social organization to be tinkered with at will. My take is that "patriarchy," that is, a male centered system of social leadership is a biologically derived system. It is the natural state of human societies.

[Equinox]

Hi-

Here are some links on how we got the Bible we have today (page down to “how we got…”)

http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~leta/TREATISE/TJXSUM/tj6xhinfo.htm

However, I highly recommend getting the scholarly view directly from the Bible scholars themselves. :graduate: (always, of course, check a few sources because most humans are at least a little biased in one way or another)

Many of them have written books on the history of the Bible, and I just finished Dr. Bart Ehrman’s book “Lost Christianities”. It’s a great read, only 250 pages long, and it covers what archeology has determined about some early “heresies” like Gnosticism, Montanism, etc, and then discusses a little of the history of how we got the Bible we have today. All from a scholarly standpoint, not a standpoint of faith (either Christian, Gnostic Christian, or whatever). His book is only $21:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195141830/qid=1077126132/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-8162045-9237733?v=glance&s=books

He also has good classes on tape here:

http://www.teach12.com/Search/WebSearch.aspx?ct=TTCWebSearch&xr=t&site=consumer&qu=ehrman&btnSearch=Search

I’ve been intrigued by what I’ve learned from these and other sources. :colorful:

-Equinox

[Planetary Eulogy]

I like Bart Ehrman as much as the next guy (I've met him, actually), but he largely ignores in his most recent publications the fact that the books that make up the orthodox canon are pretty much uniformly older than the books that were left out (most of which are 150-300 years more recent than the canonical NT texts, the exception being the Gospel of Thomas, which may preserve some older forms of some of the sayings of Jesus, though the GoT as we have it is probably of a considerably more recent vintage than the canonical gospels). Whatever may be said against the Biblical compilation as it currently exists, it does represent the definitive collection of the OLDEST Christian texts which we have currently have in complete form. Gnosticism, Arianism, Montanism etc. are all fascinating in their own right, but they considerably post-date proto-orthodox "Pauline" Christianity.

[Equinox]

Planetary-

I largely agree, though he does sometimes point out that the noncanonical gospels are all younger, and apparently pseudonymous. (The GoT appears pseudonymous, but maybe not younger, and the canonical gospels are anonymous) Also, Dr. Ehrman points out that while the canonical gospels may be the oldest we have, they have had some scribal changes that are more recent, making parts of them significantly younger than even the noncanonical gospels.

I think his main selling point is his readability to students and others – he seems more accessible to me than some scholars, and has won numerous teaching awards.
To help fill the gaps of dates, etc, which he doesn’t go over well, this site is useful:

www.earlychristianwritings.com

-Equinox

[was]

i think some of the bible is true but not all.

[Planetary Eulogy]

The scribal changes in the canonical works are, by and large, not particularly significant, and the works that make up the New Testament were all almost certainly in something very near to the form we have them today by the 120 CE or so, long before the non-canonical Christian scriptures we are aware of even existed...

What Ehrman brings to the table is, as you said, a certain accessibility of style, as well as a consistent brand of scholarship (unlike, say, Jean Dominic Crossan, who has had at least 6 different interpretations of Jesus in 4 decades).

[Equinox]

The scribal changes in the canonical works are, by and large, not particularly significant, and the works that make up the New Testament were all almost certainly in something very near to the form we have them today by the 120 CE or so, long before the non-canonical Christian scriptures we are aware of even existed...


Depending on what we decide is “not particularly significant”, we may agree. There do appear to be some changes that touch on the nature of Jesus, such as to counter a docetic view or an adoptionist view, changes that are later than 120 CE. It is difficult to say because I think we only have two scraps that date to before 150 CE, both of which are very small (and one of which isn’t canonical). Because some of the manuscripts with different views of Jesus are later than this, these changes appear to be later than 150 CE. Now, whether or not they are “significant” depend's on one's theological view.

Yes, I agree that Ehrman's view of Jesus is consistant, and also appears to be plausible and free from a radical agenda, (unlike some scholars - such as morton smith, assuming S. GoM is a fake).

I have to say that you impress me, especially for your age. At your age I’m not sure I would've known what “canonical” was! :lol:

Do you mind my asking if this is your field of study, or if it is a hobby?

Have a fun day-

-Equinox

[ambermystique]

My take is that "patriarchy," that is, a male centered system of social leadership is a biologically derived system. It is the natural state of human societies.
I vehemently disagree with you. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Just wondering if you are a man?:fofftopic

amber:smoke:

[Planetary Eulogy]

Actually, I would argue that later editing of the canonical gospels is far more likely to have placed greater emphasis on the divine nature of Christ than on debunking Docetic Christology (given the overwhelming emphasis on the humanity of Christ in the Synoptics especially). The problematic question is when the idea that Christ was God incarnate entered the picture (which was certainly before the end of the 1st century CE, given both the Pauline corpus and the Johannine materials). In light of Paul's writings particularly, I find no real evidence to suggest that the Christology of the canonical materials was altered at a later date.

And yes, this is just a hobby. My educational background is in history and classics, not theology.

[Cerek]

As a Christian, I believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God. I have "tested" different parts of the Bible with my faith, and I have always found the promises made in the Scriptures to be true. These "tests" deal with trusting God to provide direction or a solution to particular problems I have had...and God has never failed me. He didn't always answer my prayers in the manner I would have liked, but it always turned out for the best when I followed His direction rather than my own.

I also believe the Bible is the literal Word of God. I believe God did make create the world in just 7 days. I believe Noah did build an ark that held two of every creature that walked on land or flew in the air at the time. I also believe Goliath really was 9 ft tall instead of just 7ft or so. I believe these "physical facts" to be true because I have found for myself that the "faith based facts" are true. However, even if there was some way to prove that Goliath wasn't actually 9ft tall or that Samson didn't really destroy the temple with his superhuman strength, it STILL would not diminish the fact that Jesus Christ died on the Cross to pay for my sins and offer me the assurance of Salvation.

As for the Bible being patriarchal, I don't consider that to be a "creation of the time" in which it was written. The Bible refers to the Holy Trinity as the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. Of these three, only the Son was physically seen by more than a select handful of believers. There can be little doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was a man. The vision the Bible provides of God being the "Father" comes from the accounts of those who actually saw or spoke directly to God. Adam, Abraham, and Moses were part of the select group that ever had the privilege to either speak with God directly or (in the case of Adam and Eve) to physically walk with God. ALL of these accounts list God as being "male".

I've heard the arguments before that an Omnipotent Being would be genderless. That may or may not be true. But according to the Bible, every time God chose to communicate directly with one of His chosen worshippers, He always chose to manifest himself in the male gender.

The Bible is full of revelations that were NOT popular nor accepted at the time (such as the Earth being round instead of flat), so I can't imagine the authors of the canonical writings would have changed the gender of God simply to conform to societal rules. The early Christians were NOT afraid of being persecuted for their beliefs. Moses chose the life of a slave over the life of an Egyption prince and all of the Apostles were eventually put to death for spreading the news of Jesus Christ.

So the followers of God were not afraid of being controversial. That is why I don't believe they would have changed the gender of God just to please the rulers and/or masses of the day.

[Heathen Dawn]

i think some of the bible is true but not all.

We know some of it is, because it is verified by external sources. For example, the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrian king Sennacherib in the day of Hezekiah. Hezekiah’s name and the name of his kingdom (Judah) and the siege are mentioned in Sennacherib’s tablets, in cuneiform writing. With such external verification, we can be sure that happened. As a rule, the early you go in the Bible, the more chance it is not historical. Earlier than Saul is uncertainty. The Exodus and the Sinai Revelation most probably never happened. Creation and the Flood are absolutely certainly fictional.

[Morr]

I'm backing up a bit of what Heathen Dawn had to say here -
There is additional documents, outside of the Bible itself (diff kingdoms' documents that were in the Palastine area in those days) that indicate a war/event/place/people that happened at the same time and place the bible indicates these.

This backs up my personal theory that - the bible is a History book for the most part. Except it had religous elements incorporated into it manly because back then they couldnt explain everything or most things like we can today (through science).. So a solar ecplipse to people 4000 years ago - would be an act of God.. And so on.

A lot of the characters in the later part of the Old Testament (Prophets & Kings mainly) - were in fact alive and historical figures.

As for the New Testament, well I have my own theories and ideas about it. I believe the church pretty much censored what it wanted so that the texts we have today as part of the New Testament would fit its teaching - After all, this religion didnt know what the heck it was talking about till the late 1500s. They kept making up things and added to the religion from the day Jesus died till the 16th Century. The apostles (especially Peter & Paul) did a great job of messing around with Jesus' teachings and twisting his words around. Also, people in general read way too literally into these scriptures (as well as the old testement scriptures).

Jesus & his apostles are definitly historical figures.. But I truely believe that things were drastically turned around, and Christianity today is NOT what Jesus had in mine.

those were my 2 cents :)
Michelle

[Cerek]

We know some of it is, because it is verified by external sources. For example, the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrian king Sennacherib in the day of Hezekiah. Hezekiah’s name and the name of his kingdom (Judah) and the siege are mentioned in Sennacherib’s tablets, in cuneiform writing. With such external verification, we can be sure that happened. As a rule, the early you go in the Bible, the more chance it is not historical. Earlier than Saul is uncertainty. The Exodus and the Sinai Revelation most probably never happened. Creation and the Flood are absolutely certainly fictional.

Or perhaps the earlier you go in the Bible, the deeper the evidence is buried. Archeological finds have confirmed many of the accounts from the Old Testament to be true, at least concerning specific buildings or cities.

But tell me how you can say that Creation and the Flood "are absolutely certainly fictional". Do you have irrefutable proof that neither of these events ever occurred? :graduate:

I'll grant that Creation can never be conclusively proved or disproved. It is a matter of faith and cannot be confirmed or denied by scientific research. But there IS evidence of a large scale flood in the Middle East region where scholars believe Noah built the Ark. The "Great Flood" is also a consistent element in many different religions. From what I understand, MOST religions (whether monotheistic or not) have a tale of a Great Flood in their history. While that is no more than "circumstantial evidence", it is interesting when you consider the geographic separation and diversity of these religions.

Here is a link to a site that answers several of the most popular questions asked in regards to Noah's Ark and the Great Flood. Naturally, the answers are given from a Christian perspective, so you can decide for yourself whether the "evidence" offered is genuine or fabricated. Either way, it provides an interesting perspective on some difficult questions. Noah's Ark and the Flood (http://christiananswers.net/creation/menu-catastrophe.html)

[Seren Mara]

That's a really interesting link, Cerek, thanks for posting!

[Tzhebee]

Here's what I believe. I believe that there was a man who walked the earth. He called himself Jesus and he gave the faithless something to believe in. I believe that the earth as a planet probably started as bare and boring as Mars, but some kind of higher power (God, Goddess, or combo) gave it life. I believe there was a great flood at one time or another. Although I highly doubt that 2 of *every single* animal was on a ship floating around during it.

I believe the bible is as real as you want it to be. Personally, I think of the bible the same as I do most of mythology. A great story that has been exagerated over the years, but with a core of truth.

The reason I believe this about the bible, is because I believe it of all history. In case you didn't know, history books were written by the people who "won". I'd *love* to see a factually history book about Hitler written from the perspective of someone who worshipped him, or the Native Americans write their story of Plymoth rock. I mean, think about it. If there were chapters or verses or what-have-you in the bible from the kings and rulers who disliked and even hated Jesus and his *campain*, then you'd have a completely different story, with a completely different set of biases.

As far as patriarchal, absolutely! Where were the stories of the bible taking place? What time frame were they taking place in? If a woman was to walk around during that time making the same claims as Jesus did, she would have been stoned. (And I don't mean toking it :smoke: ) Even it Jesus had been a woman, the people who wrote the stories would have realized how rediculous that would have seemed for the time and changed her to a masculine figure.

But, this is all just my opinion. Feel free to disagree and/or argue (yeah, like I have to give you permission to do that). :)

[Seren Mara]

Even it Jesus had been a woman, the people who wrote the stories would have realized how rediculous that would have seemed for the time and changed her to a masculine figure.


I wonder if this would be true. The fact remains that Jesus was a man - he's fairly well documented.

[Cerek]

Here's what I believe. I believe that there was a man who walked the earth. He called himself Jesus and he gave the faithless something to believe in. I believe that the earth as a planet probably started as bare and boring as Mars, but some kind of higher power (God, Goddess, or combo) gave it life. I believe there was a great flood at one time or another. Although I highly doubt that 2 of *every single* animal was on a ship floating around during it.

I believe the bible is as real as you want it to be. Personally, I think of the bible the same as I do most of mythology. A great story that has been exagerated over the years, but with a core of truth.

The reason I believe this about the bible, is because I believe it of all history. In case you didn't know, history books were written by the people who "won". I'd *love* to see a factually history book about Hitler written from the perspective of someone who worshipped him, or the Native Americans write their story of Plymoth rock. I mean, think about it. If there were chapters or verses or what-have-you in the bible from the kings and rulers who disliked and even hated Jesus and his *campain*, then you'd have a completely different story, with a completely different set of biases.

As far as patriarchal, absolutely! Where were the stories of the bible taking place? What time frame were they taking place in? If a woman was to walk around during that time making the same claims as Jesus did, she would have been stoned. (And I don't mean toking it :smoke: ) Even it Jesus had been a woman, the people who wrote the stories would have realized how rediculous that would have seemed for the time and changed her to a masculine figure.

But, this is all just my opinion. Feel free to disagree and/or argue (yeah, like I have to give you permission to do that). :)

{snicker} Well thanks for giving me the premission anyway. :hehehehe:

You have a point about history books being written by the winners and I've heard that argument many times before. But there are many accounts in the Bible where God's people were not the winners. There are several accounts where they turn away from God and are overrun by their enemies and/or taken into slavery for their transgression. David was one of the greatest and most beloved figures in the Old Testament, yet he still sinned against God when he gave in to his lust for Bersheeba and had her husband sent to the front lines of battle so that he would be killed. God exposed his sin for what it was and David had no way to "talk his way" out of it. He had to confess his sin and repent of it. There are numerous examples throughout the Bible where God's chosen people fall short of His expectations. They are presented in a very human light, including their very human failings, even though they were favored by God. And when they failed, they had to acknowledge their sin and repent of it just as any other person would.

As for the claim that a female would have been stoned for claiming to be Christ, I have to disagree. Jesus WAS put to death for claiming to be Christ and the Son of God. His fate was no different simply because He was a man, and if God had chosen to take the form of a woman, "she" would have lived the same life and suffered the same fate as Jesus. Because - in the end - the fate of Christ was pre-determined. God demands a sacrifice as payment for sin and Jesus came to Earth so that He could offer His sin-free blood as an atonement for all the sins committed by every person who has lived and for those yet to be born. So the gender of Jesus is really irrelevent to His mission on Earth and His ultimate fate.

[Heathen Dawn]

Or perhaps the earlier you go in the Bible, the deeper the evidence is buried. Archeological finds have confirmed many of the accounts from the Old Testament to be true, at least concerning specific buildings or cities.

But there is no Egyptian evidence for the Exodus (the Hyksos invasion came 400 years before the date the Bible sets for the Exodus). There is also no reason to believe that the standing of the Israelites ever happened. It’s mentioned only in the Torah, and furthermore, the Kuzari Argument has been refuted (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/shlomi_tal/sinai.html).


But tell me how you can say that Creation and the Flood "are absolutely certainly fictional". Do you have irrefutable proof that neither of these events ever occurred? :graduate:

Assuming the Creation happened 6,000 years ago and that the Flood was global, here are the refutations:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html (Age of the Earth)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ (Universal Common Descent)
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html (Problems with a Global Flood)

We have evidence that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old. We have evidence that all living organisms share a common ancestor. And things would look different if a global flood had happened.


But there IS evidence of a large scale flood in the Middle East region where scholars believe Noah built the Ark.

A local flood would not be a problem. Scientifically, I mean.


Here is a link to a site that answers several of the most popular questions asked in regards to Noah's Ark and the Great Flood. Naturally, the answers are given from a Christian perspective, so you can decide for yourself whether the "evidence" offered is genuine or fabricated. Either way, it provides an interesting perspective on some difficult questions. Noah's Ark and the Flood (http://christiananswers.net/creation/menu-catastrophe.html)

The answers there are given from a young-earth creationist perspective. YECs go by a methodology which is antithetical to scientific inquiry.


from Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp)

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

[Equinox]

Hi-

Cerek Wrote:


Or perhaps the earlier you go in the Bible, the deeper the evidence is buried. Archeological finds have confirmed many of the accounts from the Old Testament to be true, at least concerning specific buildings or cities.


From the archeological data we have, it appears that much of the Bible is accurate, while much of it is fabricated. This is possible because the Bible is a BIG book – there is a lot of stuff in there, so a lot can be false, and still leave plenty to be true. For some examples of true stuff, Heathen Dawn mentioned several Biblical statements that have been corroborated by archeology.

False things also have been found by archeology. For instance, it is well known among archeologists that the city of Jericho was destroyed by the Egyptians in the 15th century BC, about 200 years before Joshua is supposed to have found a walled city there in the 13th century BC. Jericho was unwalled and uninhabited in the 13th century BC - leaving Joshua nothing to destroy.

I could list a bunch of other examples, but instead I’ll mention an article I have here. It is from the NY times, and is called “A New Torah for Modern Minds” (March 9, 2003). The article describes how the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism (representing 1.5 million conservative Jews in the US) has finally issued a new Torah commentary “Etz Hayim” (tree of life), which points out that the Torah (Old Testament) cannot be taken as fact because Archeology has found many, many places where it is simply incorrect.

In the article Rabbi David Wolpe states that the notion that the Bible is not literally correct “is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis”. This is in addition to the information provided by Heathen Dawn (and views I’ve read from Archeologists) that the Bible contains many stories that are contradicted by the evidence from archeology.

If even the Conservative Jewish Rabbis recognize that the Bible is often not literally true, who can argue with that?

Cerek, I respect your strength of belief, and consider it important that each of us feel connected to what we consider to be spiritual in some way. It is possible to be a devout Christian and still see both the correct and the incorrect in the Bible – millions of Christians understand evolution, for instance.

You had mentioned that you obtained direct mystical experiences from God in connection with the Bible. That’s great – I’m glad that you get something out of your faith. However, some Buddhists get experiences like this from their Buddhist scripture, and some Muslims get experiences like this from the Q’uran. The fact that you also get experiences like that is far from evidence that Christianity is the only path to spirituality – instead it fits the pattern of the spirituality that many of us (including us Pagans) experience. We can all recognize the fullness of our various paths, while also recognizing what parts are literally true, and which parts are metaphors. For instance, I consider Prometheus to be a great god, and a metaphor for an important idea, but I don't think he literally exists.

Have a fun day-

-Equinox

[Heathen Dawn]

Just a nitpick, if I may, Equinox:


If even the Conservative Jewish Rabbis recognize that the Bible is often not literally true, who can argue with that?

This argument does not lead where you want it to. That’s because the Conservative Jews are pretty liberal, on the same level with Liberal Christians. Now if it were the Orthodox Jews that recognised that the Bible is often not literally true, then that would be impressive—Orthodox Jews are the ones who equate to fundamentalists of other religions. And I can tell you most Orthodox Jews refuse to recognise any part of the Bible as untrue. And they’re young-earth creationists too. I was when I was an Orthodox Jew.

[Equinox]

Thanks for the clarification. :)

-Equinox

[Cerek]

As I said before, Equinox, I do believe the Bible is true. But even if certain parts of it were proved to not be true, it still wouldn't change my views. Even if Joshua didn't destroy the walls of Jericho, it still wouldn't diminish the selfless sacrifice that Jesus Christ made on the Cross.

The onlyl reason I insist that I believe the Bible is because many atheists insists that if they can prove one part of the Bible is false, then Christians must accept the fact that all of the Bible is false. It's an all or nothing proposition to them, so I choose all of it, because I know through faith that several parts are true. And archeologists and geologists have proven other parts are true....therefore, I can turn the argument around on the atheists and say "Since science has proven these parts are true, you must accept that all parts are true. Funny how they suddenly change from the "all or nothing" stance when that happens.

I had not heard about the scientific evidence that Jericho was not around when Joshua supposedly destroyed it. How did the experts arrive at the date he was supposed to have done that? (just curious). Of course, if I looked hard enough, I'm sure I could find a source that would refute your source. The fact is, each of us will tend to give more weight to the sites and answers that support our own beliefs.

I like the Christian Answers Network site I linked to earlier because it does give good answers (based on Biblical Scripture) to some of the FAQ's Christians encounter. However, as I pointed out in my intro thread, I am not a believer of the Young Earth theory. I think 6,000 yrs is simply too little time for the Earth to have reached the stage of development we are at. By the same token, I also don't believe the several billion year old theory either. That sounds far too long IMO. I think it is somewhere in between, but closer to the Young End side rather than the Old End one.

Heathen Dawn - I appreciate the links you provided. I haven't had time to check them out for myself, but I do look forward to reading what they have to say. I don't mind a challenge to my faith. And I'll be the first to admit that I don't have all the answers to some of the questions I'll likely be asked. So I certainly don't mind reading opinions that "refute" Biblical stories or accounts. I can't promise I will accept their explanation (you know how hard-headed we Christians can be ;) ), but I will take a look at the site when time permits to see what they have to say.

[ambermystique]

The onlyl reason I insist that I believe the Bible is because many atheists insists that if they can prove one part of the Bible is false, then Christians must accept the fact that all of the Bible is false. It's an all or nothing proposition to them, so I choose all of it, because I know through faith that several parts are true. And archeologists and geologists have proven other parts are true....therefore, I can turn the argument around on the atheists and say "Since science has proven these parts are true, you must accept that all parts are true. Funny how they suddenly change from the "all or nothing" stance when that happens.
I was just wondering why you feel the need to insert the comment about the atheists trying to convince people that the Bible is false simply because an aspect of it may be false.
I am not an Atheist, nor do I agree with much of what Atheists say; however, I find your comment to be a little bit unnecessary. I've never met an Atheist who said that because a part of the Bible can be proven to be false, then all is false. They've all simply said, "I just don't believe in it." (Which is perfectly fine.)
The only thing that I find a bit disturbing about the Bible is that it has been translated many times through the years. It has gone through quite a few versions as well. When you think about any story (whether it be true or false, doesn't matter) being passed down through the years, it is changed in some ways, even if only minute. It is a human fault to be bias without even trying to be. It is inevitable that bias shows up in most writings and/or research.
I am a bit confused by people's reasoning as well. I obviously think about true and false in a different type of way. Not too far back, many literalists of the Bible (as well as others who just had faith in the Bible) believed that black people were abominations of nature. Obviously, this is a not a widespread belief nowadays. I was just wondering if by changing your minds over the years shows that the Bible is somewhat open for interpretation and possibly incorrect because of human error and bias. Also, I do find the fact that mostly men wrote the Bible (even if you believe that these men were directly given the Word of God) had to have some type of bias. You could go into a room and see any type of occurrence. Go and ask the man what happened and then ask the woman what happened. You will most likely get two very similar, yet very different views of the same situation. The way we are socialized as men and women force us to see things in slightly different ways. Going by this reasoning, the Bible may have great bias within its writings. It may be a quite different story than what others may have thought it to be. (The rich and the poor see things differently, the black and the white people see things differently...I am not saying that these are immensely significant differences all of the time, but when getting down to really detailed facts, the stories will be different.) Sorry to ramble on for so long...Just thought I'd throw in my two cents since I'm the one that started the thread in the first place. :)
amber:floating:

[Lesidhe]

i believe that some events in the bible did take place, and others are just fabricated.. or taken into a different sense. plus with all the translating and such throughout the years, i'm sure a lot of it has been messed up.

[Cerek]

I made the comment about atheists claiming the whole Bible is false for a couple of reasons, ambermystique.

First of all, I have heard that argument from atheists many, many times since I started debating theology. They accuse Christians of "picking and choosing" which parts of the Bible we want to believe in and say there are certain parts (in the Old Testament especially) that are obviously false, made up, or just plain wrong. They then go on to say that if they can "prove" these parts of the Bible are incorrect, then Christians have to acknowledge that and must then admit that all the other parts are probably false/incorrect also. Trust me, I've heard this argument more times than I can count. I even heard it from some of my college buddies that are atheists. People that know me personally (as opposed to some Internet ID) have said the exact same thing to me.

As I said, they insist it is an "all or nothing" scenario. Either the Bible is entirely true or it is entirely false. When presented with such a scenario, I have no choice but to accept that the Bible is entirely true.

As for the stories being changed as they were retold through the years, that argument falls short when applied to the Bible as a complete work. There are thousands of years between some of the events in the Old Testament and the account of Jesus' life and ministry in the New Testament...yet the stories are very consistent when referring to each other. Prophets in the Old Testament foretold the coming of Jesus. They gave predictions of events that would occur in His life and even foretold of His death by Crucifixion...thousands of years before He was even born.

The Books of the Bible aren't taken from oral histories or traditions handed down from one generation to the next. They are scribed from ancient scrolls written by the people in the various books themselves. I know many will claim the Bible must contain at least a nominal number of inaccuracies simply because the scrolls were written by fallible humans instead of being scribed directly by the Hand of God. I just choose to believe this is not the case with the Bible. The Bible may have been written by men, but it was written through Divine Inspirition. I believe that eliminated the errors normally associated with such writings under normal circumstances. Again, the Bible is a collection of different works written by many different people over a period of several thousand years. Yet the stories and accounts in the different books are consistent with each other despite the number of authors and difference in time.

[Xentor]

As I said, they insist it is an "all or nothing" scenario. Either the Bible is entirely true or it is entirely false. When presented with such a scenario, I have no choice but to accept that the Bible is entirely true.

(...)

The Books of the Bible aren't taken from oral histories or traditions handed down from one generation to the next. They are scribed from ancient scrolls written by the people in the various books themselves. I know many will claim the Bible must contain at least a nominal number of inaccuracies simply because the scrolls were written by fallible humans instead of being scribed directly by the Hand of God. I just choose to believe this is not the case with the Bible. The Bible may have been written by men, but it was written through Divine Inspirition. I believe that eliminated the errors normally associated with such writings under normal circumstances. Again, the Bible is a collection of different works written by many different people over a period of several thousand years. Yet the stories and accounts in the different books are consistent with each other despite the number of authors and difference in time.

Hi Cerek, I'm with you on the first argument. I don't like the all-or-nothing scenario either. Everything has more sides to it, the Bible included. And especially when you believe that the books are written with divine inspiration, the "all" part of the scenario is attractive.

I would however doubt the thousands of years of unaltered written history. I don't know how old exactly written language is - I estimate no more than 15,000 years. (Now I won't go into the argument about how long Christianity thinks the earth exists, for that would leave only 1,500-something years of time to write the Bible... not thousands.)

I gather the Old Testimony was a collection of books a long time before the Christians added the New Testimony. So I guess there's a gap in writing history. I'd assume that with adding the New books, the old ones were either rewritten to reflect the new views, or the new books were written to specifically adhere to the old views. The transcribers might not even have been doing that on purpose. It might have happened because their faith allowed no other interpretation.

It has been shown that one translation differs from another in interpretation. I would explain the differences by assuming the translator's own view on their religion had more influence on the translation than divine inspiration. Which could, from a Christian stance, lead to assuming the translator wasn't a true believer.

[Heathen Dawn]

Heathen Dawn - I appreciate the links you provided. I haven't had time to check them out for myself, but I do look forward to reading what they have to say. I don't mind a challenge to my faith. And I'll be the first to admit that I don't have all the answers to some of the questions I'll likely be asked. So I certainly don't mind reading opinions that "refute" Biblical stories or accounts. I can't promise I will accept their explanation (you know how hard-headed we Christians can be ;) ), but I will take a look at the site when time permits to see what they have to say.

All I can say about those links is, whenever scientific fact contradicts religious beliefs, the only sensible thing to do is to change the beliefs to some degree to accommodate those facts. The creationists are a good example of people who do it the other way round. But most Christian denominations don’t see a problem with evolution. You might want to look at Glenn Morton’s website, at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm; he was a young-earth creationist in the past, then came to realise the whole YEC thing was humbug, nearly turned atheist but then found out how to reconcile Genesis with evolution. He’s now an evangelical Christian theistic evolutionist.

[Cerek]

All I can say about those links is, whenever scientific fact contradicts religious beliefs, the only sensible thing to do is to change the beliefs to some degree to accommodate those facts. The creationists are a good example of people who do it the other way round. But most Christian denominations don’t see a problem with evolution. You might want to look at Glenn Morton’s website, at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm; he was a young-earth creationist in the past, then came to realise the whole YEC thing was humbug, nearly turned atheist but then found out how to reconcile Genesis with evolution. He’s now an evangelical Christian theistic evolutionist.


Sheesh...you're gonna have me reading all weekend, H.D. :lol:

I don't agree with the YEC's either (at least not the Young Earth part...but I DO believe in Creation). I also completely disagree with their statement stating "when science and religion disagree, then science is to be ignored". I believe science and Chrisitianity can be perfectly reconciled - after all, God is the One that created the "scientific laws" to begin with. He created everything to act or respond in a predictable fashion and gave Mankind the intelligence to discover the underlying "laws" that governed these actions/reactions.

The only unexplainable parts of the Bible are the Divine Miracles (such as parting the Red Sea and Jesus healing the blind and lame). In those cases, God broke His "scientific laws" in order to prove He was who He claimed to be.

On a personal level, I am really enjoying this discussion. I appreciate that most of the members here can agree that at least some of the Bible is true and historically accurate. And I don't mind the challenges that other parts are not true. It gives me a reason to research the allegation on my own and to challenge my own beliefs. Over the past few years, such challenges have actually led to me changing some views that I held before (some of them rather strongly), but it has also served to deepen and strengthen my faith as I found confirmation in answers to the challenges made.

I look forward to reading all the links you provided to read their perspective and see if I agree or not.

[Equinox]

Hi Cerek-

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I don’t have all of the data on the Jericho consensus, though I'm pretty sure it includes C-14 dating, pottery style data, and dendrochronologic data. (check out the dendrochronologic method http://tree.ltrr.arizona.edu/lorim/basic.html – way cool!) I do know that the consensus among archeologists, whether Christian, Jewish, or other, is that Jericho was destroyed in the 15th century.

But that’s a moot point, since you agree that parts of the Bible may not be literally true, and we both agree that many parts of the Bible ARE literally true.


As I said, they insist it is an "all or nothing" scenario. Either the Bible is entirely true or it is entirely false. When presented with such a scenario, I have no choice but to accept that the Bible is entirely true.

I also agree with you that stating that the Bible is completely false if any part of it is false is an illogical argument. I’m not sure I’ve heard Atheists use it, but if they do, then it certainly doesn’t enhance their position.

The reverse, however, (that if part of it is right, then all of it is right) doesn’t seem correct either. I mean, the malleus malificarum (about witches), and Mein Kampf (by Hitler) certainly have some parts that are right, but I hope no one sees them as completely correct either. This is true of my opinions as well – some are (hopefully!) right, but I’m sure I’ve got some that are wrong too.


I know many will claim the Bible must contain at least a nominal number of inaccuracies simply because the scrolls were written by fallible humans instead of being scribed directly by the Hand of God. I just choose to believe this is not the case with the Bible. The Bible may have been written by men, but it was written through Divine Inspirition. I believe that eliminated the errors normally associated with such writings under normal circumstances.


Um, this doesn’t match our ancient copies of the new testament manuscripts, which show copy errors all over. Remember that back then were no printing presses, so everything had to be copied by hand, which invariably allowed both intentional and unintentional changes to enter the copies. This went on for decades, even centuries, before the books of the Bible were put together as a canon of scripture. A result of all this circulating and copying by hand has been the changing of the documents that ended up in the New Testament. This is why there are more differences between our earliest copies than there are words in the entire New Testament! Most of these are unimportant, such as spelling errors and missing words or lines (or lines or pages copied twice, etc.). In fact, no two of the over 5,000 early copies of the New Testament manuscripts agree with each other word for word (except, of course, for the most miniscule scraps).

It’s true that some ancient manuscripts are sometimes “remarkably in agreement”, but that only means there are dozens of mistakes instead of hundreds.

Sorry about all of us loading you down with reading! I’m glad it has helped your spiritual path, and I wish you the best.

-Equinox