DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
Self-explanatory poll question.
The Bible
- Thread starter DaveC
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
I picked this one:
I think some of the people in there may have existed and I think some of the events may have taken place. But I also think there was some exaggeration and symbolic stuff going on there, too-I've described it before as something like Aesop's Fables-stories with a theme/lesson in them that can describe society or that we can use in our everyday lives or something like that.
That's my personal view on it all
.
Angela
I think some of the people in there may have existed and I think some of the events may have taken place. But I also think there was some exaggeration and symbolic stuff going on there, too-I've described it before as something like Aesop's Fables-stories with a theme/lesson in them that can describe society or that we can use in our everyday lives or something like that.
That's my personal view on it all
.Angela
OP
OP
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
Well, seeing as I'm one minute too late to edit my post, I figured I'd explain the definitions I used in the poll options:
Completely infallible and true in every word: Means that every word, every story, every person, and every account in the Bible is true, has happened/existed, will happen/exist, or is happening/exists now.
Mostly true due to human meddling: Means that the majority of what is said in the Bible is true, however due to a lot of the stories being passed down through oral accounts, translations, misinterpretations, omissions, and additions by human editors/authors over the years, that there are a few flaws in the text.
Neither overly true nor overly false: Means that as a whole, the words and stories of the Bible are neither certain to have happened exactly as told, but that it's not an outright fabrication either. Basically there is a generally equal amount of fiction and non-fiction throughout.
Mostly false, but still on the right track in its teachings: Means that while the accounts and stories in the Bible are generally fiction (or allegory, as some would see it), that the teachings of "God" and "Jesus" are generally benevolent and still good to follow, despite the other flaws of the text.
Mostly false and errant in its teachings: Means that the accounts and stories of the Bible are generally fiction (albeit some true stories), and that the teachings of "God" and "Jesus" were/are incorrect or false.
Completely false and errant in every word: Means that every word of the Bible and all its stories and accounts are totally false, either made up completely or outright lies.
delivered from God Himself: Means that the hand of God Himself worked through the human writers, and that everything written down (by the original human scribes at least) is exactly what God said, as God said it, and how God said it. There was no human input of any kind into the original writings.
but only partly God-given: Means that God had only partial input into the Bible, and that He left the remainder to the human writers. God did directly transcribe onto some pages (through the writers, of course) what he wanted to say, but left others to human authorship to fill in the rest. Also could mean that God had indirect input, such as placing general topic/subject ideas in the mind of the human author and leaving it up to the human author to write the actual words and sentences to fill the subject/topic.
from human writers only: Means that God had no input whatsoever into any of the writings of the Bible, and that it was all written directly from the human minds of the persons who wrote the original manuscripts.
The final option should require no explanation.
Completely infallible and true in every word: Means that every word, every story, every person, and every account in the Bible is true, has happened/existed, will happen/exist, or is happening/exists now.
Mostly true due to human meddling: Means that the majority of what is said in the Bible is true, however due to a lot of the stories being passed down through oral accounts, translations, misinterpretations, omissions, and additions by human editors/authors over the years, that there are a few flaws in the text.
Neither overly true nor overly false: Means that as a whole, the words and stories of the Bible are neither certain to have happened exactly as told, but that it's not an outright fabrication either. Basically there is a generally equal amount of fiction and non-fiction throughout.
Mostly false, but still on the right track in its teachings: Means that while the accounts and stories in the Bible are generally fiction (or allegory, as some would see it), that the teachings of "God" and "Jesus" are generally benevolent and still good to follow, despite the other flaws of the text.
Mostly false and errant in its teachings: Means that the accounts and stories of the Bible are generally fiction (albeit some true stories), and that the teachings of "God" and "Jesus" were/are incorrect or false.
Completely false and errant in every word: Means that every word of the Bible and all its stories and accounts are totally false, either made up completely or outright lies.
delivered from God Himself: Means that the hand of God Himself worked through the human writers, and that everything written down (by the original human scribes at least) is exactly what God said, as God said it, and how God said it. There was no human input of any kind into the original writings.
but only partly God-given: Means that God had only partial input into the Bible, and that He left the remainder to the human writers. God did directly transcribe onto some pages (through the writers, of course) what he wanted to say, but left others to human authorship to fill in the rest. Also could mean that God had indirect input, such as placing general topic/subject ideas in the mind of the human author and leaving it up to the human author to write the actual words and sentences to fill the subject/topic.
from human writers only: Means that God had no input whatsoever into any of the writings of the Bible, and that it was all written directly from the human minds of the persons who wrote the original manuscripts.
The final option should require no explanation.
[Q]Neither overly true nor overly false: Means that as a whole, the words and stories of the Bible are neither certain to have happened exactly as told, but that it's not an outright fabrication either. Basically there is a generally equal amount of fiction and non-fiction throughout.[/Q]
This would most likely describe me.
This would most likely describe me.
OP
OP
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
"Mostly false, but still on the right track in its teachings, from human writers only"
That's what I picked.
I believe that the majority of it is allegory and metaphorical, that which is not outright fiction. There are (obviously to me anyways) true parts in the Bible, such as the histories (the Assyrians invading Israel, then the Neo-Babylonian conquest, then the Persian conquest, etc), but I think that the majority (especially the non-historical Old Testament) is all metaphorical.
And I don't believe in a higher power, so the remaining option is that it's solely human-written.
That's what I picked.
I believe that the majority of it is allegory and metaphorical, that which is not outright fiction. There are (obviously to me anyways) true parts in the Bible, such as the histories (the Assyrians invading Israel, then the Neo-Babylonian conquest, then the Persian conquest, etc), but I think that the majority (especially the non-historical Old Testament) is all metaphorical.
And I don't believe in a higher power, so the remaining option is that it's solely human-written.
beli
Blue Crack Addict
Neither true nor false, and depending on how its interpreted, on the wrong track in its teachings, written by humans.
indra
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 12,689
I believe it's what the writers wanted a god to say. And I think whether it's good or bad overall depends on how the person doing the reading interprets it.
AvsGirl41
New Yorker
This was difficult, as there were 2 or 3 that applied to my view. Maybe I picked the wrong one, as I chose, "Mostly true due to human meddling, but only partly God given."
There's too many *narrative* errors in the Bible for it to be a divine work, I sincerely believe a higher power would be a better writer.
Much of it, particularly in the OT, I think is false. Some of it blatently so, to advance an agenda, some of it unintentionally.
Some of it is inherited/borrowed myth from other cultures--which in themselves may have some spiritual truth at their core. Other parts are more historical chronicle and God was just added in.
Other parts, I do believe are divinely inspired--largely the Gospels as I find them to be beautifully written--but committed to paper by man.
There's too many *narrative* errors in the Bible for it to be a divine work, I sincerely believe a higher power would be a better writer.
Much of it, particularly in the OT, I think is false. Some of it blatently so, to advance an agenda, some of it unintentionally.
Some of it is inherited/borrowed myth from other cultures--which in themselves may have some spiritual truth at their core. Other parts are more historical chronicle and God was just added in.
Other parts, I do believe are divinely inspired--largely the Gospels as I find them to be beautifully written--but committed to paper by man.
Kieran McConville
ONE love, blood, life
Oh dear god, do we really need another thread like this? I mean, really.
shart1780
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Number one
indra
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 12,689
Kieran McConville said:
It's a dirty job...but someone has to do it.
And for a religion based thread, it's pretty tame (at least right now....)
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
they're all correct.
it's whatever you want it to be.
the problem is when you start to live your life based on the premise that what you want it to be is actually what it is.
humility, please.
it is not fact, it is faith.
it's whatever you want it to be.
the problem is when you start to live your life based on the premise that what you want it to be is actually what it is.
humility, please.
it is not fact, it is faith.
OP
OP
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
OT stuff (and I'm looking straight at Genesis) is complete allegory, IMO.
The Garden of Eden: Where is it now?
Adam and Eve: Unlikely that a mere two people created billions. And wouldn't we be technically performing incest anytime we get married or have sexual relations?
Noah's Ark: If you believe that this is a Bible original, you're wrong. Just about every single culture around the areas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East has a story of a "Great Flood". And these were written thousands of years before the Pentateuch was. The Epic of Gilgamesh is the most famous example, and was written (not counting oral accounts) in the time period of 3000-2500 BC in Akkadian. The Pentateuch was written around 1500-1200 BC. The widespread accounts of a flood story, combined with geological record probably mean a Mesopotamian localised flood in the region of Sumer. NOT a world-wide flood killing all living beings except one man and his family. Again, we also get into the incest bit.
Tower of Babel: Languages springing up fully formed, and the ability to build a tower that (logically) would have to be taller than the current tallest building in the world (otherwise, wouldn't God just as likely strike down anyone who built a tower equally as high - if not, he's inconsistent)?
Abram/Abraham + Sarai/Sarah + Isaac + Jacob: Having a kid at 99 years old? Physically impossible. Besides, the whole story surrounding these men seems to all be myth with good moral tradition attached.
I don't want to sound like I'm ripping apart the Bible (although maybe I am, unknowingly), but I fail to see how anyone can see these as literal truth. I guess I just don't have the faith of some folks.
The Garden of Eden: Where is it now?
Adam and Eve: Unlikely that a mere two people created billions. And wouldn't we be technically performing incest anytime we get married or have sexual relations?
Noah's Ark: If you believe that this is a Bible original, you're wrong. Just about every single culture around the areas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East has a story of a "Great Flood". And these were written thousands of years before the Pentateuch was. The Epic of Gilgamesh is the most famous example, and was written (not counting oral accounts) in the time period of 3000-2500 BC in Akkadian. The Pentateuch was written around 1500-1200 BC. The widespread accounts of a flood story, combined with geological record probably mean a Mesopotamian localised flood in the region of Sumer. NOT a world-wide flood killing all living beings except one man and his family. Again, we also get into the incest bit.
Tower of Babel: Languages springing up fully formed, and the ability to build a tower that (logically) would have to be taller than the current tallest building in the world (otherwise, wouldn't God just as likely strike down anyone who built a tower equally as high - if not, he's inconsistent)?
Abram/Abraham + Sarai/Sarah + Isaac + Jacob: Having a kid at 99 years old? Physically impossible. Besides, the whole story surrounding these men seems to all be myth with good moral tradition attached.
I don't want to sound like I'm ripping apart the Bible (although maybe I am, unknowingly), but I fail to see how anyone can see these as literal truth. I guess I just don't have the faith of some folks.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
There's also the talking serpent thing. What's the deal with that?
20% of us believe in talking serpents seemingly.
20% of us believe in talking serpents seemingly.
OP
OP
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511 said:
I'm not looking for a definitive answer by any means. I'm just curious to see what the opinions around here are, maybe spark some (healthy) debate.
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
never read it but i believe in 'Mostly false, but still on the right track in its teachings, from human writers only'. but even then i'm not so sure. i dont think i like how it is represented by some at times and so on.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511 said:
I'll second DaveC here, too
.Angela
Lemonfix
Refugee
"Completely false and errant in every word, delivered from God Himself"
I wonder if anyone will pick this one...
Oh, that God, he likes to mess with us
I wonder if anyone will pick this one...
Oh, that God, he likes to mess with us
OP
OP
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
Well hell, I had to make it an option...
It's right up there with "Completely infallible and true in every word, but from human writers only".
It's right up there with "Completely infallible and true in every word, but from human writers only".
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Ironically, I'm reading this as a George Carlin thing is on TV-he's talking about how odd a lot of religious stuff sounds to him.
I gotta say, I'm personally agreeing with a lot of it, too.
Angela
I gotta say, I'm personally agreeing with a lot of it, too.
Angela
Mostly false and errant, because:
1) The Old Testament is part early Judaism (tribal, henotheistic), which would have been written oral tradition, and part Pharisaic Judaism (Zoroastrian-infused, monotheistic), which was mostly written with the intention to ensure loyalty to the Persian Empire, rather than reflect on adherence to the Jewish faith.
2) The New Testament is a mixture of conflict between Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity, which borrowed less from Jesus and more from the Zoroastrian cult, Mithraism.
3) Then throw in 2000 years of politically charged translations into the mix that were less interested in accuracy in favor of maintaining traditional interpretations.
My faith in God does not emanate from the Bible, but rather from personal revelations.
Melon
1) The Old Testament is part early Judaism (tribal, henotheistic), which would have been written oral tradition, and part Pharisaic Judaism (Zoroastrian-infused, monotheistic), which was mostly written with the intention to ensure loyalty to the Persian Empire, rather than reflect on adherence to the Jewish faith.
2) The New Testament is a mixture of conflict between Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity, which borrowed less from Jesus and more from the Zoroastrian cult, Mithraism.
3) Then throw in 2000 years of politically charged translations into the mix that were less interested in accuracy in favor of maintaining traditional interpretations.
My faith in God does not emanate from the Bible, but rather from personal revelations.
Melon
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
Lemonfix said:"Completely false and errant in every word, delivered from God Himself"
I wonder if anyone will pick this one...
Oh, that God, he likes to mess with us
A prankster God!
Plus he planted all those fossils to make it look like the world was millions of years old, even though the Bible says it is only a couple of thousand.
Lemonfix said:"Completely false and errant in every word, delivered from God Himself"
I wonder if anyone will pick this one...
Oh, that God, he likes to mess with us
If you believe in a "Demiurge," you might be inclined to pick that one. That's how certain fringe sects have reconciled the warrior God of the early Old Testament and the loving God of the later OT and NT.
Melon
Se7en
Rock n' Roll Doggie
i picked mostly false and errant from humans. i'm such a downer. 
VertigoGal
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
completely false and errant, by human writers only
that's what i think
that does not mean i dont agree with many of the morals it teaches (shown through metaphors)
that's what i think
that does not mean i dont agree with many of the morals it teaches (shown through metaphors)
OP
OP
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
financeguy said:
A prankster God!
Plus he planted all those fossils to make it look like the world was millions of years old, even though the Bible says it is only a couple of thousand.
October 24th, 4004 BC at 9 am, to be exact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher-Lightfoot_Calendar
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
melon said:
Interesting, is this something to do with Manicheaism the early Christian heresy?
Se7en
Rock n' Roll Doggie
DaveC said:
that's pretty crazy that dates and time could exist before night and day.
DaveC said:
"It was widely believed that the Earth's potential duration was 6,000 years (4,000 before the birth of Christ and 2,000 after)."
So we're on year 6,001, according to this. Gotta love it when creationists get it wrong over and over.
Melon
indra
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 12,689
VertigoGal said:completely false and errant, by human writers only
that's what i think
that does not mean i dont agree with many of the morals it teaches (shown through metaphors)
That's why I went with the neither overly true or overly false. It has it's good points (so even if they aren't absolute fact, they aren't completely false or errant).
Interesting to note we picked two different ways of expressing virtually the same thing. That may have been at least part of the point of this thread.
