[X] My Assistant

[AshyGames]

Hello all. And good day.

I've always wondered what other peoples views on the Bible were.

I know some people will say it's 100% true, some will say only parts are true. Along with those who say none of it is true.

I just want to know personal opinions.

And possibly why you have that opinion.

My own personal opinion is that the Bible was created by humans. That there is no God. I believe this simply because of all of the contradictions in the Bible, along with all of the horrible things that went on (killings, etc).

If anyone takes offence to this, I apologize in advance. I'm just simply curious.

[Jonahman10]

This is more of a flow of thoughts rather than an actual argument, but I'd like to bring up some things that were not mentioned yet. Take into account that I am biased both because I am scientist (more as a strong interest rather than as a main profession) and a Christian.

Just to clarify the Bible is actually a collection of quite a few texts with many purposes and sometimes the expressions used to accomplish the purpose only apply in circumstances. If in a poem I said "Sadness is an ocean" it is unlikely I literally mean that, and there are many poetic sections in the books of the Bible, both in Historical Narratives (Like Exodus) and Poetic Books (such as the entire book of Psalms) and pretty much every Biblical genre. Also, especially in the Epistles (those smallish books in the New Testament after the book of Acts which were actually letters) the intended audience shifts drastically; some of the epistles are written to church which apparently acting wild and crazy, while others were being legalistic and exclusive. Clearly, higher ups in the church would send what appears to be opposing advice to these two churches because they are experiencing opposite extremes.

It seems to me that the book of Job was written allegorically, and was never exactly intended to be interpreted as an actual event, but I could be wrong.

The book of Genesis then seems to be interesting. Its early narratives (creation, the Tower of Babel, the Flood and whatnot) seem to be mocking pagan culture (though if they were based on real events you could also make the argument that most cultures around that region should have adopted some similar narrative). Creation very specifically makes the argument that there is one God, and he is the God of everything, rather than a pantheon of gods living in a universe created by a battle between an evil snake god and a good sub god and their lesser fire, and fertility gods who are morally ambiguous or whatever the specific pagan beliefs are. Other stories, such as the flood narrative, seem to be using common legends to explain similar theological concepts about God. (this is not so weird considering that similar things happened in Europe after the rise of Christianity, where pagan understanding of the world was used as a springboard to create parallels with a monotheistic triune-God). After this, the narrative shifts to Abraham and his family, which is more like a traditional historical narrative, though some actions seem to be rather specific for something that would have been spread by oral tradition. By this I mean that sometimes it may say something like "character X brought 10 camels as a gift." I think symbolic numbering is used quite a lot and could communicate something like "character x was completely serious about being friends that he gave them a completed number of livestock" rather than the literal statement "character X brought 10 camels as a gift."

Perhaps the Bible was God inspired, but man written? This does not mean God dictated. Different books have very unique audiences, and their interpretation may be very different by modern audiences than what the original intended audience. Different authors have different vantage points of God. I feel like if a God existed, then he would be so complex that we could not comprehend all of his aspects simultaneously, and we could only see a very narrow part of God at a time. In that way it would explain the variation in the books in the Bible and the differences in between denominations. A lot of Christians may make the claim that the entire Bible is completely clear in all of its meanings to anyone, but the truth is I do not believe it is so.


Edit Summary (Here is where the Bias Really kicks in):
So in short, I guess it depends on what you consider "truth." Personally, I uphold the Bible as a group of founding documents about my personal faith that gives a comprehensive view of Theology, History, as well as other subject matters. Some parts are symbolic, others allegorical, others literal, others a combination, and sometimes its difficult to tell the difference between the different parts. Overall, it has truth in all of those aspects in some regard, but not always a literal truth (in the Prophets and Revelation, there are numerous times were this is explicitly stated in explanations of visions). I believe it is inerrant in that sense then. Some people act like the Bible is God instead of about God, and that also not consistent with my beliefs.

This post has been edited by Jonahman10: Jan 1 2015, 01:28 PM

[raven roth logan]

[quote name='Jonahman10' date='Jan 1 2015, 12:04 PM' post='2399233']
This is more of a flow of thoughts rather than an actual argument, but I'd like to bring up some things that were not mentioned yet. Take into account that I am biased both because I am scientist (more as a strong interest rather than as a main profession) and a Christian.

Just to clarify the Bible is actually a collection of quite a few texts with many purposes and sometimes the expressions used to accomplish the purpose only apply in circumstances. If in a poem I said "Sadness is an ocean" it is unlikely I literally mean that, and there are many poetic sections in the books of the Bible, both in Historical Narratives (Like Exodus) and Poetic Books (such as the entire book of Psalms) and pretty much every Biblical genre. Also, especially in the Epistles (those smallish books in the New Testament after the book of Acts which were actually letters) the intended audience shifts drastically; some of the epistles are written to church which apparently acting wild and crazy, while others were being legalistic and exclusive. Clearly, higher ups in the church would send what appears to be opposing advice to these two churches because they are experiencing opposite extremes.

It seems to me that the book of Job was written allegorically, and was never exactly intended to be interpreted as an actual event, but I could be wrong.

The book of Genesis then seems to be interesting. Its early narratives (creation, the Tower of Babel, the Flood and whatnot) seem to be mocking pagan culture (though if they were based on real events you could also make the argument that most cultures around that region should have adopted some similar narrative). Creation very specifically makes the argument that there is one God, and he is the God of everything, rather than a pantheon of gods living in a universe created by a battle between an evil snake god and a good sub god and their lesser fire, and fertility gods who are morally ambiguous or whatever the specific pagan beliefs are. Other stories, such as the flood narrative, seem to be using common legends to explain similar theological concepts about God. (this is not so weird considering that similar things happened in Europe after the rise of Christianity, where pagan understanding of the world was used as a springboard to create parallels with a monotheistic triune-God). After this, the narrative shifts to Abraham and his family, which is more like a traditional historical narrative, though some actions seem to be rather specific for something that would have been spread by oral tradition. By this I mean that sometimes it may say something like "character X brought 10 camels as a gift." I think symbolic numbering is used quite a lot and could communicate something like "character x was completely serious about being friends that he gave them a completed number of livestock" rather than the literal statement "character X brought 10 camels as a gift."

Perhaps the Bible was God inspired, but man written? This does not mean God dictated. Different books have very unique audiences, and their interpretation may be very different by modern audiences than what the original intended audience. Different authors have different vantage points of God. I feel like if a God existed, then he would be so complex that we could not comprehend all of his aspects simultaneously, and we could only see a very narrow part of God at a time. In that way it would explain the variation in the books in the Bible and the differences in between denominations. A lot of Christians may make the claim that the entire Bible is completely clear in all of its meanings to anyone, but the truth is I do not believe it is so.


Edit Summary (Here is where the Bias Really kicks in):
So in short, I guess it depends on what you consider "truth." Personally, I uphold the Bible as a group of founding documents about my personal faith that gives a comprehensive view of Theology, History, as well as other subject matters. Some parts are symbolic, others allegorical, others literal, others a combination, and sometimes its difficult to tell the difference between the different parts. Overall, it has truth in all of those aspects in some regard, but not always a literal truth (in the Prophets and Revelation, there are numerous times were this is explicitly stated in explanations of visions). I believe it is inerrant in that sense then. Some people act like the Bible is God instead of about God, and that also not consistent with my beliefs.
[/quot the bible is true the king james verstion is all truth