Accuracy of the Bible

[sandy whitelinger]

But there was no Adam.

In which case my point is further proven...the atoning work of Christ is not correlated to Adam's sin.

 

[Commoner]

Wrong. The Bible is equal to the tradition. In fact, to have one without the other is to be unable to properly understand halakha.

Equal is good as well, just as long as that there is no higher authority - nothing that could invalidate the Bible. But you're right, I should have acknowledged that distinction and posted accordingly.

You judge the Bible by a particular standard. I define my standards by the Bible. That is the difference between you and I.

Yes, there is a difference, of course. But if you really meant what you said - that you define your standards for how to judge the Bible by what it says in the Bible, well...that's no good, is it?

1. Why not? Because the Torah is meant to be lived, not studied for personal pleasure. One learns the Torah from a teacher. One who learned from his teacher who learned from his teacher all the way back to Sinai. That's the point. It's not supposed to be something that the casual onlooker can look at and say "That's neat, I want to do that for fun." In essence, it's a way of ensuring that those who follow it are doing so seriously and appropriately.

Making it clear and understandable, on the other hand, would prevent the majority of the world from misinterpreting it. Again I must quesiton the motives of the divine author. It's not as if the Bible is obviously complex - something that can't be understood without the "notes". It really seems rather simplistic. But even if it were - sure, there are many math books I don't really understand on their own (or at all). But I don't need to look at my notes or understand the subject completely to find errors - that's much easier. But the Bible, on its own, seems very clear and understandable. It is not obvious that one needs some further reference to make sense of it or that any hidden meaning exists. In that way it seems to achieve the opposite of what you say is its "purpose" - as it lends itself to the (wrong) interpretation rather than just being difficult to understand.

2. This notion of infallibility, I'm not sure where you get it. I believe that the Bible is true. And I also believe that it is infallible only when considered with the rest of the tradition. If you have the notes to a lecture, you will not understand the concepts being conveyed unless you attended the lecture. It is the same with the Bible and the Oral tradition.

Infallible would be something that could be safely relied upon to be true (especially as regards to questions of a moral nature). I have never met anyone who believes in the god of the Bible claim otherwise. For instance - if god says that slavery is permissable and even condones and encourages it, then it must be the case that slavery is not morally disputable. If the book says, 2+2=4, that must be the case - no matter what the explanation is and regardless of whether or not we understand it. That is infallibility - this is the notion that allows you to claim the book as moral authority and as a justification for your actions and beliefs.

No, it doesn't really prove anything. As I said, it only says the punishment for a particular crime. There is sufficient evidence within the written Torah itself which proves that an Oral tradition is necessary.

Besides, God Himself says in Deut 17 is the judicial protection clause of the Torah. It says, "Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the LORD thy God an ox, or a sheep, wherein is a blemish, even any evil thing; for that is an abomination unto the LORD thy God. If there be found in the midst of thee, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that doeth that which is evil in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing His covenant, and hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, or the sun, or the moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have commanded not; and it be told thee, and thou hear it, then shalt thou inquire diligently, and, behold, if it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, who have done this evil thing, unto thy gates, even the man or the woman; and thou shalt stone them with stones, that they die. At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is to die be put to death; at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee.

What does this verse contain?

1. It shows that if someone is accused of a crime, we should inquire diligently. In essence, we must make an investigation into the crime.

2. He must be put to death by witnesses (presumably in a trial) and not by just one witness, but by two.

3. The witness must be the first to stone him. In essence, the witness must be absolutely sure that the person committed the crime, and the witness must believe that it is OK for the person to be stoned. If the witness refuses to stone the person, then the person is not executed.

I agree with everthing you've said as regard to the content of the passages and their interpretation. I understand it in the same way and have based my previous posts on this understanding. Yes - there is a careful and technical procedure that allows you to identify the "criminal" with as much certainty as possible (and that's a very good thing). But this has no impact on what god deems as the appropriate punishment for apostasy. It is clear that the punishment is death by stoning. This is where my sense of morality and justice does not allow me to consider god to be worthy of my praise or respect. Apostasy is not a sin and it is not a crime. Stoning is not an appropriate punisment for any crime.

The Torah does not command us to barbarism. It's laws provide a judicial structure for the operation of a society. Surely you don't believe that the ancient Jews were a culture of people that went around stoning one another for suspected sins.

No, look - it doesn't make any difference to me how sure you are of one's sin - it's the sin itself that I'm disputing. I don't care if there was not even one case in which someone had been convicted of a sin and then stoned to death. But what's clear to me is that that doesn't happen inspite of what god deems as an appropriate punishment, not because god deems it impermissible or immoral - as I do.

And I'm pretty sure you would find it impremissable and immoral as well for someone like me or another member of RF to be killed for having different beliefs - and knowing full well what the Bible says about the subject, not to mention being informed by numerous members about this fact. But I could be wrong.

Or, this path is the one that produces the result that He desires by the best means.

"Best means" - what's that? What does that mean in the context of an all-powerful god, a god without restrictions?

 

[Commoner]

Are we talking about whether or not a law/command is reasonable? Or are we talking about when a law/command should be obeyed.

As I said, I thought we were discussing the obedience of a command/law. Not whether or not it is reasonable.

But not in "which situations" one should obey a particular law, but which law should be obeyed - what kind of a law should be obeyed and what kind should be objected to - the kind which is completely unresonable - like owning slaves or running over motorists. Yet you claim that does not matter.

I don't have a "if it's not wrong it's right" mindset. In Jewish law, if it's wrong it's wrong and if it's not wrong it's not wrong. That's all there is to it. In essence, there's wrong, there's neutral, and there's good.

That's good, but it doesn't really change what I'm pointing out to you - in fact it makes it even more true. You said that "I have not yet found any moral situation that is not addressed in Jewish law.". Well, of course - you could not consider it a "moral situation" unless it was addressed.

Aren't we talking about judging people? We're discussing whether or not we would hold person A responsible in situation H. That's a form of judgment. I tend to try and judge people's actions based on the way a Jewish court would.

Judging - yes, proving - no. We are not trying to establish guilt in that sense - of "proof beyond a resonable doubt". That is besides the point in establishing the nature of an action in a hypothetical situation. Whether or not it could be demonstrated with any degree of cerainty is not what we're after here.

You would hold yourself a murderer. And maybe you would have some sort of guilt (that may be justified) but I would not call you a murderer. Maybe a reckless person, but not a murderer.

Well, it's nothing to do with feelings of guilt. I mean that I would hold myself objectively responsible for murder. And the question is not what you would cosider me to be, the question is what you would consider yourself to be, if your were in that situation.

And that is one of the fundamental problems you are bound to come across when describing God. Jewish laws holds that we, human beings, are incapable of accurately describing God. We cannot describe Him/who is He is. All we can describe is the effects of what He does that we can observe. In fact, Jewish law holds that we can't ascribe any characteristic to God, not even the characteristic of existence.

Yet you claim it with certainty. That's the most nonsensical thing I think I've ever heard. If you can't even tell if god exists, how the hell can you say anything at all about anything regarding god? That's a real fancy red harring, I'd say. Sure, he's the source of morality, he's the divine inspiration behind this book, he's the creator of the universe, yet - I can't really say it exists. That's just mind-bogglingly self-contradictory.

In essence, God is "amoral". He does not have any morality by which He is bound. He is good because He does and intends good things for us. Intrinsically, He is neither good nor evil because that would mean that there is some force external to Him by which He could be characterized. And there isn't.

He does and intends good things for us? Who is "us"?

 

[sojourner]

So you admit the bible has no accuracy to it?

I didn't say that. Allegory can be as "accurate" as anything else.

Then your faith must be misplaced.

My faith is not "Bible-based."

How do you mean and what evidence do you have for this?

Take a serious look at history. The Church was seriously persecuted and outcast and illegal while this stuff was being written down. The Church didn't become powerful until Constantine.

Given that this 'heirachy' is responcible for collecting and sometimes writing the books that comprise the bible, how can you then say that this was not that purpose?

Because, at the time of writing, the "hierarchy," as we now know it, was not in place. Some of the writings are quite rural and Gallilean in nature.

 

[sojourner]

Each book was not written for the reason stated (that's true)..but it was collected together to bolster the institution (see the list of NT books compiled by Ananathus...and the Nicene debates). The reason for the Bible existence, in its current form, is indeed to provide authority and justification to the pre-Nicene church. When each part was written it was to achieve a certain goal. Pentateuch was an attempt to establish and legitimize a theocracy among a group of desert peoples — the Hebrews. The monarchial books (Kings, Samuel, Judges, Chronicles, etc.) were written to provide Israel with a rich, powerful history that most scholars agree never existed (at most Jerusalem was a small trading post rather than some grand kingdom). The prophetic books were used to explain how such a godly nation could have been subjugated by eastern invaders (it was their fault of course because they dissed Yahweh; yeah that's the ticket). The Messianic prophecies were used to provide the diasporic Jews with a hope for the future. But ultimately, I stand by my statement that the Bible, as it stands now, was compiled in a way that would lend legitimacy to the institution of the church (I give unto you the Keys of the Kingdom..Upon this Rock, etc.). Like any book, people will tend to use it for whatever purpose required —just like the Buddhist sutras, the Koran and other spiritual texts. Example: The American South used the Bible to justify slavery.

I still think you've got the tail wagging the dog. The writings were around and circulating before the Church became highly organized. The writings were not "written to achieve the goal of power." They may have been compiled and placed into codices by that hierarchy, but the writings, themselves, were around much earlier.

 

[sojourner]

But in all fairness they weren`t compiled and codified as "The Bible" until they were needed to justify a powerful and ego based hierarchy.

It wasn't the Bible that justified the hierarchy. The writings were considered "scripture" and "authoritative" long before the imperial structure came about. When that structure came about, its authority was derived from the emperor -- not the scriptures.

 

[sojourner]

That's not what your bible teaches nor is it something that the churches are teaching. Every denomination I know of teaches that Jesus died for your sins. Paul taught that the first sin (original sin) started with Adam. But now we're told there was no such person (Adam)....rather he and his supposed history is fictitious. Can't have it both ways. No Adam, no original sin, no doomed mankind needing a savior.

Substitutionary Atonement is one -- but not the only valid theological stance on the crucifixion. The theology does not stand nor fall on the factual or allegorical nature of Adam.

 

[Humanistheart]

Substitutionary Atonement is one -- but not the only valid theological stance on the crucifixion. The theology does not stand nor fall on the factual or allegorical nature of Adam.

There are no valid, or at least no ethical atomement models that I'm aware of.

 

[sojourner]

There are no valid, or at least no ethical atomement models that I'm aware of.

If we view Jesus as a separate entity from God, then I agree. If, however, Jesus is viewed as God Incarnate, then that makes the atonement a self sacrifice. That gets us much, much closer to "ethical." However, I've never been convinced that God plays "tit-for-tat." "Dying for our sins" can be understood to mean something more important (I believe) than "atonement."

Part of the core of Xian theology is that God became fully human in order to reconcile humanity to Divinity. Humanity could not approach God, but God could approach humanity -- meet us on our own terms, so to speak. Mortality is a HUGE part of "being human." By demonstrating a human death, Jesus demonstrated his full humanity.

 

[MountainHumanist]

I still think you've got the tail wagging the dog. The writings were around and circulating before the Church became highly organized. The writings were not "written to achieve the goal of power." They may have been compiled and placed into codices by that hierarchy, but the writings, themselves, were around much earlier.

I will grant this point. The writings were not written to achieve the goal of power. They were collected, edited, redacted and presented in a form to achieve the goal of becoming a more powerful institution. I was being imprecise and you were correct to call me on it.

 

[sojourner]

I will grant this point. The writings were not written to achieve the goal of power. They were collected, edited, redacted and presented in a form to achieve the goal of becoming a more powerful institution. I was being imprecise and you were correct to call me on it.

It's real easy for us to use hindsight and say that the Church was wrong for wielding temporal power. I tend to say that the biggest mistake Xy ever made was to become imperialized. However, we're not standing in the shoes of those Xians, are we? Maybe that was the only way for the faith to survive the vagaries of the ancient world.

 

[Quagmire]

It's real easy for us to use hindsight and say that the Church was wrong for wielding temporal power. I tend to say that the biggest mistake Xy ever made was to become imperialized. However, we're not standing in the shoes of those Xians, are we? Maybe that was the only way for the faith to survive the vagaries of the ancient world.

More than just the vagaies; one of the most likely reasons Constantine decided to align his rule with the Christian church was that he saw within it a functioning, organized, and extremely resiilient institution; one that had survived several concerted, officaily sanctioned campaigns of extinction against it.

He recognized it as an already established system of administration that he could easily adopt and adapt to his own purposes.

 

[REASON_236]

if u translate a book enough number of times, the book will not only lose credibility, but common sense also.( no offense intended )

 

[Just_me_Mike]

More than just the vagaies; one of the most likely reasons Constantine decided to align his rule with the Christian church was that he saw within it a functioning, organized, and extremely resiilient institution; one that had survived several concerted, officaily sanctioned campaigns of extinction against it.

He recognized it as an already established system of administration that he could easily adopt and adapt to his own purposes.

Or it could just be God's will

Who really knows?

 

[Humanistheart]

If we view Jesus as a separate entity from God, then I agree. If, however, Jesus is viewed as God Incarnate, then that makes the atonement a self sacrifice. That gets us much, much closer to "ethical." However, I've never been convinced that God plays "tit-for-tat." "Dying for our sins" can be understood to mean something more important (I believe) than "atonement."

Part of the core of Xian theology is that God became fully human in order to reconcile humanity to Divinity. Humanity could not approach God, but God could approach humanity -- meet us on our own terms, so to speak. Mortality is a HUGE part of "being human." By demonstrating a human death, Jesus demonstrated his full humanity.

Okay, what salvation model makes the story of god incarnating and being killed a) makes sence and b) seems necessary?

I had a thread once that asked specifically why jesus was necessary. None were able to justify the christian story.

 

[Dunemeister]

Okay, what salvation model makes the story of god incarnating and being killed a) makes sence and b) seems necessary?

I had a thread once that asked specifically why jesus was necessary. None were able to justify the christian story.

Whether it makes sense is beside the point. Whether it is efficacious is.

 

[Quagmire]

Or it could just be God's will

Who really knows?

or both.

 

[sojourner]

More than just the vagaies; one of the most likely reasons Constantine decided to align his rule with the Christian church was that he saw within it a functioning, organized, and extremely resiilient institution; one that had survived several concerted, officaily sanctioned campaigns of extinction against it.

He recognized it as an already established system of administration that he could easily adopt and adapt to his own purposes.

Actually, those reasons had little, if nothing to do with it. Constantine perceived the Christian God to be the strongest of the gods. He believed that, if he championed the cause of the Xians, God would favor him and bring him military might and victory.

 

[Humanistheart]

It's real easy for us to use hindsight and say that the Church was wrong for wielding temporal power. .

The problem is more what they did with said power. You know, the brutal beatings, rapings, mass killings, slavery, oppresion of women, abuse of children, and so on and so on.

However, we're not standing in the shoes of those Xians, are we? .

In other words no one's accountable for past misdeeds.

Maybe that was the only way for the faith to survive the vagaries of the ancient world.

Then what makes you think it deserved to survive at all?

 

[Humanistheart]

Actually, those reasons had little, if nothing to do with it. Constantine perceived the Christian God to be the strongest of the gods. He believed that, if he championed the cause of the Xians, God would favor him and bring him military might and victory.

No, it was purely a tactic to try and achieve what the roman empire had been pitching for houndreds of years, one empire united under one faith set. Constantien didn't even actually convert until the end of his life.