Bible, the foundational book of books?

[sojourner]

Not orally. IMV.

Yes, because other cultures predate the Hebraic.

 

[sojourner]

LOL... no, I think you are mistaken. (Sometimes people remind me of when we were children)

The material for the epic of Gilgamesh (from which the creation myths in Genesis were extrapolated) date from 2100 BCE. Hebraic culture dates to the 13th century BCE.

 

[Kenny]

Yes, because other cultures predate the Hebraic.

But it doesn't predate "And God made man in His image and in His likeness" nor does it predate Noah.

 

[Kenny]

The material for the epic of Gilgamesh (from which the creation myths in Genesis were extrapolated) date from 2100 BCE. Hebraic culture dates to the 13th century BCE.

Yes, but the message began "In the beginning" and the flood predates all beginnings of today's religions. IMO

 

[sojourner]

But it doesn't predate "And God made man in His image and in His likeness" nor does it predate Noah.

Noah isn’t history. He’s memetaphor.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, but the message began "In the beginning" and the flood predates all beginnings of today's religions. IMO

The creation and the flood are mythic stories — not historic events.

 

[Kenny]

Noah isn’t history. He’s memetaphor.

I think he was a historical figure. Never saw metaphorical lineage go all the way from Jesus to Noah.

 

[Kenny]

The creation and the flood are mythic stories — not historic events.

Maybe... maybe not. Usually mythical stories aren't common in most religions.

 

[sojourner]

I think he was a historical figure. Never saw metaphorical lineage go all the way from Jesus to Noah.

There’s a great example in the NT…

 

[sojourner]

Maybe... maybe not. Usually mythical stories aren't common in most religions.

Of course they are. They’re common to most religions.

 

[Kenny]

There’s a great example in the NT…

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm....

irrelevant on whatever you are thinking

 

[Kenny]

Of course they are. They’re common to most religions.

Possibility thinking... it came from an actual event (and retold in their own religious application)?

 

[firedragon]

Jorden Peterson presents an interesting idea about how the Bible (a sort of library on its own) was the first “book” which is really a foundation to other books.

I think he’s correct in his observation but I see the positive aspects of the Bible’s influence as well as the negative.

Thoughts?

Peterson is a fantastic guy. But no scholar of the Bible. He is uneducated in scripture.

 

[sojourner]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm....

irrelevant on whatever you are thinking

You brought it up. The genealogies in the Gospels aren’t literal, and are generated for theological, not historic purposes.

 

[sojourner]

Possibility thinking... it came from an actual event (and retold in their own religious application)?

Most stories have a basis in fact. But mythic stories are not the facts, themselves, and are prevalent in most religions — including Xy.

 

[Clara Tea]

Jorden Peterson presents an interesting idea about how the Bible (a sort of library on its own) was the first “book” which is really a foundation to other books.

I think he’s correct in his observation but I see the positive aspects of the Bible’s influence as well as the negative.

Thoughts?

The bible wasn't the first written word, nor was it the first book.

Other books were written to teach God's words. Sort of "Jewish bible for dummies," "Christian bible for dummies," or "Muslim bible for dummies," and followers were grateful for the simplification.

But, in the famous 1954 Supreme Court decision of Brown Vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, the decision was that "separate is necessarily unequal." That decision was about separate schools for Blacks, not about bibles, but the lesson learned is the same. That lesson is that a translated bible is a wrong bible.

That lesson is that a separate bible (written to make things easier) is not the same as the original (difficult) bible. That is, once a book is translated, it is translated wrong. The devil (pardon the pun) is in the details.

We see this same effect in the creation of the new testament bible from the old testament. For example, the concept of original sin is from the Christian bible. But that concept was never in the original old testament bible (the Jewish bible). Jews believe (still today) that babies are born innocent, but, because they have to follow the 600 or so commandments of God (not just the 10 commandments), they tend to sin throughout their lifetime, and they need to purge themselves of that sin.

Another example of translation error is the concept that we must not let the devil tempt us. The real bible intimates that we have free choice (good to heaven....bad to hell). The new testament got that a bit wrong, and says that we must avoid Satan's temptations. Do you see the difference? One says, don't sin yourself, and the other says, don't let an evil outside entity influence you. However, the story of the snake in the Garden of Eden was about an evil outside influence. If you translate the ancient Latin version of Matthew, you will see that it is about free choice, not temptation by Satan.

Reverend Melissa Scott, wife of the late Reverend Gene Scott, does a great job of researching the earliest versions or translations of the bible, and researching the meanings of ancient words. Words had different meanings in the past.

I am very disappointed in most televangelists, who are constantly begging for money, and they seem so phony (like Reverend Jim and Tammy Fay Bakker begging for money for starving Africans, then stealing that money for their mansion). But the Scotts seemed genuine and good.

With the choice of numerous bible versions, it is important to get the facts straight.

Positives and negatives of the bible? The Religious Right elected W. Bush. W. Bush defied God's commandment in Revelation not to attack Iraq, defied God's commandment not to kill, defied the advise to "turn the other cheek," defied God's commandment not to "bear false witness," and W. Bush lied us into war (which is what Satan would do), and he made torture camps. W. Bush tried to lie us into war with Niger, falsely claiming that they had yellow-cake Uranium, so outed CIA agent Valery Plame as punishment for not lying (resulting in murder of CIA agents). As a result of defying God, the world is a mess (homeless, hunger, wars, torture camps, environmental destruction, global warming, economic collapse, etc).

It was not the bible that was wrong. Rather, not following the bible made a mess of the world. There are hoards of homeless, wars, starvation, disease, pollution, and the world will end due to Global Warming if not other causes. These are problems from not following the bible, not problems caused by the bible.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Not all, but about 2/3, according to anthropologist Joseph Cambell. And guess what sometimes happens in countries that do?

As you know, I tend to believe that the main purpose of the Flood narrative was likely to counter the earlier polytheistic Babylonian narrative, thus not likely an attempt to teach history per se. Such narratives are written as facts, and that was pretty much commonplace back then as objective history is a much more recent phenomenon.

BTW, I'll be outta here shortly as our son is bringing samosas over, which I doubt you're familiar with since people where you live are no where as cultured as we are here.

Have a Most Blessed Lord's Day, my friend.

Meat or veg samosas? I’m a sucker for lamb myself, trying to cut down on meat but the veggie ones can be a bit dry.

 

[idea]

Why is the age of a religious text important?

Most books, more recent editions with new updated information are best, as we know many more things now.

Religious texts contain some historical narrative but isn't the point how to find peace, kindness, empathy, strength? Aren't there now better, more accurate, current stories to teach these virtues?

What is the point of any scripture?

 

[Secret Chief]

Meat or veg samosas? I’m a sucker for lamb myself, trying to cut down on meat but the veggie ones can be a bit dry.

That's what the dips are for. D'uh.

 

[Augustus]

There is another RF member who likes to claim that secular humanism is a spin-off from Christianity simply because it rose to prominence in the mostly Christian West, and that humanists owe a debt to Christian thought. He's implying that Christianity is foundational to humanism, the way that Happy Days is foundational to Laverne and Shirley. But as we can see from the parallel descriptions of the two, secular humanism is a repudiation of the Christian worldview, rejecting essentially all of it, and playing no significant constructive or foundational role in its development.

Not "simply because it rose to prominence in the mostly Christian West" but because you can trace a clear evolution of its foundational principles in the long history of Christian theological and philosophical traditions, and these are anything but common across the majority of historical cultures (hence secular humanism is largely confined to post-Chistian cultures).

Thus if you looked at SH and the liberal Protestantism it emerged from (via providential deism) and compared them with say classical Greek "Rationalism" you'd see how different the Greeks really were.

But you previously asserted there is no need to examine historical evidence in this regard because your knowledge of modern American Protestant fundamentalism is more important than any amount of secular historical scholarship on the history of ideas and the history of Christianity in a pre-modern and non-American context