Why I think a lot of the Bible is False

[Jayhawker Soule]

If the bible was written by humans, who wanted to actually control the massas, they would NOT have included...

'fear no man' and
'dont call anybody father'

hence, my conclusion is that the bible was not completely inspired by humans and can therefore not be completely false.

Your conclusion is irrational.

 

[Troublemane]

First off saying that everyone can experience God in their own way is a total lie. It is a lie fabricated by a world that is sick and tired of trying to come up with something other then God.

If its a lie, then how can Jesus be a personal lord and savior to anyone? What would be the point of anyone praying to God if they cannot have a personal relationship with Him/Her/It?

This statement of course can only be backed if the Bible really is the truth.

How so? It seems the statement can only be backed up if God does not care about anyone personally, or that the only possible way to interact with God would be through the intercession of a professional priesthood. The bible cannot be an intercessor, since it is not alive and is capable of many differing interpretations.

Lets start in the garden. God created man and set them in the garden for the purpose of glorifying and worshiping him. I know this sounds a bit egotistical but hopefully by the end of this you will realize that there really is no other way for a bunch of people to survive together unless they are constrained and protected by God.

Then why does God turn them loose? Banish them from the garden at the first sign of trouble? If God was protecting them how did the snake enter the garden? Doesnt sound like God was protecting them too well, and when the chips were down, God turns them out?---No, Youve got the story all wrong. Since they were not real people anyway, just myths. But what they represent are what we were before we develloped intelligence. The power to decide our own fates...to know good and evil.

When that happened we stopped being animals (living in the paradise of ignorance) and were "cast out", to fend for ourselves. Not because God was punishing us (though primitive man probably thought that way!)...but because we were now capable of being aware of hardship.

The Bible says that God made man in the image of Him, and that man is the only creation of His to have a spirit. In other words man is the only creature on the planet with a will, or, the only creature that can choose for himself. The Bible also says that man was made perfect, the biblical term for someone that is perfect is someone who has summited their will, or what they want to do, to God and is constantly seeking to stay in that relationship with him. David was said to be perfect and yet he sinned, so is the bible contradicting itself? NO! Even though David sinned he repented and begged God not to cast him away but to return to that relationship that they had before.

gettin ahead of ourselves. david may have been a king, and a charismatic leader too, but the heroes in the bible are repeatedly depicted as following Gods will, regardless of their being perfect---the implication? that we must follow Gods will, regardless of our perfection, and we will be immortalized in prose. the question of course has always been--HOW do we determine the will of God? shall we listen to this or that preacher? this or that imam? this or that rabbi?---who? What scripture?

If every scripture was written by man, interpreted by man, and man is imperfect (as we have established) then how can any man or scripture be foolproof to follow?
answer: it cannot, so we must all follow the dictates of our hearts, for thats where God (and no man) can see alone. so the examples of the heroes in the bible (and other books) are there to show us that God will communicate with us in His own way. Thus---establishing that the bible does in fact support the view that everyone must have their own relationship with God personally.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil was Gods way to let man choose if they wanted to stay in that perfect relationship with God or if they want to leave that relationship. Adam and Eve of course eat that fruit and their eyes were opened, they realized they really could place something else at the center of their lives other than God. I believe that is why they realized they were naked.

their eyes were opened, and they 'became mortal' because they came to realize their own mortality, not because they were immortal before. their nakedness also is revealed to them because they were now intelligent, moral and modest, not ignorant like the animals.this didnt happen overnight, remember, this is just an allegory. a myth. its the symbolism thats important.

God said that after man sinned they would die, God also cursed the ground after they sinned and made life hard. Why did he do this? So that men would hate the world and seek after something else. We have already seen what men have done to each other with a limited time here on earth, men are evil. Even if you say you are not evil because you have never killed anyone think of it this way. If you have chosen to disobey God in anyway shape or form you are just as bad as a murderer. Here is the reason for why I say this: God is the ONLY guard against sin, it is by his grace that the world is not already a living hell, when you chose to disobey him you are purposefully removing the same safety feature that that murderer did. The only thing that is separating you from him is that circumstance.

then why did God create the world and call it "good" in the beginning of genesis? this hatred of the world is of mans own making, not gods.

Well I am in high-school so I have to get to work. I know what I have said so far can be picked apart because it really is incomplete and is still resting on the Bible which you still don't believe. I would just like to say that if you don't believe that the OT is correct you are making a logical faulisy thinking that you can believe the NT is correct. The NT is build on the OT.... if you don't believe me study the Bible.

it can be picked apart even if you believe in the bible, or believe it has a different meaning. you will learn young padawan, that myths can be made to mean many things, and thats their power. when you adhere to just one strict interpretation of meaning then you miss all the possible applications of understanding.

P.S. The bible was carried orally by the jewish people for years. This would seem totally ludicrous to us because we are so dependent on written documents. The Torah was and Is everything to them.

I will try to finish this later... pick it apart, let me know what you think.

true, the torah was an oral tradition for centuries before written down, which is why there are variations of the same stories in the bible--example: two creation stories, one in which adam and eve were created at the same time, one in which they were created separately. two flood stories--one in which there were two of each animal saved (gen 6:19), one in which there were divided into clean and unclean---the clean were gathered in sevens, unclean by twos (gen 7:2)....which is the real story? answer: neither, they are BOTH myths. just like the flood myth the greeks had, or the chaldeans, or the egyptians. all myths. but whats important is not whether you believe in their literal truth or not, whats important is...how does it help you be a better person?

if it helps you to follow the example of christ, then by all means believe whatever you want to believe. but if it makes you hate someone else who doesnt believe as you do, then....isnt it a destructive belief to have? and counterproductive to being more like christ?

peace
:angel2:

 

[Jayell]

Why is that destructive? btw, you know that among the world's religions, this is an extreme minority view?

I know! That is why Jesus said, "Narrow is the way to Heaven and FEW will find it.

 

[McBell]

Im not trying to address the fact that some people try to speak on gods behalf. :cover: I was trying to stay on topic. If the bible was written by humans, who wanted to actually control the massas, they would NOT have included...

'fear no man' and
'dont call anybody father'

hence, my conclusion is that the bible was not completely inspired by humans and can therefore not be completely false.

Then I say your conclusion is based upon ratification of your beliefs and not honest research.

 

[McBell]

I know! That is why Jesus said, "Narrow is the way to Heaven and FEW will find it.

Wow.
That has got to be the single worst justification I have ever heard on RF.

Though I freely admit that I have not read every single post in every single thread.

 

[Riverwolf]

If they ever existed. (highly doubtful)

Does it matter? Don't you compare real life to fictional stories and fireside tales? I believe the story of Adam and Eve to be purely fictional, but just because a story is fiction doesn't erase its releavance.

Well, most of us make a distinction between killing people and other creatures. Otherwise we'd all be vegetarian.

Plants are the same. It doesn't matter what you do, in order to survive, you have to either kill yourself or pay someone to give you what he or she has killed. You have to eat things that were alive once. This is a Law. If you kill something that never had life, then you will not absorb it. But it's not bad. Killing in itself isn't "bad" in my eyes. (to me, "good" and "bad" are man-made and have no place whatsoever in reality) Now, killing for sport... that's what the Bible calls murder.

And yes, I'm an island in a vast ocean, in that I view all life as children of Gaia, all equal, regardless of size or scientific category. Therefore, I view the bacteria that causes strep throat on the same level as a human. In order to survive, I have to take the antibiotics, which kills the bacteria. Law of the jungle, Auto. Law of the jungle.

I agree. All Gods are bad.

But is "bad" really a truth? Or is it made up?

 

[McBell]

But is "bad" really a truth? Or is it made up?

neither.
It is subjective.

 

[Riverwolf]

neither.
It is subjective.

So "good and evil" are subjective... which means they're also subjective to subjectivity, which is also subjective to the subjectivity of subjectivity... I have a headache now! :bonk:

 

[logician]

Individually, good and evil are subjective, on a societal basis, they're very objective, check out how many laws are on the books

 

[McBell]

So "good and evil" are subjective... which means they're also subjective to subjectivity, which is also subjective to the subjectivity of subjectivity... I have a headache now! :bonk:

And you just got started

 

[Riverwolf]

And you just got started

I hate English...

 

[Autodidact]

Does it matter? Don't you compare real life to fictional stories and fireside tales? I believe the story of Adam and Eve to be purely fictional, but just because a story is fiction doesn't erase its releavance.

If I look at it that way, as an allegory, then I consider it to be a destructive one. Avoid knowledge and obey blindly, or you will be punished. Woman is a temptress. Etc.

Plants are the same. It doesn't matter what you do, in order to survive, you have to either kill yourself or pay someone to give you what he or she has killed. You have to eat things that were alive once. This is a Law. If you kill something that never had life, then you will not absorb it. But it's not bad. Killing in itself isn't "bad" in my eyes. (to me, "good" and "bad" are man-made and have no place whatsoever in reality) Now, killing for sport... that's what the Bible calls murder.

And yes, I'm an island in a vast ocean, in that I view all life as children of Gaia, all equal, regardless of size or scientific category. Therefore, I view the bacteria that causes strep throat on the same level as a human. In order to survive, I have to take the antibiotics, which kills the bacteria. Law of the jungle, Auto. Law of the jungle.

Yes, I see. Technically, I mean sort of objectively, you're right. However, on the other hand, we are moral actors as humans, social animals. So I view morality chiefly as about our interactions with other human beings.

 

[Riverwolf]

If I look at it that way, as an allegory, then I consider it to be a destructive one. Avoid knowledge and obey blindly, or you will be punished. Woman is a temptress. Etc.

No, the serpent was the original tempter, not Eve. She was tempted, and simply gave the fruit to Adam, and he accepted. The story doesn't actually clarify whether or not Eve mentioned to Adam that the fruit was of knowledge, and in the childish state that they were in, I don't think the thought even crossed her mind.

And no, if knowledge was forbidden, the Tree of Knowledge wouldn't have been placed in the garden. If that were the case, I'd be so bold as to call Yeh'vah the original tempter. The way I see it, the story is an allegory about pursuing knowledge too fast and without guidance. Take nuclear power for example. We went for it too fast, and as a result, didn't get the chance to figure out how to use or dispose of nuclear waste before we made it, and we also created horrible abominations that might not otherwise have existed. Knowledge gained gradually is knowledge safely gained. Then again, is safety more important than freedom? Is it better for the child to learn the hard way, the free way, or is it better for the parent to hold the child's hand the whole way, the safe way?

Yes, I see. Technically, I mean sort of objectively, you're right. However, on the other hand, we are moral actors as humans, social animals. So I view morality chiefly as about our interactions with other human beings.

Well, there you go. And I try to view things objectively at all times. It's a mysticism thing. Mystics have to view all existence on the same level, and while I don't consider myself a mystic yet, I want to become one. That's why I view things like that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The way I see it, the story is an allegory about pursuing knowledge too fast and without guidance.

The way you see it does not necessarily have anything to do with its intent as folk history.

 

[Jayell]

And no, if knowledge was forbidden, the Tree of Knowledge wouldn't have been placed in the garden. If that were the case, I'd be so bold as to call Yeh'vah the original tempter.

I think I was good that God put it there, they were given the freedom to choose. For example how would I know if my wife truly loves me if I was the only man on earth? Think about it.

 

[laughter42387]

The interesting thing that people don't know about the god of the old testament, is that he was not considered to be the only god. I use little 'g' because the god of Abraham literally was a volcano. I want to say Mt Sinai but I am not sure of that. Wherever he went to sacrifice Isaac. This god became more and more powerful due to blood sacrifices. The story of Adam and Eve was not meant to be taken literally and I believe that it was changed quite a lot. Adam and Eve were the ancestors of Abraham, but one of many tribes of people that populated the earth at that time. There are many stories in the bible of the god of Abraham vs gods of other nations. The god of Abraham won due to the faith and sacrifice of his followers. The idea of monothesism is not so unique to the god of Abraham, who then became the god of 3 different religions. Many world religions that believe in many gods/ goddesses also believe that all together they are one, all powerful complete supreme being.
We have this idea of a supreme all powerful being, a creator who loves and cares about us, but being mortals, fallible, we cannot relate to such a being. So we personify (it?) into fathers, mothers, lovers - people we can relate to and love. Stories are written to help us understand what cannot be understood. I love world religions and history because through it all there is this unrelenting search for God and truth.
The bible is a great example of this search and it is very interesting how the god of a powerful volcano became the all supreme God so many worship today. Is any of it true? I have no idea. Nor to I have any idea how any of us can ever know the truth until we pass from this world to the next. Even the historical research that suggests that Abraham worshiped a volcano could be complete bs. I think it's likely true considering the time period he lived in. He didn't write any of the bible. Moses wrote the first 5 books, who knows how many years later. So either you believe that Moses was divinely inspire by God and every word he wrote is true, or you believe that he was a guy who wrote about stuff that happened a thousand years before he was born. And who knows what it is he did write since there have been countless revisions since. What is important is the search. Even though, or maybe because, of its futility

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Even the historical research that suggests that Abraham worshiped a volcano could be complete bs.

It certainly could. :yes:

 

[Riverwolf]

The way you see it does not necessarily have anything to do with its intent as folk history.

I know. Does that make it any less correct? After all, the story is thousands of years old. I don't think anyone is in a position to say what the authors had in mind. I wouldn't be surprised if before the story was written down, women would get up and tell the story by the fire, saying that the serpent tempted Adam, and he gave Eve the fruit. That's nothing but baseless speculation, but I'm not afraid to make them. When you're dealing with a story that for thousands of years was told orally and only then, still thousands of years before now, was written down, then copied and translated and retranslated, an edited, and edited again, and translated... etc...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I know. Does that make it any less correct? ...

Good point.

 

[Riverwolf]

Laughter, welcome. I'm afraid there's a few problems with your argument. First of all, the god of Abraham actually does have a name, which is four letters: YHWH. Usually, it's pronounced Yahweh. I pronounce it Yeh'vah.

The interesting thing that people don't know about the god of the old testament, is that he was not considered to be the only god. I use little 'g' because the god of Abraham literally was a volcano. I want to say Mt Sinai but I am not sure of that.

Sinai wasn't a volcano as far as I know. The only volcano in the Bible, which isn't even mentioned but its effects are quite profound, is Mt. Santorini, whose explosion was akin to what (I think)Yellowstone might turn out to be, and caused the Ten Plagues of Egypt. (theoretically) Santorini was, I think, on the island of Mycenea(sp?) which is off the coast of Greece. According to a documentary, "The Exodus Decoded"(highly recommended. don't worry, it's History Channel), the volcano's explosion was akin to ten thousand atom bombs. (probably an exaggeration, but...)

Wherever he went to sacrifice Isaac. This god became more and more powerful due to blood sacrifices.

Got anything to back that up?

There are many stories in the bible of the god of Abraham vs gods of other nations. The god of Abraham won due to the faith and sacrifice of his followers.

Again, got any evidence? I too agree that in the Old Testament, it is quite clear that the other gods exist, but don't have the same kind of power as Yeh'vah. I think it's because the other gods belong to a pantheon, and thus the individual gods don't need lots of power, while Yeh'vah is alone, and thus needs to be more powerful. Not to mention most of the gods in the Old Testament after the Torah are made of gold and wood; the Bible calls them "idols."

The idea of monothesism is not so unique to the god of Abraham, who then became the god of 3 different religions.

Four. You forgot about(or didn't know about) the Baha'i.

Many world religions that believe in many gods/ goddesses also believe that all together they are one, all powerful complete supreme being.

A.k.a, henotheism. But not all of them were like that. In Greek mythology, for example, it's quite clear that the gods are all individuals, at least in the literature that has survived until now. Then again, there were many variants of Greek mythology, usually depending on the location, and I suspect the corresponding religion had as many variations, and one of them might have been henotheistic in nature.

We have this idea of a supreme all powerful being, a creator who loves and cares about us, but being mortals, fallible, we cannot relate to such a being. So we personify (it?) into fathers, mothers, lovers - people we can relate to and love. Stories are written to help us understand what cannot be understood.

"Tao defined is not the Eternal Tao, no name names its Eternal Name."
-Tao Te Ching, Chapter One, Hammil translation.

Moses wrote the first 5 books, who knows how many years later. So either you believe that Moses was divinely inspire by God and every word he wrote is true, or you believe that he was a guy who wrote about stuff that happened a thousand years before he was born. And who knows what it is he did write since there have been countless revisions since. What is important is the search. Even though, or maybe because, of its futility

Well, most modern scholars agree that Moses did not, in fact, write the Torah, but that it was written and compiled later on by other people. (There's an awesome documentary from the History Channel "Who Wrote the Bible" which is all about that) I do think that Moses did write a law book, as it's mentioned in the Torah a few times, but this book that is mentioned is probably not the Torah we have now. I think the book Moses wrote was nothing but a list of laws, not unlike our own law documents. All the laws that are in the Torah were in this book, but none of the narrative. But that's just my opinion.