Wanna talk about the Bible?

[_Quantumwave]

GIMR:

I think study of the culture of the Bible would explain the literary aspect of it. Have you ever heard of a "taunt song"? How about a "lament psalm"? How about the "retribution principle"? Knowledge of what these things are, would explain why the Bible can come across as being so harsh at times. I was shocked to read a wish of sorts in the psalms, that the children of the antagonists have their brains dashed against stones, and a report in Kings of pregnant women being cut open. Obviously such behavior is not accpetable today. One must look to the culture of the Near East to understand the presence of these alarming things.

I don't see the Bible as all historical fact, but I don't see it as complete fiction either.

Yes, much of the Bible is harsh, but that doesn't make it credible. I see the majority of the "harshness" as an attempt to provoke fear.

Again, I think it is really unrealistic to take an "either or" approach to the Bible.

I agree, and if you will remember, I stated that it is composed of a lot of fictional stories woven into a historical background.

QW wrote:
These are word-for-word quotes that are about 1000 years old. This is only possible with on-the-spot recording such as stenographic or audio. OK, there are other explanations such as oral tradition and “word of God”, but both of those scenarios are based on wishful thinking, in my opinion.

God Is My Refuge wrote:
Sources, please. And are you aware of how the Old Testament canon became canon?

We must first turn our attention to a factor of fundamental importance in the formation of Israelite literature—the factor of oral tradition. It is generally accepted that no Israelite literature was written extensively before the reign of David. It is altogether unlikely that much of the prophetic literature was composed in writing. The later historical books, the Former Prophets, contain extensive passages which must have been formed in oral tradition before writing. Our questions about literature in society must recognize that the things written were composed and retained orally before their writing, and in some instances they were retained in oral tradition for several centuries.

(The Interpreter’s one-volume commentary on the Bible pp 1072-4.
John L. McKenzie, S.J., S.T.D.[/quote]Professor of Old Testament Studies,
University of Notre Dame)

GIMR:

And are you aware of how the Old Testament canon became canon?

I'm not, but it occurs to me it is canon to several systems of religion.

The accuracy of these word-for-word quotes would not last a week without a recording. In fact, word-for-word quotes found anywhere in the Bible are not credible and stories handed down orally for centuries would certainly be fiction.

GIMR:

Again, I think that an actual study of the Old Testament, and all the theories on how it came to be compiled would be helpful to you.

Perhaps, but whether or not the study would result in my assessment of higher biblical credibility is another matter.

The described land ended up being occupied by Semite people. That is a fact. However, the information provides evidence that the claim that the people are the actual posterity of Abraham is highly doubtful. The ancient scribes, with their “god-did-it” mind set would certainly attribute that “God” promised a swath of land to the progeny of an ancient ancestor of the Hebrews and Arabs since this same land just happens to be occupied at the time the story was written by these very people. The actual existence of the character named Abraham is very unlikely since the record is based on centuries of handed-down oral accounts, originated to provide a sense of community and elitism for the people. To assume these detailed accounts are actual history is a real stretch.

GIMR:

Are you aware that there are many people who read and value the Bible who are not literalists?

Oh yes, but I regard these people as leaning toward a more realistic worlview.

This same argument of extended time delay and quotes of monologue or dialigue can be applied extensively to the Bible in general. The many word-for-word quotes of Jesus are highly suspect when the situation is evaluated realistically.

GIMR:

Your thoughts are hardly controversial to me. However your words do seem to hold the Bible in a bit of distaste. May I ask why? Did you have a bad experience with religionists? You see, I did too, however I came to a different conclusion about the Bible than you. I'd like to compare and contrast if you feel comfortable.

I suppose for me, it is a question of "is the Bible the word of God, or not?" Either it is or it isn't. I happen to believe some of it is history, but whenever the "God-did-it" scenario is invoked, which is a lot, my BS detector goes off. So I believe the Bible is from the mind of man. I am an atheist/unbeliever due to the fact that, for several reasons, I do not believe the hateful biblical “God” exists. More than the issue of unmitigated hatred, there is ample evidence, that this “God” character in the Bible is fictional and is a result of the informationally-challenged ancient Hebrew tribal people.

[_Jason Bourne]

I decided to post this up here in hopes that our resident uber-mormons will be less inclined to personal attacks when faced with something that goes against what they believe. It is my opinion that there are some parts of the LDS faith and also Conservative Christianity that are simply not biblical.

I will participate best as I am able.

First, one point. You need to make sure you understand how LDS read the Bible. In LDS view the Bible is best understood through the lens of modern day revelation. LDS do not teach that ALL their doctrine is found nor backed up by the Bible alone. Thus, one may find ideas in LDS doctrine that have little if any biblical support. The Bible is not the only and ultimate measure of truth for LDS. For some LDS doctrine there may be tons of stuff in the Bible to support it, for some a bit and maybe vague references, and for some none at all.

They are "doctrines of men", taken from a misreading/misinterpretation of biblical scripture, and blown way out of proportion. Example: the earliest justification for racism, Aaron and Miriam being upset at Moses's wife, because she was a Cushite woman. LDS example: "ye are gods", meaning apparently to them that we will one day rule our own planet and people if we're good enough.

Sure, most people can interpret the Bible to argue almost any point. This is not unique to LDS or any other faith.

As I said on harmony's "Jesus is a Mormon" thread, the Bible is a very esoteric text, at least to me. When I first started reading it, I didn't know what the hell I was reading. And I was raised between two faiths who both used the book, both of them not knowing what they were reading either. So many people who read this book come away with perceptions on how this book and what is in it should be applied to their lives, and far too many come away with ideas that they are somehow superior to others (God's people), or that they have a right to be cruel to non-Christian humanity. I could elaborate, but if you've ever come across a fundie Christian, you know what I mean.

Here is the problem I have. If the Bible is really so esoteric but it it still really God's word for us, then why is it so hard to get it right? Why is it so difficult to understand? Why does one need to have al this background information to really get the message straight?

Firstly, on a personal level, how do you see the Bible? To me, there is no wrong answer to this question.

It is God's revelation to man-the Old Testament for man kind before Jesus and the New Testament to focus on fulfill the message of the Old Testament and declare the salvation on mankind through Jesus Christ.

For those who read in depth, do you see a theme in Old Testament?

God chooses a covenant people to made known His will and glory to mankind.

How do you feel about the idea of the Old Testament being a testament of Christ from beginning to end? If you think that it is, what brought you to that conclusion?

I think it is a prediction to Jesus but arrive at that through the New Testament teachings as well as teachings from the LDS Church about dispensations, the gospel being had more fully at varying times, etc. I do not think one can arrive at that by the Old Testament alone.

There are some who feel that the Old Testament and New Testament are not interrelated. How do you feel about this?

See above

The writers of the New Testament, and the authors of the four Gospels especially, how do you feel about their writings?

I am not sure what you are looking for here.

Have you read any of the Gnostic Gospels? What do you think of them?

Only excerpts and not enough to form am opinion.

Was the Council of Nicea truly the first time anyone agreed on the complete biblical canon?

I thought it was prior to this council so perhaps I need to be educated on this at least for the New Testament

How was the Hebrew Bible decided upon?

I do not know.

The idea of Temple worship in the early Christian church, where is the evidence for this?

It is not in the Bible, but there is plenty of evidence of esoteric rites and rituals early Christianity. But I am not an expert on this. John Tvedtness at FARMS has a book on this subject I believe.

[_Bond...James Bond]

To answer your questions:

Firstly, on a personal level, how do you see the Bible? To me, there is no wrong answer to this question.

Alot of myth and archaic law with some important metaphorical ideas.

For those who read in depth, do you see a theme in Old Testament? How do you feel about the idea of the Old Testament being a testament of Christ from beginning to end? If you think that it is, what brought you to that conclusion?

Several themes:

1) Mythology of creation throwing together alot of Middle Eastern stories.
2) The rise of the Jewish people (another sort of creation story)
3) The fall of the Jewish people
4) Some history-Chronicles etc. But very sensationalized (just like other Middle Eastern leader lists i.e. long life cycles, great deeds etc.)

The Old Testament isn't a testament of Christ. It's the written mythology and creation story according to the Jewish people. It has many stories that are similar to other Middle Eastern myths and oral traditions. It is highly unsubstantiated in many places.

It contains archaic laws. It has long king lists similar to other Middle Eastern leaders. It has many allegories and metaphors. It contains alot of parables....earthly story, heavenly meaning (or a moral lessons, especially in the New Testament but some lessons in the Old Testament too).

There are some who feel that the Old Testament and New Testament are not interrelated. How do you feel about this?

They're always printed together so I don't see how they're not interrelated. I would guess most people don't see the distinction between the end of the Old Testament and the start of the New Testament testament despite the 500 years or so between them (and all the Apocrapha writings).

The writers of the New Testament, and the authors of the four Gospels especially, how do you feel about their writings? Have you read any of the Gnostic Gospels? What do you think of them?

They are different interpretations of the life of Jesus. They don't provide a cohesive story or the total correct story because there's 4 of them. Not 1. One writer hears an anecdote about Jesus and prints it that another hasn't heard. Plus the writers were writing decades after Jesus's death. I'm sure alot of whitewashing occured during those years as Jesus's myth and legend grew.

Haven't read Gnostics.

Was the Council of Nicea truly the first time anyone agreed on the complete biblical canon? How was the Hebrew Bible decided upon?

No one has ever agreed on biblical canon. That's why everyone is always arguing about it and coming up with new interpretations, even today. The Council of Nicea was one groups opinion. But a very important group who produced an even more important opinion.

[_Sam Harris]

Hey Quantum!

Thanks for getting back to me. You posted a lot of good food for thought. I guess my question to you is what does the Bible mean to you? Do you define credibility in terms of historical accuracy, or in terms of ethics?

The Ancient Near East was a very war torn place. People were constantly fighting for the individual empires that rose and fell within it. I guess I can understand the more violent contexts of the Bible, because I do not attribute them to God. I feel you on some of the "God did it" stories that are in the Bible. I tend to focus more on what I can take from it that will make me a better person (i.e. the wisdom literature, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiasties, and the New Testament). I have a "BS" meter like you do, my friend. :-)

How did you come to feel the way you do about the text itself? I try to view it from a more scholarly approach, definitely not a literalist view, and in doing so, that means I have to criticize some things. The "beef" I had with the individual I started this thread for, is that his faith tends to attribute things to the Bible that aren't there, and when they are proven wrong, they go back to their Articles of Faith that tell them that the Bible is true "only so far as it's correctly translated". In other words, the Bible is bogus when it doesn't back their claims.

With regards to how the Old Testament canon became canon, I do have some information I got from the textbook I used this past year. I really like that book, because it purported more than one theory. I hope that I'll be able to get to the book this weekend, I hope you can be patient with me.

[_Sam Harris]

I decided to post this up here in hopes that our resident uber-mormons will be less inclined to personal attacks when faced with something that goes against what they believe. It is my opinion that there are some parts of the LDS faith and also Conservative Christianity that are simply not biblical.

I will participate best as I am able.

Jason, you are the one who asked for a debate.

First, one point. You need to make sure you understand how LDS read the Bible. In LDS view the Bible is best understood through the lens of modern day revelation. LDS do not teach that ALL their doctrine is found nor backed up by the Bible alone. Thus, one may find ideas in LDS doctrine that have little if any biblical support. The Bible is not the only and ultimate measure of truth for LDS. For some LDS doctrine there may be tons of stuff in the Bible to support it, for some a bit and maybe vague references, and for some none at all.

Jason, I spent five years as a Latter-day Saint. LDS DO teach that their doctrine is backed up by the Bible, but whe it falls through, we go back to the AoF debacle of the Bible being correct as far as it's correctly translated. Very convenient escape clause.

In my years of being LDS, most of the people I attended church with were not familiar with that first part of that quad they carried. Some didn't carry a quad at all, they carried a triple. I really do not feel that the church leadership represents Biblical doctrine correctly. When I was LDS, studying the Bible with anything other than a KJV, and a church-approved guide was not acceptible. As a result, I learned nothing.

They are "doctrines of men", taken from a misreading/misinterpretation of biblical scripture, and blown way out of proportion. Example: the earliest justification for racism, Aaron and Miriam being upset at Moses's wife, because she was a Cushite woman. LDS example: "ye are gods", meaning apparently to them that we will one day rule our own planet and people if we're good enough.

Sure, most people can interpret the Bible to argue almost any point. This is not unique to LDS or any other faith.

I did not say that this was.

As I said on harmony's "Jesus is a Mormon" thread, the Bible is a very esoteric text, at least to me. When I first started reading it, I didn't know what the hell I was reading. And I was raised between two faiths who both used the book, both of them not knowing what they were reading either. So many people who read this book come away with perceptions on how this book and what is in it should be applied to their lives, and far too many come away with ideas that they are somehow superior to others (God's people), or that they have a right to be cruel to non-Christian humanity. I could elaborate, but if you've ever come across a fundie Christian, you know what I mean.

Here is the problem I have. If the Bible is really so esoteric but it it still really God's word for us, then why is it so hard to get it right? Why is it so difficult to understand? Why does one need to have al this background information to really get the message straight?

You obviously don't understand the meaning of esoteric. It is because the text is esoteric that the above is applicable.

["quote=GIMR"]Firstly, on a personal level, how do you see the Bible? To me, there is no wrong answer to this question.

It is God's revelation to man-the Old Testament for man kind before Jesus and the New Testament to focus on fulfill the message of the Old Testament and declare the salvation on mankind through Jesus Christ.[/quote]

Point for you. Go deeper.

[quote"GIMR"]For those who read in depth, do you see a theme in Old Testament?

God chooses a covenant people to made known His will and glory to mankind.[/quote]

Right! Now, can you tell me how the "God's chosen people" issue has been misused by both the Jews of Jesus time, and those who take on that mantle today?

How do you feel about the idea of the Old Testament being a testament of Christ from beginning to end? If you think that it is, what brought you to that conclusion?

I think it is a prediction to Jesus but arrive at that through the New Testament teachings as well as teachings from the LDS Church about dispensations, the gospel being had more fully at varying times, etc. I do not think one can arrive at that by the Old Testament alone.

I'm sorry Jason, the above was a bit hard to understand, but I will try to reply the best I can. The Old Testament prophesied a Messiah. Christ fulfilled that. Is that hard for you to understand? What do LDS visions of dispensations have to do with this? Fullness of the Gospel? I see this as an excuse to add to what the Bible has to say and call it of more worth. The Book of Mormon is inspirational fiction, you cannot say the Bible is such when there are archaeological finds that point to at least the existence of places and even kings in the Bible, and call the Book of Mormon pure truth when not a thing has been found to back that claim.

There are some who feel that the Old Testament and New Testament are not interrelated. How do you feel about this?

See above

I had a hard time understanding your view, so elaborate please.

The writers of the New Testament, and the authors of the four Gospels especially, how do you feel about their writings?

I am not sure what you are looking for here.

Your opinion, Jason. That is all. This is not a right or wrong answer.

Have you read any of the Gnostic Gospels? What do you think of them?

Only excerpts and not enough to form am opinion.

Well, what I have read of them tells me that reading them would be a good thing for a progressive Christian such as myself, who seeks to take a scholarly and non-fundamentalist view of the Bible. I am passionate about the Bible, but not as some text penned by the finger of God.

Was the Council of Nicea truly the first time anyone agreed on the complete biblical canon?

I thought it was prior to this council so perhaps I need to be educated on this at least for the New Testament

I have a very good book that I'll get the title to in a day or two. You can get it at Barnes and Noble, it's not that big, and very interesting. Let me know if you would like to know how to get it.

The idea of Temple worship in the early Christian church, where is the evidence for this?

It is not in the Bible, but there is plenty of evidence of esoteric rites and rituals early Christianity. But I am not an expert on this. John Tvedtness at FARMS has a book on this subject I believe.

I'm sorry, but you will have to find evidence other than your LDS sources. FARMS is not peer reviewed, and not very credible. My research has proven the exact opposite, in fact the only thing secret about early Christianity was the fact that worship had to be done in private due to persecution.

Thank you for your participaton at last, Jason. It's been enlightening.

GIMR

[_Jersey Girl]

The Council of Nicea came up in another thread here. In my understanding, the Council of Nicea did not agree on the canon. They agreed upon the nature of God. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Jersey Girl

[_JAK]

The Council of Nicea came up in another thread here. In my understanding, the Council of Nicea did not agree on the canon. They agreed upon the nature of God. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Jersey Girl

----------------------

Nicene Councils were two councils of the Christian Church held in Nicaea (Nice) in what is now Northwest Turkey. The first Council was called in 325 by Emperor Constantine to settle the dispute caused by the Arian views of the Trinity. Arius was a priest of Alexandria who believed that Christ is/was not the same essence as God, but of similar substance (whatever that means). The Council also fixed the time for observing Easter. It was questioned whether the Christian Easter should be on the same day as the Jewish Observance (Passover) or on a Sunday.

The Nicene Creed summarized the chief articles of the Christian faith of that time. It’s next oldest to the Apostles’ Creed. It was adopted originally in a particular form.

The second Council was called in 787 by the Empress Irene and her son Constantine. The Emperor Leo, Irene’s deceased husband had forbidden the use of images for any purpose. The Council was called because of the opposition to that decree. The Empress revoked the decree after the Council had laid down principles governing the veneration of images.

462 years in that era was progressively a relatively short time space compared with that number of years today.

“The nature of God” has been evolving ever since the invention of God was constructed.

Hence, the “nature of God” was not the issue under discussion as the Second Council was called in 787.

On your question as to right vs. wrong, the “nature of God” was simply not relevant specifically to the convening of that Second Council.

The issue was (what we know as) the official position of what has been the historical evolution of Christianity at the time.

JAK

[_Jason Bourne]

The "beef" I had with the individual I started this thread for, is that his faith tends to attribute things to the Bible that aren't there, and when they are proven wrong, they go back to their Articles of Faith that tell them that the Bible is true "only so far as it's correctly translated". In other words, the Bible is bogus when it doesn't back their claims.

I think you misconstrue this. I really do not think there is much in the Bible that directly contradicts LDS claims. I think LDS believe as much if not more of the Bible then many Christian faiths. Of course, on things like the godhead, grace and works, eternal security and so on, we may interpret things differently. And I admitted above that there is much in LDS doctrine that is in addition to the Bible, but does not necessarily contradict the Bible. Again, to emphasize, LDS do not and never have relied solely on the Bible for their doctrine nor should any thinking LDS claim that all our doctrine can be defended from the Bible. We never have claimed this. Right from the start we were extra biblical.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason, you are the one who asked for a debate.

Ok. I am here.

First, one point. You need to make sure you understand how LDS read the Bible. In LDS view the Bible is best understood through the lens of modern day revelation. LDS do not teach that ALL their doctrine is found nor backed up by the Bible alone. Thus, one may find ideas in LDS doctrine that have little if any biblical support. The Bible is not the only and ultimate measure of truth for LDS. For some LDS doctrine there may be tons of stuff in the Bible to support it, for some a bit and maybe vague references, and for some none at all.

Jason, I spent five years as a Latter-day Saint. LDS DO teach that their doctrine is backed up by the Bible, but when it falls through, we go back to the AoF debacle of the Bible being correct as far as it's correctly translated. Very convenient escape clause.

And I have spent 9 times that time as a Latter-day Saint. And you need to understand that my point is much of LDS doctrine is biblical though we can debate interpretation, but not all of it is. And this is clear from the start. Else why the Book of Mormon, the D&C, the continuing revelation, the we believe all that God has revealed and will yet reveal language in the AofF? It is not an escape clause at all. It is simple fact.

In my years of being LDS, most of the people I attended church with were not familiar with that first part of that quad they carried. Some didn't carry a quad at all, they carried a triple. I really do not feel that the church leadership represents Biblical doctrine correctly. When I was LDS, studying the Bible with anything other than a KJV, and a church-approved guide was not acceptable. As a result, I learned nothing.

I would agree with this. LDS are not generally Bible scholars and the LDS SS Curriculum for the Bible tends to cherry pick things that back up the LDS view. I have long complained for example, that the year we study the BT in SS we spend 2/3 of the year on the Gospels and 1/3 on the rest. How can one study Romans in two or three 45 minute lessons.

You obviously don't understand the meaning of esoteric. It is because the text is esoteric that the above is applicable.

So enlighten me. I was hoping to learn something from this thread rather then be ridiculed.

["quote=GIMR"]Firstly, on a personal level, how do you see the Bible? To me, there is no wrong answer to this question.

It is God's revelation to man-the Old Testament for man kind before Jesus and the New Testament to focus on fulfill the message of the Old Testament and declare the salvation on mankind through Jesus Christ.

Point for you. Go deeper. [/quote]

Help me out. I have ling considered going back to school for a degree in religious studies. It seems you are doing this so help me out. I am willing to learn.

[quote"GIMR"]For those who read in depth, do you see a theme in Old Testament?

God chooses a covenant people to made known His will and glory to mankind.

Right! Now, can you tell me how the "God's chosen people" issue has been misused by both the Jews of Jesus time, and those who take on that mantle today?[/quote]


It is uses to discriminate and abuse those who are not the chosen ones. Any faith, LDS included, that takes this position develops a superiority us vs. them complex.

I'm sorry Jason, the above was a bit hard to understand, but I will try to reply the best I can. The Old Testament prophesied a Messiah. Christ fulfilled that. Is that hard for you to understand?

Agreed.

at do LDS visions of dispensations have to do with this? Fullness of the Gospel? I see this as an excuse to add to what the Bible has to say and call it of more worth.

I believe that this was an innovation of Joseph Smith's in order to read back into history the gospel that he was rolling out. As an aside, I am very much a fan of the LDS Church teachings up till 1835 or so. Then I think the additions and "innovations: got out of hand and led to polygamy, the temple, the secret rites, the ordaining of Smith as King of Israel on earth, the ideas about God being a man and so on.

The Book of Mormon is inspirational fiction,

That can be debated on another thread.

you cannot say the Bible is such when there are archaeological finds that point to at least the existence of places and even kings in the Bible, and call the Book of Mormon pure truth when not a thing has been found to back that claim.

Historically there is a lot of evidence for the Bible, but not for the miraculous of the Bible and not for much of the Old Testament (Genesis, Moses). There is little hard evidence for the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon.

There are some who feel that the Old Testament and New Testament are not interrelated. How do you feel about this?

See above

I had a hard time understanding your view, so elaborate please.

I believe that believers as well as the writers of the New Testament read back Jesus being the fulfillment of the Old Testament. The Jews certainly reject that.

Was the Council of Nicea truly the first time anyone agreed on the complete biblical canon?

I thought it was prior to this council so perhaps I need to be educated on this at least for the New Testament

I have a very good book that I'll get the title to in a day or two. You can get it at Barnes and Noble, it's not that big, and very interesting. Let me know if you would like to know how to get it.

I would be interested

Rabbinical councils, teachers and religious leaders (my books differentiate between the two) got together and questioned the theological and (to them) historical validity of certain books, as well as their logical place in the Old Testament. It's interesting to not that books like Esther and Ecclesiastes were put up for dismissal in earlier times, Esther because the name of God is not once mentioned in the book, and Ecclesiastes because of the seeming pessimistic nature of the book

.

Thanks

I'm sorry, but you will have to find evidence other than your LDS sources. FARMS is not peer reviewed, and not very credible. My research has proven the exact opposite, in fact the only thing secret about early Christianity was the fact that worship had to be done in private due to persecution.

This is not an area of expertise on my part and I have little interest in that I believe the LDS temple were either revealed by God to Joseph Smith and were not in existence before that or that it was an innovation by Smith.

[_Sam Harris]

Jason, whether or not you believe me, it is not my sole aim to humiliate you. However, like I said, you asked for a debate. Over the weekend, I will respond to your and Bond's posts in depth. If you don't mind, show me the things about the LDS faith that you feel to be biblical, meaning in alignment with biblical canon. To me, the only thing that makes Mormons Christian is that they recognize the divinity of Jesus. However, all of the "extras" they add on really weakens that position.