The Bible: Myth or Truth?

[El Sitherino]

First off, I wish to know the opinions of all who participate here.

Should the bible be taken literally word for word, or figuratively?

 

I'm just really skeptical about the bible.

To me it just seems kind of... off key, not really sure.

 

 

now to the query.

 

"1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

 

"1:2 And the earth was without form"

 

If earth was without form, how could it exist? Does it mean shape or what?

 

"1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

 

"1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. "

 

well before he created light wouldn't there have been dark, thus in creating light it was already divided?

 

"1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."

 

Our source of light is the sun right? well how could he create light and then create the sources of it, the stars.

Also the moon doesn't give off light of it's own, it reflects it.

 

"1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

 

1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

 

1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. "

 

"2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

 

2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

 

2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

 

2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

 

2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

 

2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. "

 

didn't he already create man and woman earlier? perhaps I'm reading it wrong.

 

"2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." instead of making her from part of man, couldn't he just as easily use the same process he used to create man, but switch out the organs?

 

Since the bible is a big book and I can't question every section of it on here within one post, I just wish to let everyone know I'm curious as to houw to address the bible. As I stated earlier, Should it be taken literally word for word, or figuratively?

[Ray Jones]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

"1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."

 

Our source of light is the sun right? well how could he create light and then create the sources of it, the stars.

Also the moon doesn't give off light of it's own, it reflects it.

 

stars are not the "source" of light. light is just a electromagnetic wave within a small range of the whole electromagnetical spectrum, which is caused by altering electromagnetic fields. those are mainly caused as the "result" of a chemical reactions (->fire) or physical "events" (->glowing metal).

 

also, stars are the same "things" as our sun.

 

"2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."

 

is this called a "faith op"?

 

instead of making her from part of man, couldn't he just as easily use the same process he used to create man, but switch out the organs?

 

yes, that sounds quite logic ..

 

as for your question, no, i wouldnt take it literally, but it surely containts some interesting views on how it was in those days. and there may be some valuable stuff in it also. but it should not taken very literally, at least we should not forget, it's now 2000 years old, written down by men/women living in a hole another time and "world" (and this 4000-8000 years AFTER the creation process). it probably has some truth in it but it is not "the truth" and especially not "the only truth".

[Master_Ginn]

Well first, me being a christian, i believe that the Bible is true and that every word is the truth.

well before he created light wouldn't there have been dark, thus in creating light it was already divided?

You see light and darkness weren't already divided because God had not divided it yet. It is hard to comprehend that light wasn't divided from darkness because it has always been that way, to us. So we think it is impossible for light to not be seperate from darkness. Yet it wasn't seperate till God had made it so.

didn't he already create man and woman earlier? perhaps I'm reading it wrong.

The second chapter of Genesis is not what had taken place after the first chapter.It is just more explanation of what happened on the sixth day. That God had created man and woman and how. So it's not in chronological order. get it?

instead of making her from part of man, couldn't he just as easily use the same process he used to create man, but switch out the organs?

Yes God could have done that, He couldv'e even said "make man" and it would have been so. God does things to see our connection to Him and all His greatness. For the exact reason why God pulled Adams rib out to make Eve, i do not know. But i have a few thoughts about why God did that. If you want me to explain them i will.

I'm just really skeptical about the bible.

In Christianity one of the biggest things is faith. Faith that God's word(the Bible) is the truth. And that God seperated light from the darkness it's all faith.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by RayJones

stars are not the "source" of light. light is just a electromagnetic wave within a small range of the whole electromagnetical spectrum, which is caused by altering electromagnetic fields. those are mainly caused as the "result" of a chemical reactions (->fire) or physical "events" (->glowing metal).

 

also, stars are the same "things" as our sun.

.

I knew this already, I didn't mention the sun and stars because I knew the sun is a star it's elementary stuff

[Ray Jones]

of course!!

 

 

i also thought again about the woman and the mans rip.

perhabs this does just mean "he" took from what he "made" the man and "made" a woman of it too. maybe the same way he made adam, only with known differences ..

 

 

 

hmm.. maybe that doesnt change much.

[Uber_Saber]

I'm a Presbyterian, (And a preacher's kid, to boot) and I've never really taken the first chapter or two of the bible seriously. Actually, there's a lot of it I don't take seriously, because I believe a good part of it was influnced by whoever wrote any given section and their experiences in life, and the views held at that time.

 

In other words, there are a few recurring themes in the Bible that I take seriously, but the exact words, for the most part, I don't take literally. Does that make sense?

[lukeskywalker1]

Originally posted by Uber_Saber

I'm a Presbyterian, (And a preacher's kid, to boot) and I've never really taken the first chapter or two of the bible seriously. Actually, there's a lot of it I don't take seriously, because I believe a good part of it was influnced by whoever wrote any given section and their experiences in life, and the views held at that time.

 

In other words, there are a few recurring themes in the Bible that I take seriously, but the exact words, for the most part, I don't take literally. Does that make sense?

 

 

So we should listen to you, because you are a preacher's kid?

 

The bible says God was the auther, man just wrote it down. Dont call God a liar

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

So we should listen to you, because you are a preacher's kid?

 

The bible says God was the auther, man just wrote it down. Dont call God a liar

 

And if I were to tell you a 100 page long story today, and you go home and write it down, I have a feeling you'd make a LOT of mistakes.

 

Dont call humans perfect.

[Kain]

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness

 

Me and my friend once threw this into a pastors face. He says 'us' and 'our', so one would assume he's speaking to the angels, but this is only an assumption since angels weren't even mentioned until way later into the Bible. So is God a skitzo? Or did they just forget a huge piece of that entire line?

 

Hm, it would seem that the 'Word of God' is quite faulty.

 

...not to mention the countless other hypocracies that one could read but be blinded by faith and thus completly ignore the fact that they contradict what was said earlier, but since there are SO many and I don't have a Bible on hand to quote exactly, I won't throw any out there just yet.

[Elijah]

The trinity, know as the 3 in 1, being the Father, Son and the Holy spirit. Thats who he was speaking to.

[Thrackan Solo]

Originally posted by ZDawg

The trinity, know as the 3 in 1, being the Father, Son and the Holy spirit. Thats who he was speaking to.

 

 

Took the words right out of my mouth

[obi]

I believe the Bible is 100% true.

 

Watch "The Passion of Christ," and your opinion very may well become the same as mine.

 

Jesus owns.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, InsaneSith, but you took those things from the Skepticists' (sp?) Bible, right?

 

Many beliefs can be questioned, none can be proved, unless you have experienced them for yourself, as I have.

[SkinWalker]

Originally Posted by InsaneSith on 02-25-2004 04:42 AM:

 

The Bible: Myth or Truth?

 

I must say both. Once one recognizes the parallels of biblical myth to Near Eastern literature and oral tradition and also takes into account the fact that the "Bible" is an anthology of various religious documents, created by various authors, at various times, it is easy to see the truth and wisdom contained.

 

Originally Posted by InsaneSith on 02-25-2004 04:42 AM:

First off, I wish to know the opinions of all who participate here.

Should the Bible be taken literally word for word, or figuratively?

 

Only a fool (in my opinion) would accept the Bible literally. Right off the bat, there are two very different accounts of the same event (creation). In one account, we see a very Yahwist slant, in the other, an Elohist version. The two contain some contradictions between them if accepted literally and offer contradictions within each account if we are to evaluate them epistemologically: the presence of "light" prior to the light-sources (sun & moon); creation of the earth prior to sun & moon; etc.

 

The author(s) recorded an account that no man could have observed, but these questions by themselves mean very little if the point is simply to question the validity. What is useful is to ask these questions as a way of discovering what the period was like during the time the Bible was written.

 

As an anthology (remember "Bible" is from the Greek ta biblia, or "the books"), the Bible, particularly the old testament, is a collection of stories and mythologies that were already popular among the peoples of the Near East and shared among many cultures and nations.

 

We can see the evolution of mythology in a variety of biblical / Near East parallels, including the creation myth.

 

The Enuma Elish, sometimes referred to as the "Babylonian Genesis," documents the myth of creation in which a conflict occurs between Tiamat of the Sea (a dragon) and Marduk. Marduk agrees to defeat Tiamat if the remaining deities acknowledge him as "Supreme." Marduk splits Tiamat "like a shellfish into two parts" and uses these to create the heaven and the earth (ANET, 1955, 67)

 

The Genesis antagonist is a watery chaos (Gen 1:2) called "Deep," or Tehom in Hebrew. In fact, "tehom" and "tiamat" are from the same Semitic root word. Used in Genesis, it is without a definite article, suggesting that it was understood to be a proper noun, "and darkness covered the surface of Deep."

 

The Hebrew authors during the fifth and sixth centuries BCE edited out the references to other gods and deities except for the ghostly reference to Tehom, sticking to their culture of monotheism. This is also supported by Psalm 74:12-14 where we see:

Yet, God, my King from the first,

author of savings acts throughout the earth,

by your power, you split the sea in two,

and smashed the heads of monsters on the waters,

you crushed the Leviathan's head….

 

Originally Posted by InsaneSith on 02-25-2004 04:42 AM:

Since the Bible is a big book and I can't question every section of it on here within one post, I just wish to let everyone know I'm curious as to houw to address the Bible. As I stated earlier, Should it be taken literally word for word, or figuratively?

 

It should be accepted as any great work of literature. There is much truth and wisdom to be had from reading the Bible, but to live one's life believing it to be literally true in every respect, every word, and valid to each letter is foolhardy.

 

I say "foolhardy" since literal belief would invalidate much of the science that has been tested and demonstrated, including the fact that the Earth is spherical not flat.

 

 

Posted by Uber_Saber on 02-25-2004 06:19 PM:

 

Actually, there's a lot of it I don't take seriously, because I believe a good part of it was influnced by whoever wrote any given section and their experiences in life, and the views held at that time.

 

Very little is known about most of the authors of the Bible. What is sure is that they often used stories that were common of the time, often much older, to adapt to their own uses by changing some contexts or combining with other such stories.

 

An example is the parallel that exists between the story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife, the Biblical story, and the Story of two brothers, and older Egyptian tale. In the Biblical account, Potiphar's wife attempts to seduce a young Hebrew slave who refuses. She accuses him of rape and he is imprisoned. The Egyptian account offers the same characters (but with different names) and the same actions – except the young man isn't imprisoned: he proves his "innocence" by taking a knife and cutting off his penis.

 

Obviously, the Hebrew author had a problem telling a tale of a young man who amputates his own penis yet goes on to father the two tribes of Israel! So some minor changes were made.

 

There are many, many parallels in the Bible to Near Eastern stories that are in the earliest cuneiform writings and likely have origins much further back in oral histories. The flood myth involving Noah is an almost word-for-word lift of a portion of Gilgamesh. Gilgameshes flood account, in turn, has it's roots in the Akkadian Atrahasis epic. This epic has it's flood myth portion incorporated from the Sumerian myth of The Deluge and was recorded in the late third millennium BCE (2000 – 3000 B.C.)

 

The "Deluge" was recorded on a cuneiform tablet and the story goes that the gods have decided to send a flood to destroy the "seed of mankind." Ziusudra, a particularly pious man, attentive to divine revalations, was chosen by the gods to survive so he builds a "huge boat." The flood sweeps the land for 7 days and 7 nights then Utu, the Sun god, appears, to which Ziusudra sacrifices an ox. Ziusudra (which, by the way, means "life of long days") is then rewarded for obedience with eternal life.

 

Posted by lukeskywalker1 on 02-26-2004 11:46 AM: [/b]The Bible says God was the auther, man just wrote it down. Dont call God a liar

 

He may not be a liar, but he's certainly a plagiarist!

 

Actually, in the ancient world, writing was relatively new and literature wasn't "owned" in the way that ownership is thought of now…. the stories of the time likely had anonymous authors and began as oral traditions that were later recorded and modified. In fact, it would be hard not to have shared many of the better stories in the Near East when you consider the population densities and small area of the known world at the time. A good example of what I'm talking about is Homer. Most people of today consider Homer to be the author of the Odyssey and the Iliad, but he was more of a "transmitter" in that he took the time to write down and perform these stories during his time.

 

Posted by obi-wan13 on 02-26-2004 09:40 PM: [/b]

 

Watch "The Passion of Christ," and your opinion very may well become the same as mine.

 

Naah…. I read the book.

 

Source for Near Eastern Mythologies:

 

ANET (1955), Pritchard, James. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton Univ Press, 1st edition.

[obi]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

 

Naah…. I read the book.

 

 

I've always loved Jesus, but I can honestly say, not as much as I did when I watched this movie. Reading it and actually seeing it are different. It was almost as if every sin I have ever done just slapped me in the face. It's a powerful movie. VERY powerful.

 

It sheds a whole new light on Jesus and the Christian religion.

[Kain]

Originally posted by ZDawg

The trinity, know as the 3 in 1, being the Father, Son and the Holy spirit. Thats who he was speaking to.

 

AH HA!! HAHAHA!! The basis of polytheism RIGHT THERE!! Several seperate parts making up the whole. Just like the Egyptian and Greek pathenons, entire entities who make the whole of existance! But Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all worship ONE 'God', so how can there be 3 parts to this 'God' without being polytheist?

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by obi-wan13

I believe the Bible is 100% true.

 

Watch "The Passion of Christ," and your opinion very may well become the same as mine.

 

Jesus owns.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, InsaneSith, but you took those things from the Skepticists' (sp?) Bible, right?

 

Many beliefs can be questioned, none can be proved, unless you have experienced them for yourself, as I have.

I took it from my bible that i got at a christian book store so... it's probably not.

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by obi-wan13

I've always loved Jesus, but I can honestly say, not as much as I did when I watched this movie. Reading it and actually seeing it are different. It was almost as if every sin I have ever done just slapped me in the face. It's a powerful movie. VERY powerful.

 

I don't see why everyone believes that Jesus went through absolute torture for us. Sure, he spent three days in absolute agony. But it was only three days, a relatively very short period of time. Now, if he was in hellish torture forever for our sins..then he did make a sacrifice.

 

I mean heck, we pagans(non-christians, not the earth-worshiper kind) get infinitely more torture in Hell then Christ would.

[toms]

if a film has that much of an effect on your faith then it can't have been very strong to start with. but the film has almost no bearing on the truth of the matter. Lots of people stated that they cried in ROTK, but that doesn't make it true... just well and powerfully told.

 

AFAIK Mel Gibson is part of a small section of christianity that has a number of very odd beliefs, including the fact that the current Pope is a heretic.

 

As for the bible... i take it as a collection of stories and histories mean to act as examples and guides for the people of the time (and with important messages that can still be applied today).

 

However, i don't take it as the literal truth. I don't think most christians do. FOr various reasons that people like Skin have stated a lot better than me, but mainly for the reason that it was written, rewritten, collected and translated by humans and at no point was it divinely created.

[Uber_Saber]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

So we should listen to you, because you are a preacher's kid?

 

The bible says God was the auther, man just wrote it down. Dont call God a liar

 

I am merely informing you of my qualifications. You may get offended, or try to offend me, but whatever.

 

You are using circular logic there. The bible says that it is true- therefore it is true? Nothing, nothing in this world that humans do is above a bit of messing up. We've been messing up from the beginning- why should that change?

[Master_Ginn]

The Bible is the word of God. it is "God-breathed" through humans to write down exactly what it is supposed to say. So God told man what to write so therefore is true.

if a film has that much of an effect on your faith then it can't have been very strong to start with. but the film has almost no bearing on the truth of the matter. Lots of people stated that they cried in ROTK, but that doesn't make it true... just well and powerfully told.

Have you ever seen a movie or read a book or article that gave you stregnth or insiration? It is not a weak faithed person who can get inspiration from a book or movie. It couldv'e have been God's intension for obi-wan 13 to see this movie and gain stregnth from it. That could be my purpose to stregnthen others who are confused or losing their way. God works in mysterious ways.

I don't see why everyone believes that Jesus went through absolute torture for us. Sure, he spent three days in absolute agony. But it was only three days, a relatively very short period of time. Now, if he was in hellish torture forever for our sins..then he did make a sacrifice.

I would like to see anyone to be beaten till almost dead. Flogged so flesh is ripped from your body, and a crown of thorns shoved onto your head. To be berely recongnized as human. Then to be nailed to a cross hand and feet and placed on a hill for all to see youy die, where the only way you could breath was to actually lift yourself up while having a nail piercing your feet. All because you want people some one who has never done anything for you, or thought twice about you to live in heaven away from death and pain. And because you love them. Now if you're telling me that thats not enough for salvation, that being in agony for you and me and to not suffer as long as some think, than i'm sorry. I hope that one day understanding will come to all.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Feanaro

The Bible is the word of God. it is "God-breathed" through humans to write down exactly what it is supposed to say. So God told man what to write so therefore is true.

 

So why does this anthology of "god-breathed" documents have so many parallels and direct relations to Near Eastern myths, legends and stories prior to the bible's conception?

 

What of the documents that "didn't make the cut?" Those that weren't chosen by those that canonized the various versions of judo-christian texts? Were these less breathed upon? Or did they simply not fit the idea that the human redactors and editors had for the overall anthologies?

 

The presence of literary trends and patterns seems to discount the influence of a deity... if the deity was imperfect enough to allow such trends and patterns in its word, then how can its word be considered true simply because of itself.

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by Feanaro

I would like to see anyone to be beaten till almost dead. Flogged so flesh is ripped from your body, and a crown of thorns shoved onto your head. To be berely recongnized as human. Then to be nailed to a cross hand and feet and placed on a hill for all to see youy die, where the only way you could breath was to actually lift yourself up while having a nail piercing your feet. All because you want people some one who has never done anything for you, or thought twice about you to live in heaven away from death and pain. And because you love them. Now if you're telling me that thats not enough for salvation, that being in agony for you and me and to not suffer as long as some think, than i'm sorry. I hope that one day understanding will come to all.

 

That toture was given to some of the prisoners there. Some of which probably were innocent, but were executed anyway. Did those people absolve our sins too, for going through the excact same toture as Christ, except Christ had it easier, he knew he was the son of God and would go to heaven. I imagine the other roman/jew probably doesn't have a clear indication of where he's going, making him extremely terrified and in more torture than Christ.

[obi]

Originally posted by toms

if a film has that much of an effect on your faith then it can't have been very strong to start with.

 

Woa there, let me just point out my faith was at a very strong point when I seen this movie. It just strengthened my faith even more. You can't have a strong enough level of faith.

 

Just because you're healthy, do you stop eating?

 

Food for thought, no pun intended.

 

Sorry if this was a bit off of the subject, I just had to interject there.

[Uber_Saber]

Originally posted by Feanaro

The Bible is the word of God. it is "God-breathed" through humans to write down exactly what it is supposed to say. So God told man what to write so therefore is true.

 

Just because it is the word of God doesn't mean men couldn't get it wrong, in my opinion.

 

Tell me, when it says that God created the world in seven days, with all the animals and humans, does that mean the all the stuff about evolution, descending from apes, leaving the trees, etc., didn't happen?

 

Is it just a giant plot?

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by obi-wan13

Just because you're healthy, do you stop eating?

 

No, you continue your current eating habbits because that's what is making you healthy, among other things.

 

So if your faith is good, why change what ain't broke?