It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is it me, or is it hard to find people who have a healthy reverence or scepticism for the bible?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   
You meet people from two camps. There are those that believe the bible is just a bunch of rubbish and everything in it is false, and those that think the bible and their religious leaders' interpretation of it ins incontrovertible truth.

I do not think that I need to convince this audience the value of skepticism towards the bible and those that claim to have the only valid interpretations of it. The Bible should be read critically.

The Bible is a book that contains philosophy and moral codes that are still valid today. While many reasonable people do (and should) doubt whether the people, places, and events described in it actually existed, the question people ask is not whether the events existed, but how they existed.

For example, let us assume Jesus is really a fictitious character. That does not mean that there were not people like him preaching similar messages at his time and place in history, nor does this negate the importance of this person's preachings (whether they are ficitonal or not.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fixed spelling in title

[edit on 2/12/06 by masqua]




posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   
The only book I have realy seen in the bible that holds any relevance to me is the Psalms.

Other thain that your right, of course back then laws wern't like they are today people needed to have dire spiritual consiquences if they did something bad. So religion was born to try to cow the populice and realy start civilizations to become civilized.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   
While you are right that some of the specific rules of the bibles may be outdated as they were written for an ancient agrarian society, and we live in the modern post-industrial world, the general wisdom behind the rules is valid.

For example, the bible says one should leave a corner of his field for the poor to come by and harvest the produce of that field. While most people do not farm, we can help the poor and use this rule to guide us. What is interesting about this rule is not that one gives the produce from the field to the poor, but rather one allows the poor to harvest the food themselves. . Allowing someone to harvest their food rather than handing it to them provides the poor with dignity. Similarly, when we act charitable, we should not give handouts, but hand ups. It is far better to help a person by giving them a day's work and the the benefits of the work, then to just give them a day's wages.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Take it Word for Word literally. Check the accuracy of the prophecies.

Look what it says and look at the world we live in.

Nuff said..........It's accuracy is always challenged and yet through history always stands up to doubters with facts.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   
There has been so much added in and so much taken out, who knows how accruate the bible really is.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Take it Word for Word literally. Check the accuracy of the prophecies.

Look what it says and look at the world we live in.

Nuff said..........It's accuracy is always challenged and yet through history always stands up to doubters with facts.


Which Prophecies were fulfilled? And I'm asking for real ones, with irrefutable details, not vague symbolisms that you can use to describe tons of things with.

Not like "The bird will burn it in a blaze, and be reborn again" type vague symbollisms.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   
The Bible is relevant if you simply choose to see those relevancies.

I see relevancies almost everywhere in The Bible. At the very least, the most obscure passages have some intellectual curiosity or another.

There's the always reliable pulse of intoxication that beats periodically through the Old and New Testaments; or the morality tales; or the almost obsessive fixation on violence.

Relevancy is just understanding.

[edit on 2-12-2006 by alexg]



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I have no problem with the Bible itself. It is the editorial staff that I have a problem with.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Some readers may have an interest in the below urls from my website www.bibleorigins.net on the Bible's Failed Prophecies. Surprisingly, many bible-believers are _not aware_ of the many failed prophecies as enumerated below:

www.bibleorigins.net...
www.bibleorigins.net...
www.bibleorigins.net...
www.bibleorigins.net...
www.bibleorigins.net...
www.bibleorigins.net...

In addition, many who believe the Bible is God's Holy Word and inerrant ("without error") are unaware that in fact _all_ the biblical texts now in mankind's possession are riddled with errors and contradictions. A few Christian Apologists ("defenders of the faith") aware of this fact, have gotten around this problem by declaring only the original first composition was error-free (called an autograph). All autographs are acknowledged to be lost, all we have are copies of copies filled with contraditions and man-made errors which have accumulated over the centuries from scribe to scribe. It is these error-riddled texts which are offered as "proof" that the bible is God's inerrant word. Cf. the below urls which explore this form of Apologia ("defense"):

www.bibleorigins.net...
www.bibleorigins.net...

Regards, Matt



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
i have a healthy reverance for the book of job
it's a fairly good piece of literature

i also think some of the psalms are pretty decent in a literary sense

still think most of it is fallacy and fiction



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   
In terms of the strictly historical content, the Bible is actually fairly good. You can find the cities mentioned, you can find corroborating evidence for people, rulers, nations, etc, that are mentioned, and that sort of thing. Of course, the more spiritual and miraculous stuff is always going to be debated, but it's going to be pretty hard to deny the existence of Israelites or Caananites or Philistines or Egyptians or all the rest.

I also don't see the harm in debating the Bible. That's how we learn about things, debating and presenting evidence and stuff like that. The trouble with a topic like the Bible is some people simply will not even listen to or consider any other viewpoint than their own. I'm perfectly willing to hear somebody debate whether the Garden of Eden was a real place, or any other part of the Bible, as long as they approach it from a logical point of view.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
In terms of the strictly historical content, the Bible is actually fairly good. You can find the cities mentioned, you can find corroborating evidence for people, rulers, nations, etc, that are mentioned, and that sort of thing. Of course, the more spiritual and miraculous stuff is always going to be debated, but it's going to be pretty hard to deny the existence of Israelites or Caananites or Philistines or Egyptians or all the rest.

I also don't see the harm in debating the Bible. That's how we learn about things, debating and presenting evidence and stuff like that. The trouble with a topic like the Bible is some people simply will not even listen to or consider any other viewpoint than their own. I'm perfectly willing to hear somebody debate whether the Garden of Eden was a real place, or any other part of the Bible, as long as they approach it from a logical point of view.


The Bible is historically correct only in that it mentions the types of people who were living at the times the Bible was written; however there is no historical evidence to support Biblical events.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   
[whoops, wrong thread. nevermind....]

[edit on 12/2/2006 by yeahright]



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jade Bridge
The Bible is historically correct only in that it mentions the types of people who were living at the times the Bible was written; however there is no historical evidence to support Biblical events.


Well, fair enough, there isn't a lot of corroboration for some stuff. But specific people are mentioned in the Bible that do have documentation outside of the Bible, such as Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzar. Others, like Jonah or Moses, as far as I am aware, have no supporting evidence beyond religious scripture.

Some specific events, like the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, are known from outside sources also; as well, there is archaeological evidence for this building, so we know it existed.

I'm certainly not claiming the entire Bible is provable, but certain select parts of it can be shown to be historically accurate. You will never be able to prove Moses parted the Red Sea, and probably couldn't even prove there was a Moses, but to say that the Bible is 100% false disagrees with modern scholarship. Of course, claiming the whole thing is true presents difficulties as well, when called upon to prove that.

I guess what I'm getting at is that both sides of the issue, as hotpink presents it, have to acknowledge that the other side has some valid points.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jade Bridge
[

The Bible is historically correct only in that it mentions the types of people who were living at the times the Bible was written; however there is no historical evidence to support Biblical events.


It depends on how literally you read into the historical events. We may never find scientific evidence to show that David slew Goliath, Moses parted the red seas, or Jesus walked on water.

What is true is that the ancient Israelites were at times at conflict with the Phillistines, and the David and Goliath story is evidence of that conflict. Even if the story is fictional, we can infer much about what the Israelites thought about the conflict by the story. For example, it is highly likely that the Israelites felt like underdogs in the conflict. Perhaps they were outmanned or outgunned.

Much of the story of Exodus may never be proven scientifically, but that is not to say it is entirely possible that the Israelite religion was influenced in part by people fleeing Egypt. Whether these people were the entire nation of Israel, or a small group of rogue Egyptians who were run out of the land for heresy or for being dissidents is up for debate. While we may not prove the red seas parted, we can perhaps infer that this group made a very narrow escape, that was so miraculous it is as if the seas parted for them.

Finally, while Jesus may not have existed, let alone walked on water, walking on water can be a metaphor for how the beliefs and teaches can make one feel. We often read about highly spriritual people who can block out the cares and concerns of the world being able to float or levitate, and this metaphor was applied to Jesus.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I agree, even though I think the Bible should be taken rather literal, it's possible that Moses' parting of the sea could just be a way to explain something else, but I take it litteral. Just my opinion.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by AMANNAMEDQUEST
There has been so much added in and so much taken out, who knows how accruate the bible really is.


Perhaps the beauty of the bible is not that it is a rough draft, but a document that was refined over the course of centuries. It contains about a 1000 years of wisdom distilled by a people who were literally in the center of the world.

Israel is a hub of ancient trade routes. Many great civilizations like the Persians, Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Hitites, etc. either conquered or maintained significant contacts with the Israelites while the bible was being written, edited, compiled, or revealed. So the bible is not just the wisdom of one ethnic group, but a synthesis of all the wisdom of the ancient world.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
The bible is a very interesting book, written by many through a span of centuries about the beginnings, struggles and culture of the Jewish people and their identification with their believes and gods.

The new testament was written when the believes no longer supporter by the Jewish people separated to form a new religion sharing the same God as the Jewish but with a new icon to bring a new path to salvation.

Historically it match the Jewish believes of times lines related to their history but when comparing the bible to other world events during the same time line and other ancient civilizations it comes short.

Overall is a book with lost of myth, history and live experiences that only the ancient people that wrote it understood.

Anything else is just speculations.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Take it Word for Word literally. Check the accuracy of the prophecies.

Look what it says and look at the world we live in.

Nuff said..........It's accuracy is always challenged and yet through history always stands up to doubters with facts.



However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)



When a man strikes his slave, male or female, and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money. -Exodus 21:20-21


So if I take the bible literally then its ok to own slaves beat the slaves you own buy, sell and trade slaves and pass the slaves one owns to their children as inheritance?



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   
The Bible is very accurate in describing events but it greatly deceives people in believing that what the interdimensional aliens are doing from the other side is a so called "God". The government is afraid to disclose the aliens agenda because not only the aliens will attack us for messing up their plans but they also control the reincarnation of our souls. The Reptilians are the true rulers. The so called Devil is a representation of what a reptilian looks like. When removing the Grey's black eye contact-like shades, it shows them to have red eyes. When some of the government's military officals found out about the real truth about religions and aliens after receiving the alien agenda information, they committed suicide. The real truth is that bad. The so called "Devil" is really in charge. The gullible religion followers are being out smarted through false explainations for life and put fear in them for a so called human looking "God" and ultimately control over the whole world by playing as a God instead of evil alien rulers.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join