[rubymoo]

Hi kyle, i've never read the bible and have no intention to do so, imo the book should have on it's first page "This book is fictional".

I believe the bible was made to scare humanity into submission, i have visions of shepherds sitting writing short stories on their hillsides whilst they watch over their sheep and that's it, i think i'm on the same page as you as far as the bible goes

[Kyle]

Originally Posted by rubymoo

Hi kyle, i've never read the bible and have no intention to do so, imo the book should have on it's first page "This book is fictional".

I believe the bible was made to scare humanity into submission, i have visions of shepherds sitting writing short stories on their hillsides whilst they watch over their sheep and that's it, i think i'm on the same page as you as far as the bible goes

I've started reading the bible recently so I can really get an idea of what it's about (and also steal a few ideas for some creative writing I want to do because it is quite interesting ) and I'm currently about to go on to numbers and I'm not even gonna go into what I think of it so far because at the end of the day this is other people's faith we are talking about. Apparently Deuteronomy is where it gets particularly tasty though so I can't wait to delve into that.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kyle

I've started reading the bible recently so I can really get an idea of what it's about (and also steal a few ideas for some creative writing I want to do because it is quite interesting ) and I'm currently about to go on to numbers and I'm not even gonna go into what I think of it so far because at the end of the day this is other people's faith we are talking about. Apparently Deuteronomy is where it gets particularly tasty though so I can't wait to delve into that.

You certainly know the Bible better than I do Kyle.

I accept that the Bible is full of inconsistencies and shocking passages, and I accept - or rather suspect - that because it is Man who 'writ down God's word' , and Man, who in the form of successive organized religions, has selectively edited the text, re-wrote great tracts of it, and destroyed other huge parts of the original vital testimony, that to blindly and literally believe the Bible in its entirety, is certainly folly.

I'm not a conventional Christian in the accepted sense of the word - I am not devout, don't go to Church, and I live as normal a life as I can.

Two of my three children do not even share my belief that Christ is the Messiah or therefore, that God exists in some form, because I have not imposed my beliefs upon them. I encouraged them to read philosophy and explore various belief systems and religions, for the same reason I impressed upon them the importance of a sound education, and they listened to me but then 'made up their own minds' about God and religion. Thank God (oops) that they also listened to me about education because all three have graduated from uni.

However, in defence of the Bible, or what remains of the original text after Man's chicanery, I would point out just a few of the increasingly more frequent examples where new archaeological discoveries are proving biblical assertions which the scientific world previously dismissed:

1. King David Inscription

Sceptics and Atheists always maintained that King David (of 'Once In Royal David's City' fame) never existed and was 'pure myth'. Until, that is July 1993 when a 'stele' fragment of basalt was unearthed by archaeologists which bore an inscription mentioning 'The House of David'. Two other discoveries cemented King David as a real historical figure with inscriptions mentioning; 'David' 'King of Israel' . These finds have been dated to the 8th or 9th Century BC and were the first non-biblical reference to a biblical figure.

2. The Baruch Bulla

A 'Bulla' is a hardened clay seal impression and hundreds have been discovered in the past 100 years or so, but one stand out bulla which appeared in 1970 contained the name and stamp of the biblical prophet Jeremiah's scribe.

Another bears the inscription "Belonging to Seraiah (ben) Neriah." and Seriah was the "chief chamberlain" in the court of King Zedekiah (Jer 51:59).

3.The Pontius Pilate Inscription

In 1961, a dedicatory stone bearing the an inscription: Tiberieum/[Pon]tius Pilatus/[Praef]ectus Iuda[eae], "Tiberius [the Roman emperor of the period]/Pontius Pilate/Prefect of Judea." was discovered during excavations in Caesarea Maritima.

Pilate was the governor of Roman Judea, under whose governance Jesus of Nazareth was crucified.

4. Ossuary of Caiaphas

In the Bible, Caiaphas is the High Priest of The Sanhedrin whom Jesus was brought before for questioning, and in 1990 a tomb was discovered in Jerusalem which contained his ossuary.

(An ossuary is a stone box containing the bones of the deceased.)

5. The Pool at Shiloh

In 2004, the pool where Jesus performed the miracle of restoring a blind man's sight (Gospel of St John) was discovered by archaeologists digging south of the Temple Mount.

As stated, these are but a few of numerous archaeological discoveries which prove the Bible as so much more than a 'fictional book' (as one on here ridiculously claims.) Among these other discoveries are what is generally agreed to be the store cities 'Ramesess' and 'Pithon' of the Biblical Exodus - Store Cities which were hitherto denounced as myth by mainstream academics.

Personally, I absorb the parts of the Bible which I am logically persuaded by, and treat the rest with a degree of scepticism knowing that the hand of Man has been involved.

I am open minded but yet, cannot forget how I was taught 'Science' and 'History' by 'academics' in Grammar School. Part of these teachings dealt with how the coelacanth was as extinct as the Do-Do, and that the native American Indians were savages.

I have my reasons for believing in Jesus as the Christ and therefore God, and it has nothing to do with blind acceptance of 'fairy tales', or 'mumbo jumbo', but entirely to do with years of extensive research and study, cold analysis of the results of that research, and logical interpretation of the evidence and facts concerning Christ.

I believe what I believe, but will not, however, ever denigrate or lambaste any other person for not believing what I do, or for even believing in nothing at all.

To close, my post on the 10 Commandments was in specific answer to Livia's perfectly legitimate and civil query in her post, and was supplemental to my 'Food For Thought' post which prompted Livia's enquiry. It was not a blind acceptance of all biblical text as being 'literally true'.

I am grateful Kyle that you are approaching this complex subject with fairness even though you hold opposing views, because through civil, intelligent debate, we may both learn something.

[Kyle]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

You certainly know the Bible better than I do Kyle.

I accept that the Bible is full of inconsistencies and shocking passages, and I accept - or rather suspect - that because it is Man who 'writ down God's word' , and Man, who in the form of successive organized religions, has selectively edited the text, re-wrote great tracts of it, and destroyed other huge parts of the original vital testimony, that to blindly and literally believe the Bible in its entirety, is certainly folly.

I'm not a conventional Christian in the accepted sense of the word - I am not devout, don't go to Church, and I live as normal a life as I can.

Two of my three children do not even share my belief that Christ is the Messiah or therefore, that God exists in some form, because I have not imposed my beliefs upon them. I encouraged them to read philosophy and explore various belief systems and religions, for the same reason I impressed upon them the importance of a sound education, and they listened to me but then 'made up their own minds' about God and religion. Thank God (oops) that they also listened to me about education because all three have graduated from uni.

However, in defence of the Bible, or what remains of the original text after Man's chicanery, I would point out just a few of the increasingly more frequent examples where new archaeological discoveries are proving biblical assertions which the scientific world previously dismissed:

1. King David Inscription

Sceptics and Atheists always maintained that King David (of 'Once In Royal David's City' fame) never existed and was 'pure myth'. Until, that is July 1993 when a 'stele' fragment of basalt was unearthed by archaeologists which bore an inscription mentioning 'The House of David'. Two other discoveries cemented King David as a real historical figure with inscriptions mentioning; 'David' 'King of Israel' . These finds have been dated to the 8th or 9th Century BC and were the first non-biblical reference to a biblical figure.

2. The Baruch Bulla

A 'Bulla' is a hardened clay seal impression and hundreds have been discovered in the past 100 years or so, but one stand out bulla which appeared in 1970 contained the name and stamp of the biblical prophet Jeremiah's scribe.

Another bears the inscription "Belonging to Seraiah (ben) Neriah." and Seriah was the "chief chamberlain" in the court of King Zedekiah (Jer 51:59).

3.The Pontius Pilate Inscription

In 1961, a dedicatory stone bearing the an inscription: Tiberieum/[Pon]tius Pilatus/[Praef]ectus Iuda[eae], "Tiberius [the Roman emperor of the period]/Pontius Pilate/Prefect of Judea." was discovered during excavations in Caesarea Maritima.

Pilate was the governor of Roman Judea, under whose governance Jesus of Nazareth was crucified.

4. Ossuary of Caiaphas

In the Bible, Caiaphas is the High Priest of The Sanhedrin whom Jesus was brought before for questioning, and in 1990 a tomb was discovered in Jerusalem which contained his ossuary.

(An ossuary is a stone box containing the bones of the deceased.)

5. The Pool at Shiloh

In 2004, the pool where Jesus performed the miracle of restoring a blind man's sight (Gospel of St John) was discovered by archaeologists digging south of the Temple Mount.

As stated, these are but a few of numerous archaeological discoveries which prove the Bible as so much more than a 'fictional book' (as one on here ridiculously claims.) Among these other discoveries are what is generally agreed to be the store cities 'Ramesess' and 'Pithon' of the Biblical Exodus - Store Cities which were hitherto denounced as myth by mainstream academics.

Personally, I absorb the parts of the Bible which I am logically persuaded by, and treat the rest with a degree of scepticism knowing that the hand of Man has been involved.

I am open minded but yet, cannot forget how I was taught 'Science' and 'History' by 'academics' in Grammar School. Part of these teachings dealt with how the coelacanth was as extinct as the Do-Do, and that the native American Indians were savages.

I have my reasons for believing in Jesus as the Christ and therefore God, and it has nothing to do with blind acceptance of 'fairy tales', or 'mumbo jumbo', but entirely to do with years of extensive research and study, cold analysis of the results of that research, and logical interpretation of the evidence and facts concerning Christ.

I believe what I believe, but will not, however, ever denigrate or lambaste any other person for not believing what I do, or for even believing in nothing at all.

To close, my post on the 10 Commandments was in specific answer to Livia's perfectly legitimate and civil query in her post, and was supplemental to my 'Food For Thought' post which prompted Livia's enquiry. It was not a blind acceptance of all biblical text as being 'literally true'.

I am grateful Kyle that you are approaching this complex subject with fairness even though you hold opposing views, because through civil, intelligent debate, we may both learn something.

I understand this is a difficult topic to discuss because at the end of the day I have decided to read the bible only to pick it apart and absorb the (in my opinion) mythology surrounding it.

Personally I will always have difficulty understanding how some parts of the bible can be readily accepted and others thrown away as conjecture when it's all there in a book which the writers have given no indication of which bits are to be taken literally and which have just come from imagination. It's just so ambiguous I can completely understand how there are so many denominations which take whatever meaning they want from the scriptures and use it to further their agenda.

Some like Joseph Smith just completely add extra books and scripture on top of that and before we know it we have huge pockets of America that follow the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

To me, and certainly from what I've seen so far this is just completely jumbled up bad code which means hee haw to me and doesn't give me a clear understanding of what on earth I should be doing. That doesn't sound to me like a Very clever God but that's just my impressions so far.

[kirklancaster]

[QUOTE=Kyle;7321668]

"I understand this is a difficult topic to discuss because at the end of the day I have decided to read the bible only to pick it apart and absorb the (in my opinion) mythology surrounding it."

I've no problem here Kyle - in fact I welcome it, because if you're reading, you're informed, and don't spout irrelevant bollox like some, even if you're contesting my viewpoint.

"Personally I will always have difficulty understanding how some parts of the bible can be readily accepted and others thrown away as conjecture when it's all there in a book which the writers have given no indication of which bits are to be taken literally and which have just come from imagination. It's just so ambiguous I can completely understand how there are so many denominations which take whatever meaning they want from the scriptures and use it to further their agenda."

The Bible was written by many writers over a period thought to be a thousand years. During that time, various 'ruling bodies' have edited the original text to suit their own purpose. These range from the Roman's after Constantine's conversion to Christianity in 312 AD, to the latest alterations in the 2011 New International Version of the Bible (NIV), and then there may have been much text - the meaning of which has been 'lost in translation'.

I'm not too worried about any 'selective editing' though Kyle because I believe the 'essence' to be still basically intact, it's the text which has been removed and destroyed over the years which I'm pissed about - think what might have been there.

I don't even think there are many instances in the Bible which involve imagination - just attempts by relatively primitive man to convey in his own language real experiences which fell beyond the parameters of his knowledge and vocabulary.

"Some like Joseph Smith just completely add extra books and scripture on top of that and before we know it we have huge pockets of America that follow the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

With no offense intended to people of Mormon and Islamic persuasion, there is no independent corroboration of the 'divine' revelations which Joseph Smith - like the 'Prophet' Mohammed - claimed. We have only their word themselves that what happened actually happened.

Smith experienced his 'visions', when completely alone - first in a secluded wood in 1820 and later - again alone - when visited by an angel he called 'Moroni' in 1823.

Mohammed experienced a vision of the archangel Gabriel, who proclaimed him a prophet of God. whilst meditating in a cave outside of Mecca completely alone.

There is a lot more evidence which casts serious doubt as to the claims of both Smith, but especially Mohammed, but that's another story.

Suffice it to say that I examined these religions (among others) a long time ago and rejected them in favour of Jesus Christ for whom there is overwhelming evidence that he lived and died on the cross and very persuasive evidence from numerous contemporary sources that he resurrected. As incredible as it may seem to 'modern man' there is also what I regard as compelling forensic evidence to substantiate Christ's resurrection, but that also is another story.

"To me, and certainly from what I've seen so far this is just completely jumbled up bad code which means hee haw to me and doesn't give me a clear understanding of what on earth I should be doing. That doesn't sound to me like a Very clever God but that's just my impressions so far."

I'm being deadly sincere now Kyle; I can't blame you for being confused. I know from years of reading (worse now since the advent of the internet) that as soon as you read one 'authority' who makes claims as being 'Gospel' and feel swayed, you read another 'authority' who debunks the first authority and makes polar opposite claims as being 'Gospel'. It takes a hell of a lot of following up, cross referencing and digesting and analysing before you can reach any sort of conclusion which you feel satisfied by - if ever.

I'm not trying to 'convert' anyone and the subject is far too complex for me to comprehensively relate even my tiny knowledge for me to try to convince.

All that I am saying is that I am a normal, ordinary Yorkshire man born to working class parents of no religious persuasion, and I do not 'leap in' to anything without satisfying myself that it makes sense to do so. I experienced a 'catalyst' which convinced me that there was more to this (otherwise futile) existence than procreating and getting pissed, and I set off in search of answers.

Keep reading Kyle, you might surprise yourself and find some answers to questions you haven't even asked out loud.

[Kizzy]

[QUOTE=kirklancaster;7321944]

Originally Posted by Kyle

"I understand this is a difficult topic to discuss because at the end of the day I have decided to read the bible only to pick it apart and absorb the (in my opinion) mythology surrounding it."

I've no problem here Kyle - in fact I welcome it, because if you're reading, you're informed, and don't spout irrelevant bollox like some, even if you're contesting my viewpoint.

"Personally I will always have difficulty understanding how some parts of the bible can be readily accepted and others thrown away as conjecture when it's all there in a book which the writers have given no indication of which bits are to be taken literally and which have just come from imagination. It's just so ambiguous I can completely understand how there are so many denominations which take whatever meaning they want from the scriptures and use it to further their agenda."

The Bible was written by many writers over a period thought to be a thousand years. During that time, various 'ruling bodies' have edited the original text to suit their own purpose. These range from the Roman's after Constantine's conversion to Christianity in 312 AD, to the latest alterations in the 2011 New International Version of the Bible (NIV), and then there may have been much text - the meaning of which has been 'lost in translation'.

I'm not too worried about any 'selective editing' though Kyle because I believe the 'essence' to be still basically intact, it's the text which has been removed and destroyed over the years which I'm pissed about - think what might have been there.

I don't even think there are many instances in the Bible which involve imagination - just attempts by relatively primitive man to convey in his own language real experiences which fell beyond the parameters of his knowledge and vocabulary.

"Some like Joseph Smith just completely add extra books and scripture on top of that and before we know it we have huge pockets of America that follow the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

With no offense intended to people of Mormon and Islamic persuasion, there is no independent corroboration of the 'divine' revelations which Joseph Smith - like the 'Prophet' Mohammed - claimed. We have only their word themselves that what happened actually happened.

Smith experienced his 'visions', when completely alone - first in a secluded wood in 1820 and later - again alone - when visited by an angel he called 'Moroni' in 1823.

Mohammed experienced a vision of the archangel Gabriel, who proclaimed him a prophet of God. whilst meditating in a cave outside of Mecca completely alone.

There is a lot more evidence which casts serious doubt as to the claims of both Smith, but especially Mohammed, but that's another story.

Suffice it to say that I examined these religions (among others) a long time ago and rejected them in favour of Jesus Christ for whom there is overwhelming evidence that he lived and died on the cross and very persuasive evidence from numerous contemporary sources that he resurrected. As incredible as it may seem to 'modern man' there is also what I regard as compelling forensic evidence to substantiate Christ's resurrection, but that also is another story.

"To me, and certainly from what I've seen so far this is just completely jumbled up bad code which means hee haw to me and doesn't give me a clear understanding of what on earth I should be doing. That doesn't sound to me like a Very clever God but that's just my impressions so far."

I'm being deadly sincere now Kyle; I can't blame you for being confused. I know from years of reading (worse now since the advent of the internet) that as soon as you read one 'authority' who makes claims as being 'Gospel' and feel swayed, you read another 'authority' who debunks the first authority and makes polar opposite claims as being 'Gospel'. It takes a hell of a lot of following up, cross referencing and digesting and analysing before you can reach any sort of conclusion which you feel satisfied by - if ever.

I'm not trying to 'convert' anyone and the subject is far too complex for me to comprehensively relate even my tiny knowledge for me to try to convince.

All that I am saying is that I am a normal, ordinary Yorkshire man born to working class parents of no religious persuasion, and I do not 'leap in' to anything without satisfying myself that it makes sense to do so. I experienced a 'catalyst' which convinced me that there was more to this (otherwise futile) existence than procreating and getting pissed, and I set off in search of answers.

Keep reading Kyle, you might surprise yourself and find some answers to questions you haven't even asked out loud.

Over the years I've read huge chunks of it too, enough to make an informed opinion that it isn't for me.
I'm sure anyone schooled here has had enough stuffed down their throats at their 'institutions of learning' to get a grasp of Christian ideology too.

'The Bible was written by many writers over a period thought to be a thousand years.' which bible are you referring to here?

[kirklancaster]

[QUOTE=Kizzy;7321969][QUOTE=kirklancaster;7321944]

Over the years I've read huge chunks of it too, enough to make an informed opinion that it isn't for me.

That's your prerogative. I've never stated otherwise.

I'm sure anyone schooled here has had enough stuffed down their throats at their 'institutions of learning' to get a grasp of Christian ideology too.

Then don't subscribe to this interchange of views between Kyle and myself. For myself, I attended schools with Religious Education and Assembly, but i never had anything 'stuffed down my throat' because I wasn't interested in it so didn't think about it, let alone believed in it at the time.

'The Bible was written by many writers over a period thought to be a thousand years.' which bible are you referring to here?

I'm referring to the Christian/Judeo Bible:

[U]Christianity Stack Exchange[/U]
We don't know exactly when the books of the Bible were written, but we can, through cross-referencing external sources, determine when the historical figures in the Bible lived. Either way, the common consensus is that the writing of the books of the Bible began some time after 1500 BC, and concluded prior to 100 AD. This would be a period of about 1600 years.

Biblica

The Bible was not written in one specific year or in a single location. The Bible is a collection of writings, and the earliest ones were set down nearly 3500 years ago.The New Testament was written during a much shorter period, i.e. during the last half of the first century AD.

Got Questions Kidz

The Bible was written over about 1,500 years from 1400 BC to AD 90.

Minster Book

When was the Bible written?

It was written over a period of some 1,500 years, from around 1450 B.C. (the time of Moses) to about 100 A.D. (following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ).

Bible Bell

As to when "pen was put to paper," the oldest book (Job) was written c. 2150 BC. The youngest book (Revelation) was written c. 90 AD.
Thus, it took about 2200 years to write the 66 books of the Bible.

Thank you for your comments.