Bible and History, "Who Never Know".

[Exegesisme]

To those that call themselves Christian, does it matter to you that a real, living, Jesus Christ most likely never existed? Are the tales attributed to the man still valuable to you in some way?

To your first question, basing on faith, all likely is more than most likely.

To your second question, would you imagine, many persons a few thousand years ago recorded down from time to time over one thousand years about something which had already shaped our history, and still is possible heavily shape our future?

Edited September 23, 2015 by Exegesisme

[Exegesisme]

Why do you care what people believe? What's it got to do with you? Frankly. It's none of your business. You should concentrate in your own life. Put energy into that instead of trying to control what other people think.

I believe we are created by God, so we are connected. The connection exists hierarchically, in spirit as faith, in mind as thought, in soul as emotion, in body as behavior, in image as influence, in future as prediction, in past as memory, and so on.

[Exegesisme]

It's this kind of thinking that gets us no where as a civilized society. When religious people make it taboo to talk about religion because they know if we do it just falls apart. You'll never defeat extremist religious views with that kind of attitude. It's our business because we make it our damn business. All religions deserve to be ridiculed at every turn.

Alright except the last. I believe all good religions are deserved respect at every turn in future.

[Exegesisme]

This comment from a guy that claims to have a problem with misogyny as well as sectarian and sexual orientation based discrimination? Odd. I want a more ethical, safe, intelligent and productive world for my children. That's why I care.

The static, unethical moral standards codified in scripture hold us back as a society. Tomorrow's moral standards are almost always preferable to those of yesterday. Plus, people cling to these ancient and hateful moral concepts based on indoctrinated beliefs that are backed by absolutely no evidence.

The way to fix this problem is to hasten the already declining religious participation rate by removing the protective cultural cocoon and critically examining religious ideas, just like we do with all other ideas.

I hope, every action is after good discussion, and every speaking is after good thought.

[Canada_First]

Your first one third is half wrong. Your second one third is half right. Your third one third is alright.

I don't know what this means.

[Exegesisme]

I don't know what this means.

Some agree with you on some reasons, some disagree with you on other reasons.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Exegesisme

[ReeferMadness]

This is the craziest thing to hit the ol' MLW since that guy ranting about Nostradamus and Depeche Mode.

-k

Which one did he believe in?

[ReeferMadness]

Why do you care what people believe?

I don't care what most people believe - but there are some exceptions.

For example, if we had a Prime Minister would believed in dispensationalism and thought that end times and rapture could start with a war in the middle east, that would worry me.

[BubberMiley]

This seems to be one of those threads that fail to provide an opportunity for further discussion.

[Exegesisme]

This seems to be one of those threads that fail to provide an opportunity for further discussion.

God is the first farmer, do you agree?

[Accountability Now]

My ideal is to understand each word of the bible upon the whole tone of bible, and understand the whole tone of bible in the background of the being of the whole universe and her environment.

One of the most interesting classes I took in university was studying this very topic. In this class we went through a number of examples where the bible would say something that clearly isn't true or possible and the professor would explain how it makes sense when you're viewing it in the eyes of the people of that time.

For example, you often hear about the Noah and the great flood that flooded the world. Science can prove that there isn't enough water in the world to flood all lands. Its just not possible. However, their 'world' at the time didn't include North or South America or many other places....their world was the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates. If these rivers did flood then that land could be overtaken. Hence, if you view it from that perspective the flooding of 'their' world was possible.

There were a bunch of other examples like this which I wish I could remember.

[Exegesisme]

One of the most interesting classes I took in university was studying this very topic. In this class we went through a number of examples where the bible would say something that clearly isn't true or possible and the professor would explain how it makes sense when you're viewing it in the eyes of the people of that time.

For example, you often hear about the Noah and the great flood that flooded the world. Science can prove that there isn't enough water in the world to flood all lands. Its just not possible. However, their 'world' at the time didn't include North or South America or many other places....their world was the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates. If these rivers did flood then that land could be overtaken. Hence, if you view it from that perspective the flooding of 'their' world was possible.

There were a bunch of other examples like this which I wish I could remember.

Your experience is interesting. The flood could also be understood as the period of frequent floods from the ice age to the warm phase of climate. In this period, a lot of places were covered by the higher level of sea through repeated floods.

[Accountability Now]

Your experience is interesting. The flood could also be understood as the period of frequent floods from the ice age to the warm phase of climate. In this period, a lot of places were covered by the higher level of sea through repeated floods.

Yes....there are many things that we understand now that people in biblical times did not and therefore expressed it the only way they knew how. My opinion on the historical legitimacy of the bible is that the bible was never meant to be a historical piece. It was meant to tell stories. So people that try to find historical errors are really barking up the wrong tree.

[Scott Mayers]

One of the most interesting classes I took in university was studying this very topic. In this class we went through a number of examples where the bible would say something that clearly isn't true or possible and the professor would explain how it makes sense when you're viewing it in the eyes of the people of that time.

For example, you often hear about the Noah and the great flood that flooded the world. Science can prove that there isn't enough water in the world to flood all lands. Its just not possible. However, their 'world' at the time didn't include North or South America or many other places....their world was the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates. If these rivers did flood then that land could be overtaken. Hence, if you view it from that perspective the flooding of 'their' world was possible.

There were a bunch of other examples like this which I wish I could remember.

I am atheist but recognize that there is value in scriptures with respect to interpreting the past as they did in a secular light. I believe that much of past scriptures actually did treat reality as secularly interpreted but as time passes, people lose the actual understanding of this.

In the example you give here, I tend to disagree. I think flood stories were derived upon interpretations of fossils and other observations that have been lost where literally recorded. It would have been a mystery to them to see fish fossils in places relatively far from their contemporary bodies of water. Also, they would have had sufficient evidence of the dinosaur fossils that would not have been preserved to us today. In fact, they likely had a lot more of this back then that we do today. This would have suggested that such giant beasts must have met some unknown end as they do not exist.

Therefore, they both interpreted the world as arising from water first, had some stage of life that appears to have disappeared and thus needed a flood story to explain this. So flood stories would be a normal intellectual evolution in many areas of Earth independently. The Middle East was a point of commerce and trade among various continents and peoples. Thus the data from various regions would have been more common and influenced how they likely derived scripture that intended to explain things that collectively explained their wisdom of the day. AND, it would have been a relatively secular one when initially written/recorded, not the dumb unintellectual religious fanatic we interpret them to be from our perspective looking back on them historically.

[Exegesisme]

Yes....there are many things that we understand now that people in biblical times did not and therefore expressed it the only way they knew how. My opinion on the historical legitimacy of the bible is that the bible was never meant to be a historical piece. It was meant to tell stories. So people that try to find historical errors are really barking up the wrong tree.

The history recorded in bible is a mixture of two threads. One thread is the usual living story of human beings, the other thread is the inner living story of the enlightened ones. The authors of the bible were encouraged by their inner living stories, sometimes to record the two threads of stories into a mixture, sometimes to record them with clear distinguishing. The readers nowadays without the inner living experiences hardly understand these records in their correct way.

[Exegesisme]

I am atheist but recognize that there is value in scriptures with respect to interpreting the past as they did in a secular light. I believe that much of past scriptures actually did treat reality as secularly interpreted but as time passes, people lose the actual understanding of this.

In the example you give here, I tend to disagree. I think flood stories were derived upon interpretations of fossils and other observations that have been lost where literally recorded. It would have been a mystery to them to see fish fossils in places relatively far from their contemporary bodies of water. Also, they would have had sufficient evidence of the dinosaur fossils that would not have been preserved to us today. In fact, they likely had a lot more of this back then that we do today. This would have suggested that such giant beasts must have met some unknown end as they do not exist.

Therefore, they both interpreted the world as arising from water first, had some stage of life that appears to have disappeared and thus needed a flood story to explain this. So flood stories would be a normal intellectual evolution in many areas of Earth independently. The Middle East was a point of commerce and trade among various continents and peoples. Thus the data from various regions would have been more common and influenced how they likely derived scripture that intended to explain things that collectively explained their wisdom of the day. AND, it would have been a relatively secular one when initially written/recorded, not the dumb unintellectual religious fanatic we interpret them to be from our perspective looking back on them historically.

There is the third thread of the record in the bible. The authors had the needs to use their inner living experience to explain their out living experience. These explanations became the first hypotheses of their times.