Questions about the Bible , I ask as I read

[Robert]

Does it say so, that it didn't happen? Or are you just allowed to say that something that's written in your holy book didn't happen?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Of course it is, its right in the begining. It also did not happen.

It could of been inspired by a particularly horrific flood roughly 9,000 years ago..... but maybe not.

ANYWAY it didn't happen.

It´s interesting that many civilizations from the area around israel (sumerians, mesopotamians and so on) share the same story.

So it could really be that the stories are inspired by a horrific local flood
(AFAIK one of the stories even speaks not from a local in stead of a global flood, where Noach (or however his name is in this story) saves himself, his family and some animals from his household in a small boat and, after landing his boat at a hill encounters people from the surrounding tribes which were not affected by the flood).

[Jon Miller]

Actually most ancient civs do.. (including ones in the Americas)

JM

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Does it say so, that it didn't happen? Or are you just allowed to say that something that's written in your holy book didn't happen?

Allowed, allowed by who? Judaism, most of Judaism embraces science, history, archaelogy etc with a wholehearted enthusiasm. The flood could not of happened and if it did, G-D wiped away all proof.... which is never mentioned in the Torah. So since all evidence points towards it not happening, I don't think G-D will be angry, in fact I think he'd be pleased I am commited to the truth, whatever it is.


Floods happened in much of the ancient world as John Miller said. There are asian flood myths as well. People forget that before the rise of city states and "civilizations" humanity was relativley stagnant for generation upon generation.... much longer a time then the time between the rise of civilization and today. A particullarly bad flood would of proboably happened over time wherever humans were, as for the Noah story, the black sea and the caspian sea used to be *ONE SEA* till a sudden geological shift caused them to split..... look at a map, the caspian and black sea's are huge. Can you imagine the wall of water which would suddenly come by if one of them breached?

[Robert]

I'm not looking for a debate over the great flood.
I'm just astonished that you first go nuts over how I do misuse or misunderstand your holy books, and now you simply state that your holy books contains stuff that is not true.

[Vesayen]

What they say/mean and what reality is, are two very different things.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Does it say so, that it didn't happen? Or are you just allowed to say that something that's written in your holy book didn't happen?

As I recall, the 4 Gospels all tell different stories. Are they all true in every detail ?


I don't think so, somehow....

[Robert]

There's a difference between wrong details or complete wrong stories.

[aneeshm]

Aren't Christians allowed to revise and re-edit holy texts to suit the time ? Are they allowed to write new holy books ?

[Proteus_MST]

They are allowed to "edit" them by retranslating them (which is why [amongst other things] for example fundamentalist protestants accuse the catholics of being deceived by Satan, because the catholics use another translation of the bible than protestants do [most fundamentalist protestants see the KJV of the bible as the only genuine version of the holy scriptures, whereas all other translations were spoiled by Satan])

As for new holy books, you could see one oft the practices of the catholics in part as "creating new holy books".
The pope can issue encyclicals on any topic he wishes and the cathoplics are bound to follow the things mentioned in these encyclicals just as they are bound to follow the things written within the bible.
So I´d think that these encyclas could be considered holy for catholics in a certain way. Although the encyclas probably shouldn´t contradict things mentioned within the bible

Protestants however AFAIK cannot write their own holy books (especially as in some scriptures within the NT Jesus warns his disciples for following any false prophets).
Therefore for them probably (even though the NT in its current form wasn´t put together until several hundred years after Jesus departure) only the scriptures within the bible should be considered holy.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by CyberShy
There's a difference between wrong details or complete wrong stories.

Uh huh.


Exactly how are they all 'the Gospel truth' then, or the literal word of god, as some fundamentalist Protestants would have us believe ?


If they disagree in major aspects, then which one is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ?


Gah.

[beingofone]

molly bloom:

As I recall, the 4 Gospels all tell different stories. Are they all true in every detail ?

What? They all 4 tell the same story. Have you ever read them? If you had ever read them I doubt you could make such a ludicrous statement.

No two recounting of anything that has transpired in history has ever been exact on all specific details. On this part there are only a handfull of contradictions in the four Gospels. Most of what you see on websites showing many contradictions is mostly spin doctoring and a grievious lack of knowledge on the subject.

If four reporters go to watch a ball game they will all emphasize different aspects of the game. Some of their writing might conflict on the actual events. You would not doubt they had seen the game would you?

Originally posted by CyberShy:
There's a difference between wrong details or complete wrong stories.

Molly: Exactly how are they all 'the Gospel truth' then, or the literal word of god, as some fundamentalist Protestants would have us believe ?


If they disagree in major aspects, then which one is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ?

Whatever are you talking about?

Details like what day he was crucified. Never mind the fact that all four say he was crucified?

Or how many blind men were there that he healed in Bethany, one or two? Never mind they all say he healed the blind in a particular city. Ya, real earth shattering contradictions that no other history books in the world are held to this level of insipent microscopic nitpicking.

How many fingers am I holding up? That has as much relevant weight as the constant pididle of those who do not know what they are talking about.

Point out one major conflict in the four Gospels.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by beingofone
molly bloom:


What? They all 4 tell the same story. Have you ever read them? If you had ever read them I doubt you could make such a ludicrous statement.

If you'd read them attentively or critically I doubt you could make that statement.

Of course faith is so much more accurate than reason, isn't it ?


John even manages to have both the Jews and the Romans responsible for crucifying Jesus. Now who was it ? Both, one or the other, neither ?


I must say it's terribly convenient to have four different versions of supposedly the same 'events' to choose from. When in doubt, opt for the one you favour, eh ?

Ya, real earth shattering contradictions that no other history books in the world are held to this level of insipent microscopic nitpicking.

Err, I don't know which history texts you read, but they are examined in real close detail.

That's how David Irving was caught out- for instance.

But then the writers of those history books don't usually claim to have witnessed supernatural events or been in touch with the supposed son of god.

[beingofone]

molly bloom:

John even manages to have both the Jews and the Romans responsible for crucifying Jesus. Now who was it ? Both, one or the other, neither ?

You never have read them have you?

Do you know how the Jewish authorities turned him over to Pilate in all 4 Gospels?

Same question, what are you talking about?

I must say it's terribly convenient to have four different versions of supposedly the same 'events' to choose from. When in doubt, opt for the one you favour, eh ?

Chapter and verse.
Back it up.

Its easy to just make blatant statements when you have no proof. Point out with chapter and verse these contradictions you said were so apparent.

[Robert]

I'm talking about small details, where in gospel A Jesus first silences the storm and then talks tot he disciples and in gospel B Jesus first talks to the disciples and then silences the storm.

Obviously one is a 'wrong' account of the story. But that's what happens when a story is being told by different people. The message remains the same, the miracle remains the same, the lesson to the disciples remains the same.

I don't believe that God dictated or wrote the Bible. He inspired the authors of the Bible. But these authors testify what they saw. Only in a few situations God dictated literarly what should be written by the authors. The Bible is not a 100% accurate book, it's a book written by men. If a scientists comes with a new theory and the book he publishes contains some spelling errors, then that doesn't mean that his theory is wrong or fallable. And that's what we're talking about, faults as little as spelling typos.