Joe, where can I find inconsistencies in the Bible

[Blaze]

Yeah, there's a word for that: agnostic, as I suspect you know.

Off google:

Agnosticism asserts no knowledge of gods and therefore concludes there are no reasons to believe in them or not to believe in them. An agnostic follows this credo and differs from the atheist who has developed an active belief that there are no gods. When it comes to the question of existence of deities, an agnostic will respond: I just don't know.

Yes, to some extent.  Along with "I don't know" I'd probably ask the person why they believe in deities, if they do at all.  I'm always interested in learning more about religions, I reserve the right to disbelieve in certain parts of some religions, with full respect, of course. 

[Joe]

For the record, I don't regard the old testament as fact, yet I don't regard it as fiction, either. I personally believe that some parts of it are a metaphor (for example, Noah saving the animals was a precursor to Jesus saving humanity). The books of the prophets, Genesis and Exodus, though, I do regard as fact.

[Sidoh]

For the record, I don't regard the old testament as fact, yet I don't regard it as fiction, either. I personally believe that some parts of it are a metaphor (for example, Noah saving the animals was a precursor to Jesus saving humanity). The books of the prophets, Genesis and Exodus, though, I do regard as fact.

It seems to me that interpreting arbitrary sections of the bible as fiction and others as fact to totally defeat the whole "word of God" idea...

[dark_drake]

I think Joe what Joe was getting at is it's silly to interpret everything in the Bible literally.  The best example I can think of is how the literal interpretation of the bible led to people believing the sun revolved around the earth. The bible is meant to tell us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. Basically, a purely literal interpretation of the bible is not a good thing.

Edit: I'm not arguing that any events in the Bible didn't happen. I'm just stating that the bible's stories are meant to demonstrate how we are supposed to live our lives, and some of the things in the bible may not be entirely true in the literal sense.

On a side note, can you imagine how small of a gene pool the animals had to work with after the flood? 

[Sidoh]

I think Joe what Joe was getting at is it's silly to interpret everything in the Bible literally.  The best example I can think of is how the literal translation of the bible led to people believing the sun revolved around the earth. The bible is meant to tell us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. Basically, a purely literal interpretation of the bible is not a good thing.

Yes, but how do you decide which parts are meant to be interpreted literally?  It seems like a system riddled with traps to me.

[dark_drake]

Yes, but how do you decide which parts are meant to be interpreted literally?  It seems like a system riddled with traps to me.

Whichever ones haven't been disproven by science seems like a good starting point for me. 

[Sidoh]

Whichever ones haven't been disproven by science seems like a good starting point for me. 

Yes, that's a good answer.  However, it doesn't encompass some of the more profound topics discussed in the bible.  For example, what about heaven and hell are they metaphors?  Was Jesus' crucifixion nothing more than a story meant to be told to represent important moral lessons?

Why can we stop at the things that have been disproven by science?  It seems unfair to those that lived before the knowledge existed.  Plus, how can it be known that we accept something as true merely because we lack the perception to see the "counterexample" or "fallacy?"  One could always pull the "All is possible through God" card.

I realize that this is in every way an opinion, but it's an interesting one to discuss.

[dark_drake]

Yes, that's a good answer.  However, it doesn't encompass some of the more profound topics discussed in the bible.  For example, what about heaven and hell are they metaphors?  Was Jesus' crucifixion nothing more than a story meant to be told to represent important moral lessons?

It's up to each and every person to decide for himself. One's personal salvation is not up to anyone else.

Why can we stop at the things that have been disproven by science?  It seems unfair to those that lived before the knowledge existed. 

I never said we stopped at the things that have been disproven by science. I said it was a good starting point. I'm sure there's more than that, but, again, it's up to each and every person to decide for himself. Also, I don't think it's unfair to the people who lived before the knowledge existed. It's not exactly like they were blaspheming through their ignorance of the physical workings of the world. They went off the best thing they had at the time.

Plus, how can it be known that we accept something as true merely because we lack the perception to see the "counterexample" or "fallacy?"  One could always pull the "All is possible through God" card.

Did you mean: how can it be known whether or not that something we accept as truth is true merely because we lack the perception to see a counterexample? In that case, we just need to have a little faith. 

In the end, this amounts to +1 to my post count. 

[Sidoh]

In the end, this amounts to +1 to my post count. 

Pretty much.

I could go through each thing you said and come up with a reply, but we'd just be running in circles.

[CrAz3D]

For the record, I don't regard the old testament as fact, yet I don't regard it as fiction, either. I personally believe that some parts of it are a metaphor (for example, Noah saving the animals was a precursor to Jesus saving humanity). The books of the prophets, Genesis and Exodus, though, I do regard as fact.

It seems to me that interpreting arbitrary sections of the bible as fiction and others as fact to totally defeat the whole "word of God" idea...

exactly, which is why you cant say the Bible is perfect...because you have to use different interpretations to put things "in context so they dont conflict" (I've been told that when you read the whole Bible that nothing conflicts within the context of the Bible )

[Joe]

@dark_drake: Exactly.

@CrAz3D: No, the bible is perfect. Translations are not. For example, with the kill vs murder thing, I tried to reference the Hebrew. I obviously failed (Yoni was sleeping ), but that's beside the point.

[CrAz3D]

Does the Bible not say Moses was told to kill the sinners?...

[Sidoh]

Killing is murder...

Also, I don't think that language gaps is a universal excuse.  Also, It doesn't make sense to say that in a world teaming with people willing to translate that there would be so many errors of this manner.

[CrAz3D]

Killing is murder...

Also, I don't think that language gaps is a universal excuse.  Also, It doesn't make sense to say that in a world teaming with people willing to translate that there would be so many errors of this manner.

it seems like "thou shalt not murder" & "go kill the sinners, moses" would be hard to lose in translation

[Armin]

Yeah, there's a word for that: agnostic, as I suspect you know.

Off google:

Agnosticism asserts no knowledge of gods and therefore concludes there are no reasons to believe in them or not to believe in them. An agnostic follows this credo and differs from the atheist who has developed an active belief that there are no gods. When it comes to the question of existence of deities, an agnostic will respond: I just don't know.

Yes, to some extent.  Along with "I don't know" I'd probably ask the person why they believe in deities, if they do at all.  I'm always interested in learning more about religions, I reserve the right to disbelieve in certain parts of some religions, with full respect, of course. 

I believe there are certain levels of agnosticism. I also acknowledge both possibilities, God or no God, and consider myself agnostic.