Questions about the Bible , I ask as I read

[MobBoss]

Jesus disagrees with your position.

Uhm....no he doesnt.

Btw, what is so intolerant in saying "God doesnt change"?

 

[Sidhe]

This is really interesting but I really do have to go to bed, I'll have to reply to anything tomorrow, Goodnight gentlemen.

 

[ironduck]

@ironduck: Fair enough. I certainly understand what you mean, and that you don't accept it as true. I avoid using the word "fiction" just because a large number of people accept it as true, and I at least accept it as something else. Certainly it is not the same thing as a novel, I think almost anyone will agree to that.

I think it's a problem to take special considerations when enough people may get offended, but not if only one person may get offended. Either it is cruel to say something or it isn't.

It reminds me of the Muhammad cartoon controversy. Over and over it was repeated that it was incredibly rude to step on the feelings of a billion people. And everytime I thought - what difference does it make how many it was? Either it was wrong or it wasn't. Why is it somehow more wrong to say something that may offend ten people than to say something that may only offend one person, assuming that the thing said is the same?

All I care about is the individual. Hiding something in a blurb of 'the masses' is skirting the core of any given issue. If I think a story is fiction then I'll feel free to say so under the right circumstances (as described earlier), without having to count how many people may potentially be offended.

Also, of course myths and legends are not the same as a novel due to the way they have evolved (but they are often retold as novels, Robin Hood, for instance). That makes them more like fairy tales. Of course, I'm sure the people who get offended by my naming the bible as fiction will get equally offended by my naming it a collection of fairy tales. None of the descriptions are meant to be offensive, I think some people just want to be offended.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Non fiction does not mean "true".
Fiction dos not mean untrue.

Non fiction is someones interpretation of events that are known to have taken place.

Fcition is usually a story that the author says is not a "true" story even if it does have real life characters and events in it. The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction that has many real people and events in it.

Napoleon and Wellington by Andrew Roberts purports to be a non fiction book. But his clearly stated prejudices and pro British sentiments makes me think of it as fiction.

The bible is a collection of stories about which we do not know whether or not they all actually took place or which characters are real. Corroborating evidence is often lacking. Some of the stories are certainly less likely to be real life events than others.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

@ironduck: it's not a matter of offense. I am just saying that whether it is "fiction" or not depends on how many people take it seriously or not. And the entire Bible can't be described as "fiction" because it is far more complex than that. Could one, for example, call the Pauline Epistles "fiction"? They aren't telling a story.

 

[ironduck]

@ironduck: it's not a matter of offense. I am just saying that whether it is "fiction" or not depends on how many people take it seriously or not. And the entire Bible can't be described as "fiction" because it is far more complex than that. Could one, for example, call the Pauline Epistles "fiction"? They aren't telling a story.

I think whether something is fiction is disconnected from how many take it seriously. If I make up a story and get four billion people to believe it, does that mean it's no longer fiction? Of course not. Does it mean that it's no longer fiction two thousands years later if people still believe it? Of course not. I made it up - it's fiction!

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Sure, if you blatantly make up a story you know to be false. And if you don't add any poetry, or any sort of advice or instructions, or anything like that.

 

[ironduck]

Well, your argument just above was that 'whether it's fiction or not depends on how many people take it seriously or not'. As you can see, that's completely irrelevant, it's not about that at all.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, your argument just above was that 'whether it's fiction or not depends on how many people take it seriously or not'. As you can see, that's completely irrelevant, it's not about that at all.

That's not actually what I mean, sorry if it came across that way, I guess. At any rate, even if the Bible contains fiction, it is not merely fiction and probably can't really be accurately described as such.

 

[ironduck]

If we go by BJ's definition then non-fiction is someone's interpretation of something known to have taken place. The parts of the bible I describe as 'likely fiction' are basically anything involving god (including miracles performed by Jesus). Have any of those been known to have taken place? I think that is not very likely, therefore I believe it's fiction.

More accurately, I believe they're myths and legends that have been created and evolved due to various needs and to fulfill a number of purposes.

 

[Smidlee]

Again, if one is to take the Bible seriosuly one has to admit that at least His ways of dealing with humans changed from the beginning to the early Christian period as humanity itself changed; why should He then stop at about 100 AD? Mankind is still changing (or at least society is) last time I checked.

You are referring to dispensations. When it states "God doesn't change" is referring to His character.

 

[ironduck]

You are referring to dispensations. When it states "God doesn't change" is referring to His character.

Of course, for an outsider like me who has actually read the book it's pretty obvious that the god described in the OT is entirely different from the one described in the NT (minus the crazy Revelation bit).

 

[Markus6]

Fiction dos not mean untrue.

Just to back this up from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fiction

1. • An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.
   • The act of inventing such a creation or pretense.
2. A lie.
   
3. • A literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact.
   • The category of literature comprising works of this kind, including novels and short stories.
4. Law. Something untrue that is intentionally represented as true by the narrator.

 

[El_Machinae]

You know, I think the term scripture is easily the best word. Scripture contains myths (which may or may not be true) along with direct advice and commandments.

We have more than two words (fiction and non-fiction) to define literature, and I think the Bible deserves an alternate word. Scripture seems to fit.

I don't think that there's anything in the word scripture that requires the scripture to be true. It's merely thought to be true by some.

 

[classical_hero]

Uhm....no he doesnt.

Btw, what is so intolerant in saying "God doesnt change"?

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

 

[El_Machinae]

That can be interpreted to mean that the 4D JC doesn't change along the fifth dimension. Heck, I posit that El_Mac doesn't change along the 5th dimension, is stable in the fourth, and changes in the third.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

This is something I do when trying to make sense of the Bible:

I do believe that the Bible contains, to some degree, God's words. However, I also believe that it contains human influence to a large degree. Now my belief in God's loving nature is much stronger than my belief in the veracity of the Bible. Thus, whenever I come across something that seems to depict God as not loving, I figure it either means that He does love us but that He has to do something that seems harsh, or that (more often) the authors are attributing someone else's cruel actions to God.

It is the same with science. Either the Bible doesn't really contradict science on a given point, or if they really do contradict, then I have to go with science. However, I am willing to accept something in the Bible that science or history hasn't proven as long as it is not directly contradictory.

 

[MobBoss]

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Thanks CH, precisely what I was referring to.

 

[bigfatron]

No, we can't judge God by our standards if He really is higher than us. A teenager can't really judge his parents by his standards either; what seems like being needlessly restrictive will in retrospect often make more sense. If God really has access to more information than we have, then that means that not all of the decisions He makes will make sense to us, but that doesn't mean they are wrong.

We maybe aren't as smart as our parents or know as much - but the moral standards that we and they espouse apply to both equally.

Try bringing up kids on the 'do as I say, not as I do' approach and you will soon run into serious trouble, because they know immediately that you are talking out of your backside.

If there is a true and universal moral code then it applies more, not less, to a wiser and more beneficient being - kids poke eachother's eye and nick eachother's toys, but we learn as we grow that such behaviour is immoral and, if we are moral adults, we refrain from such behaviour, particularly in front of children.

Likewise one of the few logical assumptions you can make about a beneficient God, if he exists, is that he would be more moral than we, not less so.

Following that assumption, you have to conclude that the OT describes a being who is either misrepresented by the text, fictional, or not God.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Actually, sometimes parents will do things that they rationally can forbid their children from doing, such as crossing the street alone. God can do certain things because the consequences would not be as bad for Him. However, I do feel that in general the OT misrepresents Him at least to a degree.