Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Have started reading the bible again from the beginning

112 replies

NeverKnowinglyUnderstood · 02/01/2013 13:41

am mightily confused about some things to do with the God in whom I believe.

anyone want to try to help with some of my questions?

OP posts:
KayHarker · 03/01/2013 23:53

I have no problem saying the bible is wrong and erroneous. But I'm not really a Christian anymore anyway.

thegreenheartofmanyroundabouts · 04/01/2013 08:59

Does anyone have another explanation?

The book of Genesis contains a series of myths and legends. Many of the creation myths of the ancient world were violent but in the one in the Bible God speaks the world into existance. In the Genesis creation story God creates the great sea monsters (chapter 1 v 21) and these sea monsters were some of the gods in the neighbouring region's religions a point is being made about the God of Genesis being the one true God.

The book of Genesis also has the story of Adam and Eve which is an attempt to make sense of why there is suffering in the world. Then you have the story of the flood which occurs in many legends in the region and suggests that there was a localised large flood event in that part of the world. Another story in Genesis is of the tower of Babel which is, in part, a way of explaining why there are lots of different languages in the world.

Genesis isn't history and it isn't science. It is foundational myth and legend.

CoteDAzur · 04/01/2013 09:02

Was it not obvious that I was referring specifically to the "7-day creation" story of Genesis?

CoteDAzur · 04/01/2013 09:03

"the story of Adam and Eve which is an attempt to make sense of why there is suffering in the world"

Really? I thought it was an attempt to make sense of how humans came to populate the Earth.

So why is there suffering in the world?

JakeBullet · 04/01/2013 09:53

The 7 day creation is a myth IMHO.....and was people thousands of years ago trying to make sense of their world.

Is it wrong? In seven days absolutely wrong (again just my opinion based in evolution). Did it happen in the order described.....possibly....not read Genesis in a long while so am not any expert on it.

Human suffering.....humans make stupid decisions along with good ones......sometimes the stupid decisions mean they suffer.

FWIW I have never believed in a magic man in the sky. For me God is the all encompassing spiritual essence. Do I think a man could have been born out of that? Yes I do and I believe that man was Jesus.

I am so NOT the right person to ask a out Genesis though. I will try and find a link to some of the more intelligent folk out there who do know about this stuff.

Avuncular · 04/01/2013 10:56

Hey can we please have some more IMOs or MUITs ('My Understanding Is That' here)?

Sounds as though you were all there as first - hand witnesses to the whole thing. Remember - the 'children' are listening in ....... even if they don't join.

Then we might actually make some useful progress.

Otherwise we'll just go round in circles. A quick midnight survey suggested that this has all been covered recently in other threads .... sometimes by the same people?

Coming back to one of Cote's earlier questions - 'asking people why they believe in God'. I'm up for that if you'll all be kind about it ......

KayHarker · 04/01/2013 11:10

I still believe there is some kind of spiritual essence beyond what we understand, and I suppose that is God. There is still so much we don't humanly understand, and I think the bible is part and parcel of that human need to try and find out what is beyond us.

HolofernesesHead · 04/01/2013 11:11

NeverKnowingly, I hope you enjoy your Bible reading! The one thing I'd say (as a veteran of more than one long Bible MN thread!) is, bear in mind that it wasn't written in the same order that it now has it in the Bibles we read - weidly, Genesis 1 may well have been among the latest bits of the Old Testament to have been written. So there's a lot of development of thought, belief etc. Also bear in mind that it was written by lots of different people - impossible to say exactly how many. So as well as development of ideas through time, there is also genuine difference of thought between writers / editors, or difference of interpretation of events (e.g. one writer might think that Pharaoh hardened his heart, another might think that Pharoah's heart was hardened because God hardened it) / different emphasis on what s important in a particular situation.

If you get these basic co-ordinates in mind - long development of ideas through time, not in the same order we see on the page, and difference of emphasis, interpretation and opinion between writers, them it becomes much more interesting, much more plausible (IMHO) and much more fun. There are some great introductory books on the historical background to the Bible - I'd definitely recommnd you to read one of them as well as reading the Bible itself.

Or you could just enjoy the stories, the poetry, the prophecies, the wisdom....it's a treasure trove. Enjoy! Smile

thegreenheartofmanyroundabouts · 04/01/2013 17:10

And don't forget that there are two creation stories in Genesis. One in chapter one and another in chapter two. It seems likely that whoever put the book of Genesis together had two versions to hand and decided to keep both. Unpicking who wrote or edited what and when and where is endlessly entertaining if you are into that sort of thing!

If I've upset anyone on this thread by not using MUIT then I apologise. The abbreviation I'm most used to using is YMMV Your Mileage May Vary which is designed to convey that although I express certain opinions then I understand that your experience is different and I respect that.

It would be good to have a civilised debate

Avuncular · 04/01/2013 17:52

With you on that, Kay

AMumInScotland · 04/01/2013 18:02

Cote I don't believe in a 6-day creation, but I equally don't think that the Creation stories in Genesis are "wrong", any more than one would define the story of the boy who cried wolf as "wrong" even though a time machine could prove conclusively that it didn't happen. I don't think it was ever intended to be the kind of account about which right/wrong/true/false are meaningful concepts.

It was a story, told around the campfire, which illustrated important things which they believed about the world, their place in it, and their relationship to their God. I believe they would be happy to hear about the Big Bang, evolution, dinosaurs, and any manner of other things which we know about and they didn't, but none of that would necessarily change the "story" that they told - that a single God deliberately created the world, in order to have a relationship with self-aware people.

The idea that the earliest campfire stories in the Bible were intended to be taken as literal descriptions is a modern interpretation, they just weren't intended to be taken that way.

niminypiminy · 04/01/2013 21:15

Genesis - and then following on from that Exodus - are the foundational myths of the nation of Israel as they came to see themselves over many centuries. Some of the material in Genesis is very old indeed, and some is much more recent, relatively speaking. The text as we know it now was compiled, edited and re-written over several centuries as the concept of a sacred scripture and its place in the religious life of Israel took shape. The stories were reshaped as the religion of Israel changed and developed.

It makes no kind of sense to see them as an account of 'what happened'. They are clearly not to be taken literally or understood as narrating actual natural or historical events. The textual history of the Bible alone would make that impossible.

Still, I believe they are true in another sense. They are a true record of the way that the people of Israel saw their relationship to God, and their place in the cosmos, and of the answers they formulated to fundamental questions such as 'why are we here?', 'how should we live?', 'why is there suffering?', 'what is right and what is wrong?'. But those answers are given through illustrative stories - parables or myths, if you like - that have to be interpreted to yield their meaning. From the earliest times of the compilation of scripture, the study and interpretation of scripture has been its essential corollary. It should be remembered that Judaism has an extant tradition of biblical scholarship dating back to the Old Testament period.

Stories tell us truths of a different kind from history or science. If you want to know 'why is life so sad', or 'what is the yearning for something I can't name inside me', or 'why do I do wrong when I don't mean to', or 'how can I have hope', then history or science will be of little help to you. Stories, on the other hand, speak directly to these kind of questions. And the stories in the Old Testament, for my money, have some particularly true - and challenging, and comforting, and testing, and uncomfortable - truths to tell us.

weegiemum · 04/01/2013 21:20

I recently got my theology degree (dh and I did it together after we were (him) doctor and (me) teacher).

Nothing like 3 years at an evangelical bible college to turn you into a raving liberal!!

Ask away!!

CoteDAzur · 04/01/2013 22:57

" I equally don't think that the Creation stories in Genesis are "wrong", any more than one would define the story of the boy who cried wolf as "wrong" "

Are you saying the Bible (or Genesis in particular) is fiction?

CoteDAzur · 04/01/2013 22:59

"Human suffering.....humans make stupid decisions along with good ones......sometimes the stupid decisions mean they suffer."

Are you saying that it was a stupid decision for Adam & Eve to seek knowledge?

NeverKnowinglyUnderstood · 04/01/2013 23:06

Hi all thanks for the discussion. Had lengthy discussion with very evangelical Christian and she was eager for me to trust and not to try to understand too much... That has made me really quite frustrated

OP posts:
NeverKnowinglyUnderstood · 04/01/2013 23:09

Also..... Surely it is important if you are going to be/identify with Christianity you should understand its roots

OP posts:
JakeBullet · 04/01/2013 23:20

Definitely worth understanding the roots .....and an acceptance that there will be conflicts.

I have not done anywhere near enough Bible study to answer stuff knowledgeably. And Tbh I find the Old Testament very hard going.

Evangelical stuff is as bad as the hard right Creationist stuff.

ForkInTheForeheid · 04/01/2013 23:22

What I don't get is how people can accept the fallibility of the bible and its place within a historical context, yet still use it as a "holy" book, the ot at least. At least if you consider the bible the literal word of God you're coming from a relatively consistent position. I consider myself an agnostic atheist, I.e. I can't possibly know for sure that there is no god but I don't believe in the existence of one. My values are probably closely matched to the message of tolerance, love and care for our fellow humans, I just don't see the need for a deity to hook that in to. I have no problem with Christianity and spirituality but I do have a problem with hte dogma that goes along with adherence to a text that is self contradictory and lacking in acceptance of the diversity of humanity. In a nutshell, presuming god exists, what would be seen as more important in his/her judgment of you - the way you treat your fellow humans or your knowledge and understanding of historical theology? If the latter then not a god worth believing in IMO.
Op, your discovery of the inherent contradictions within the bible should do nothing to affect your faith, it is man-made historical document. Your personal faith is down to your own mind and nothing else, again IMO.

Avuncular · 05/01/2013 00:00

OP I love the story of 'Doubting Thomas' (John 20:25).

Poor chap, he wasn't there when the other disciples saw Jesus alive again after being crucified.

Thomas was so down to earth, practical. Perhaps he had been away on some important errand when Jesus met the others?

Anyway, Thomas insisted on hard evidence for himself. Christ honoured and respected that.

Some had then (and have today) the gift of 'faith' without seeing first-hand. But Jesus recognised Thomas' individuality and appeared graciously to help Thomas with the information he needed. I agree with you totally that we should explore the basis of our faith as far as we are able. And not flinch at the issues it throws up.

I think I know the type of 'evangelical lady' you are talking about.

Yes the central message of Christianity is so simple that a young child can understand it.
[One of our DCs grew into it from an early age, but others had to come to a definite examination of what it was all about, and what the implications were for them and their future lives.]

But when we grow up, we have a duty, I believe, to explore as far as our intellect, and time, allow. This thread is helping me with that. Thank you.

NeverKnowinglyUnderstood · 05/01/2013 00:13

Will post more tomorrow when i am not on my phone

OP posts:
sashh · 05/01/2013 05:40

BTW I assume your comments about translations are intended to apply to the NT, not the OT

Sorry, when I said nothing was written down until 70AD, obviously I was thinking NT but the OT has, also been translated and retranslated.

Some versions of the OT have unicrons listed as being on the Ark, some don't. I think that is due to an issue of translation.

If you ask someone to list all the animals they can think of they are going to start with the familiar ones and for some time unicorns were believed to exist.

There is also the true meaning of a word. If we take the English word 'bread' it can easily be translated into other languages as 'bread' but if I say I made a ham sandwich with bread you will, likley, think of white sliced bread, a french person would quite possibly think of a bagette.

Even within the same language a 'house' in the UK is normally two or three stories. To my Astralian relatives a house is 99% of the time a single story building.

There are a number of ways to translate things, I thinkk we are all familiar with literal translations but there are also cultural translations, these rely on the translator's knowledge of both the culture of the origional writer and that of the intended audience.

Cultural translations often include extras for the reader, so in the bread example above, translating into French a cultural translation for a modern audience might include that an 'English sandwich, made as usual with slices of a large loaf of bread', because most French people are aware that we in Britain eat sliced bread.

For an audience 100 years ago the translation may well have not had that caveat as French people were not used to, or had never seen that kind of bread so it would raise more questions than answers.

Did that make sense.

Obviously this is all comming from a linguistic point of view, not a spiritual one.

HolofernesesHead · 05/01/2013 08:37

Sashh, interesting post. Have you read 'Christianity Rediscovered' by Vincent Donovan? He was a missionary in Africa and talks about the process of translating the Bible into a tribal African language.

Re unicorns; where did you learn this? In the two versions of the flood story we have in Gen. 6 -9, the animals aren't listed, just the types of animals; do where are unicorns specified? And do you know which textual variant it is that has it? I guess it's not a very well attested translation, or it'd be better attested. Do you have any more info on it? (There is, of course, the famous unicorn / Noah's Ark joke) :)

AntoinetteCosway · 05/01/2013 08:55

Greenheart you mentioned God choosing a people being quite a radical idea for the time-and it made me wonder...if God created ALL peoples then why did he choose the Israelites? Was everyone else on the planet too sinful? It seems rather mean...

(I'm a woolly Christian but this has never really occurred to me before Blush)

AntoinetteCosway · 05/01/2013 09:04

I mean, I understand why for the Israelites they'd want to believe they were chosen, but what is the Christian consensus about why they were chosen? Are we meant to believe the Jews were better/more important to God than everyone else on earth? Because if so then why the switch to Jesus dying for us all?

I am coming at this from a super liberal 'God loves everyone, all religions are essentially the same as your faith has a huge amount to do with where you're born and what culture you're raised in, everyone's equal' point of view.