Questions on the bible

[ACubed]

Hello all, back again as have had some thoughts on my mind lately , would love any thoughts on this.

If God is omnipotent why would he need to ask people things (Adam for example) or test people's faith?

If he does love us, again why test the faith?

This leads on to: if the bible is the true word of God, why would he go out of his way to get things wrong - for example saying that there are two lights on the sky which go around the earth. Surely god could have told us the earth goes round the sun. It's like he's going out of his way to convince people the things written are not true.

Does anyone's know Of any creation stories which say the earth is round and orbits the sun?

This is worth a read - assuming you really want to know how a theist may answer your quote:
https://carm.org/epicurus-god-willing-to-prevent-evil

Thanks for all the responses everyone, some really interesting ones.
Regarding the trails we go through in life, I feel that the serious ones do not make people better, for example people who have been sexually abused as children often go on to abuse. How many of the child refugees in Syria will develop mental health problems and perhaps get involved with terrorist groups as teenagers?
I feel that in the old days people did take the whole bible literally, and it's only recently when we've educated ourselves and it all sounds insane that we now say it's an allegory.
There is a passage which says two lights are put in the sky - the moon is not a light, and I feel the way It is written does strongly imply that they both orbit the earth, just as people of the time used to believe.
Perhaps in two hundred years people will view the New Testament as allegorical also!

And thanks fresh start, I read it - interesting about the definition of evil! What would you define it as? I'd say malice would be involved, and definitive flooding an entire planet

And wildly off-topic but while we're chatting - of alien life was discovered would that affect anyone's faith in any way? Not talking about having doubts of losing faith, just thinking about the universe differently

The problem is that people in the past didn't take the Bible literally however much you want them to. The past is a big place. From the early fathers of the church to the reformation there was a whole system for reading the Bible based on different types of reading from the spiritual to the literal called the Quadriga. If the past is the last four hundred years and post reformation then there is a greater emphasis on the plain sense meaning of scripture but anyone who studies the Bible knows that only gets you so far. I was in two Bible studies last week and we were discussing the culture of the time, the geography of the region, narrative style and systematic theology as well as what it might mean for us today. Both passages were from the NT.

I feel that in the old days people did take the whole bible literally, and it's only recently when we've educated ourselves and it all sounds insane that we now say it's an allegory.

That's not so. As Greenheart already said, literal reading of the Bible is a relatively recent thing. In the fourth century St Augustine (ie one of the greatest and most influential theologians in the history of Christianity) wrote a book about the interpretation of Genesis. In it, he said that only foolish people try to interpret it literally and that Genesis 1 is clearly not meant as a description of how the world was created. He said that it is an allegory about God and the world. Not only do the vast majority of Christians now read Genesis 1-2 allegorically, they have always done so.

Even earlier than Augustine (whom I love), Origen (crossover 2nd-3rd centuries) was a beautiful example of an allegorical interpreter. It was the universal norm amongst all the Church Fathers and throughout the medieval period, i.e. for all of Christian history (and Jewish tradition as well, earlier and concurrently) until around the 18th Century, even the early centuries of the reformed Church didn't really think it an issue, although they did want to get back to the meaning of the Bible rather than layers of tradition. Luther, for example, was not a literalist. Origen even thinks (this is not a view to which I would necessarily subscribe, I'm just showing what was around in the 3rd century) that some parts of the Bible are deliberately ridiculous on a literal level to emphasise that they're not meant to be taken literally.

The Bible authors themselves use allegorical interpretation to gloss other parts of the Bible, most notably Paul in Galatians on Abraham's children.

And Perhaps in two hundred years people will view the New Testament as allegorical also! misunderstands the nature of interpretation since the beginning. Passages in both the Old and New Testaments have always been interpreted allegorically. Which exactly they are has been subject to debate but it is certainly not the case that the whole of the OT is thrown out as 'allegorical' and every word of the NT is factually true. I use those words only because I can't think of a better short way to express it, obviously the idea that allegorical is somehow less true than literal is wrong.

I have a slight concern that revelations talks about various different churches. I know these churches were actual churches in the day they were written, but they also represent future churches too. One of the churches is the Laodicean church, which was neither hot nor cold. It seems to me looking around today many questions compromise, water down the Bible, and are lukewarm. Part of this may be to jog along with whatever is the popular teaching of the day, to fit in with society's norms. But it's a dangerous game to play if you move so far away from the Bible that you leave behind its original and true meaning. Many people I know, don't want to study out the Bible (too much hard work) and so they shrug their shoulders and just accept which ever voice is the loudest around them, a type of spiritual apathy. Others, profess to study the Bible, but do you say from the viewpoint of compromise right from the start. They do not deviate from that compromise, with a further compromise and add compromise to compromise, and you can see where I'm going with that!

I may be rare, but I am intelligent, I am rational, and I also hold fast to the bible in the true sense, where it is meant to be Literal, not in the places it is meant to be clearly allegory/parable.

Fresh, of course there has to be balance when considering where and when to interpret the Bible as being literal and factual versus where and when to interpret it more symbolically and allegorically. A bias for either means of interpretation can easily lead to a great deal of misunderstanding.

So then the next obvious question would be, 'How is a person able to discern which type of interpretation is appropriate?'.

There are academic methods, such as looking at historical context, context within the text, comparing one passage with others, consensus, church traditions, Biblical archeology and there are more spiritual methods such as prayer and contemplation and acting on what feels correct through personal conviction.

Two Bible passages I have found helpful, to keep in mind, when considering these types of questions are Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 13.

The fact that the Bible can be interpreted differently by different people does not really concern me though. It seems right considering we are all individuals, with individual biases, coming from different starting points so we will learn and grow in our faith differently to one another.

There are academic methods, such as looking at historical context, context within the text, comparing one passage with others, consensus, church traditions, Biblical archeology and there are more spiritual methods such as prayer and contemplation and acting on what feels correct through personal conviction.

This is almost exactly what Luther taught. He called them exterior and interior methods.

That's interesting about Augustine. I don't want people of the past to have taken it literally at all, i'm just interested in people and what they believe. Will write more later, back to work!

"Don't forget, they lived much longer than we do today..."

No. No they didn't.

In other words, it looks good, but it doesn't stand up.

But it does stand up without your ridiculous faith based additions.

Just, you have not said why you find the additions niminy posted about 'ridiculous' - which is quite ironic, really, since something which is 'ridiculous' is stupidly and laughably without reason.

No. No they didn't

That's a strong opinion, what's your proof?

Fresh I think the archaeological evidence shows that lifespans are considerably longer now than in ancient times.

Just it would be good to see you using reasoned argument. I wonder if you can say why you think as you do? Even if you don't agree with my criticism of the trilemma, that it contains the fallacy of the undistributed middle, the criticisms contained in the link Fresh posted about the non-definition of terms should be considered.

Well as usual there are two sides to the story. Pre-flood old age is supported in the secular literature of several ancient cultures (including the Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Indians, and Chinese).

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/genealogy/did-adam-and-noah-really-live-over-900-years/

Fresh I have to say you and I are on rather different pages theologically.

Fresh- are you a Young Earth Creationist?

If the way the Earth is is God's will, why are we punished for things we do wrong?

fresh could you tell us of these "secular" sources?

Well as usual there are two sides to the story

If they're stories, yes. In this case, they're a set of ancient stories on the one hand (and as wiki shows, en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity_myths people have been reported with unfeasibly long lives in 'postdeluvian' times, so all that unsubstantiated pseudoscientific guff doesn't work). On the other hand there is archaeological evidence.

Fresh I think your comment about the Laodicean church may be unfair. I'm not saying there are no Christians/ churches like you describe, but if the implication is that people who take less of the Bible literally are necessarily less committed Christians and that the process of interpretation had made them 'compromise' their faith then I don't think that's true. It wasn't explicitly what you said and it may not be what you meant, but that's what I thought you were getting at (apologies if not). Basically, one can be a 100% dedicated Christian and not a literalist.

Fresh, I read the link - not sure if really answers anything though, it just basically confirms that people used to live to nearly 1000 years but with no evidence. I understand that you wouldn't feel you need evidence though as your faith just requires you to read the Bible. So I guess agree to disagree!
Let's move on to some other things, I don't want it to get nasty.
I'm no expert but I understand some books from the bible were removed and are no longer followed, do you know anything about this? Also how do you feel about the Book of Mormon, would you count that as part of the bible, and if not why not?
And this to everyone - if Jesus came back now would anyone believe him? Many people have claimed to be the second coming but they usually end up in mental health institutions.

And thanks to everyone for responding - I think about religion a lot but there's no one in my life I can ask these questions to.
For the record I would say I'm an atheist but couldn't say for sure some conscious force did not create the Big Bang so maybe technically in an agnostic? I quite like reading theories that our universe is an AI simulation - I wonder if that would count as a religion if you worshipped The Programmer ?