[zorobnice]

Kged, I'm stumped, I really can't think of a simple reply, enjoy your holiday next week, I'm also off today for the next six, school holidays and all. I can't wait to see what is written here, I wish we could get some more people to contribute, we atrophying here, come all you others who look and say nothing, help out poor Kged here.:p

[Miriamele]

Well Zoro surely you've noticed that this thread is up to over 1400 posts...many of us have contributed extensively to this thread, very extensively already! Did you read the whole thing, right from the beginning? If you read the whole thread you'll notice that many of the same arguments have been going around in circles...I suppose some of us are getting tired of this thread (I know I am). Nice to see your enthusiasm, though! :)

[kahnovitch]

We assume that religion's intention was to unite. But in many cases, it was to dominate and control. Fear is a practical means of control. As is guilt. We should talk about the use and abuse of God over the centuries.

Well... true.
I was trying to be nice though Gary.
A lot of religious conversion has been somewhat forced over the millennia and to be honest religions don't look that much different from rival street gangs to me these days.

I'm tired of all the conflict between religions. It seems we haven't learned much as a race in the last two thousand years to still be having these international conflicts over God, who may or may not exist in the first place.

When the human race grows up give me a shout, I'll be in a cave drinking vodka.

[christy]

I just thought about this thing, I don't know if it is right or wrong. When I was little till the the day I had this idea I had a theory that the bible had every that is literally meant to be understood. My family believes that the bible is to be understood in the way it is written from word to word. Now after a while of thinking I seem to inderstand that Bible has symbolic meaning to it. For example: Take the Geneis story of creation, 1 story tells us the creation was done in 7 days while in Chapter 2 they say the creation was done in1 day . Strange!!. Some people believe that Moses wrote books 1-5 in Old Testement. But it's not true because of the creation that I just said . I person can't write 2 theories about creation.

I know this forum is about if the Scripture is a History or Fanatasy, but I still think This topic can be talked about.

[Miriamele]

Christy, there are a large number of Christians who don't take every word in the Bible literally. Many Christians prefer to take it on a symbolic level. Or some believe that it was originally inspired by God but may have gotten errors in it over the years as it was recopied into different translations. Indeed if you really read the Bible carefully it becomes difficult to believe it's literally the "perfect" word of God, because there are some contradictions as you yourself noticed.

[zorobnice]

MMMnnnn **hesitates**
Hi Christy, I don't call myself a scholar, but when looking at the Bible, you must understand how to read it, that is the part that most people don't understand. It is not a story book, it happensto be one of the most complex peices of literature ever written. If you look at a verse in context of the chapter, that chapter in context of the book, and that book in context of the whole Bible. The verse changes its meaning.

There are two major types of teaching when it comes to the Bible, the one is topical (what does the bible say about Creation) the other is Expository (What is the verse saying in relation to the whole Bible. I personally make use of the latter, because then the Bible makes sense to me.

I for many years used to belong to a church that taught topically, this IMO has faults especially when you are teaching people who don't actually read the Bible for themselves.

I will give an example: The topic of healing is often used as a major draw card amongst the more excited facton of christianity (I'm not trying to offend, I'm more relaxed) There are two verses that get bandied about a lot with such a small amount of understanding it makes you ill. The frst one is "By His stripes we are healed", if taken topically it means that one is healed becuase of what Jesus endured on the cross. However, expositry teaching tells us we need to look at the verses before and after, to understand it. If you read the previous chapter it dwells all upon our "iniquity" and that Jesus death gave us forgiveness through Calvary, thus the verse now means because of His stripes we have forgiveness of sins. The other is that when you are sick "Call upon the elders of the church, let them annoint you with oil and you will be healed". If you check this out expoistory style, you will read further that it says by Their (the elders) faith yu will be healed, not your own, thus taking the onus off yourself and the healing being the reslt of the Elders faith. Many a time I have heard people being prayed for and not being healed, ben told that they lacked the faith for their healing HERESY.

I am not sure if this answers your question.
I think Gary will let us know though if we need a new thread to discuss this as apposed to here.

Cheers
Z;)

[Yobmod]

I don't see how an expository reading can explain the type of direct contradictions that Christy is talking about. I can't think of any context that would make 7 days and 1 day mean the same thing. Its not the same as pointing out instances that advise revenge, but taking into account the greater biblical message of forgivness for example, which is were expository readings have a useful place.

The only way i can see a resolution in such cases is by Miriamele suggestions of treating the text symbolically, and acknowledging that there must simply be some mistakes due to translation and transcription.

Or one can just ignore the contradictions, and simply use the parts that one agrees with, which seems to be what most people do.

[zorobnice]

Hey Yobmod, I agree with you, though would like to understand why you say there is a contradiction between the two stories, where does it say that the second episode took place in a day, as I see it, it is two accounts of the same story focusing on two different aspects.

But I must say that unless you do believe that there is a possibility that the Bible is what it claims to be, well then no aint gonna change your mind. I respect your claims to inconsistancies and contradictions, but I think we read it differently.

I have just finished reading the Twind by Gary, and I have to confess, having read his posts, having corresponded with him privately have changed my perceptions of the book. As I read I see some characters, and some of the events as I would imagine Gary would see them, some of the why's are changed because of the discussions on this and other threads.

But I think Gary would agree this thread is not to discuss the validity of the Bible perse, but to ask the question of is Scripture: History or Fantasy?
Shoot me now Yobmod, I've got nerves of steel. :p

[christy]

sorry, This is the only forum that I could find that people talk anything about Bible. Sorry Gary, if I posted the forum in wrong thread.

[Gary Wassner]

No, it's not a forum to discuss the validity of Scripture. It's valid if it's meaningful to you. But it is a forum to discuss our views on Scripture. And it is a forum that allows you to express them without having to tow any particular line. I don't think that anyone, throughout the long history of this thread, has ever said that Scripture was not an attempt to teach. The question has been all along, is it factual?

Books that endure for so long must strike home in some serious way. Das Kapital appealed to many, Mein Kampf appealed to many, The Holy Bible appealed to many, The Koran, The Bhagavad Gita, The Analects, THe Upanishads, The Veda, Tao-te-ching etc etc.

They tell very different stories, some redeeming, some not quite so. They all claim a certain degree of truth, certainly some more than others. Yet Christians dismiss all but Scripture and vice/versa in most cases. They can't all be true. They can't all tell us different 'facts' about creation, about the history of the world.

We can learn good things from just about anything. Why must the things we learn depend upon the historical authenticity of the circumstances? Is it pride that tells us we need to hold the only truth? Or foolishness?