• In total there are 5 users online :: 2 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 709 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 1:09 am

The Bible. Myth or Reality?

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: The Bible. Myth or Reality?

Unread post

t_w_smith_2015 wrote:Hi Flann-5: You are of course correct that we can take the literal words of any parable and apply a lesson based on our current perceptions to our current circumstances but in retort I’ll ask you how many times you’ve heard something perfection innocent offered which is met with hostility because the other person’s experiences brought to mind something completely different. A prime example of this is the swastika. It was used perfectly innocently by many religions for a long time before Hitler rose to power and yet now most people can’t look at it without a negative reaction. This is the result of taking a literal interpretation of something based solely on the here and now. As for an example of the Bible taking on new meaning by identifying conditions of the time, I’ll quote Genesis because it fits well into the topic of myth vs reality:
“And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day”
Obviously the greater light is the sun and the lesser light is the moon and the firmament is Heaven. Today we know that the Firmament is space and it’s not readily clear why they didn’t just say the sun and the moon. As it happens, the sun and moon represented gods and goddesses in many “pagan” religions and thus it was inappropriate to reference them in conjunction with “the true god”. (my use of quotes in no way represents my own believe but are rather used for emphasis) If you understand that the culture at that time wasn’t able to perceive space for what it was, you realize that our culture, being technologically advanced, must see beyond their limited knowledge to perceive Heaven; that or deny Heaven as a myth because clearly space is not the firmament of the Bible.
Further, if we don’t understand the reference to “lesser” religions, as viewed by Christianity, then we must assume that the arrogance of the devout distorted the lessons of the Bible or again deny the word of God as a myth. On the other hand, acknowledge that Christianity was gracious enough to recognize the existence and relative importance of other religions, per the tolerance of Christ, then the reality of God and the importance of the word of God are still viable and important.
Hi again t-w-smith. Thanks for your explanation here. I may not fully grasp your arguments here so correct me if I misunderstand you at any point.
I think it's a reasonable point that something may have a different meaning for different people at various times.
I agree with you that in the Genesis example the expression the greater and lesser light are used rather than sun and moon for the reasons you mentioned to do with paganism.
As you say we still "obviously" know that this is what these lights are referring to so we do understand it's the sun and moon.
We may not know the cultural info on paganism but I think if we read on in the book we see this conflict between monotheism and paganism and could deduce from this that this is the reason for this expression as you rightly say.
In fact in the gospels and elsewhere in the bible we often get incidental explanatory comments by the writer on cultural practices of the time and of particular groups such as Pharisees,Samaritans, Gentiles and Jews.
The conflict between Jews and Samaritans for instance is mentioned and the roots of it are found in old testament narratives.
We may not have read this earlier narrative but we still can grasp the concept of racial and religious conflict.
To get back to your example from Genesis. In the very first verse it says that God created the heavens and the earth using the plural so it's not considered one place and seems to imply further spaces for want of a better word.
Even we with the naked eye can see on a clear night that the stars are far beyond the clouds certainly but very distant and so could they I'm sure.
So I'm not sure that the firmament means low in the sky and in fact I believe a good translation is the expanse rather than vault. So while of course they neither had telescopes nor our knowledge of space I think the distance of the stars would have been understood well enough if imperfectly.
I'm not completely clear on your point about denying Heaven so you may need to expand on this. Of course God is portrayed to exist separate from the creation so didn't live in any part of it prior to it's creation and while heaven is said to be his dwelling place this could not logically be part of this creation but another domain and God is spirit of course so language is often used anthropomorphically to accommodate our understanding.
Perhaps I am making your case for you here but I think this just involves reflection on what is actually said.
We can understand the essential points that God is the creator and made the sun and moon without too much difficulty.
On the point of "lesser religions."
I'm not into bashing other religions for the fun it.They get enough of that from others. I did give Gnostic Bishop some grief today about his but I think perhaps that was provoked. Still I think that Judeo-Christianity is quite unique in it's understanding of God and this inevitably conflicts with pagan religions as there are definitional realities as to who or what God actually is involving the distinction between God and the creation.
Maybe I've missed your points here and I wasn't quite clear in my mind on some of them so you can correct and clarify if necessary.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Wed May 27, 2015 5:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: The Bible. Myth or Reality?

Unread post

Gnostic Bishop wrote:When I use terms like “I am God”, or “you are God”, I am not speaking of the traditional miracle working God of scriptures and myths. He does not exist as far as we can know as he has never made an appearance to prove his reality.

What I am trying to convey to you by saying that you are a God in your own right is to be master of yourself and you need not be a sheep. You can, as Jesus says, pick up your burdens and responsibilities for your sins and follow his mind set. Be a shepherd. Lead by example.

What I am trying to convey is that the only God you can ever know is the good you find within yourself.
The thing is Bishop that you are redefining the meaning of the word God here. It already has a well understand meaning for the vast majority of people.
How many think that the word God means "the good you find within yourself?" This has it's own meaning and I would challenge you to produce any dictionary definition of God that agrees with your definition.
You have also spoken of your "apotheosis." This too has a well defined and understood meaning so you are using well understood language and then upbraiding me for taking the obvious meaning of these things and pretending they mean something like finding the good within yourself which they by definition don't.
Gnostic Bishop wrote:That is not the same as worshipping myself.

Pay attention to how that works and you will not have to raise my anger by lying.
You need to pay attention to the actual meaning and definition of the words you use Bishop.
Incidentally, where in the gospel did Jesus say "pick up your burdens and responsibilities for your sins?"
Your pal Timothy Freke in the video you linked and apparently endorse, from what looks like an upmarket padded cell claims Jesus didn't exist so presumably never said anything!
Last edited by Flann 5 on Wed May 27, 2015 6:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
t_w_smith_2015
Getting Comfortable
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun May 24, 2015 9:01 pm
8
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: The Bible. Myth or Reality?

Unread post

Flann-5: You’re right. Firmament is earlier in Genesis and not part of my quote – my apologies for using the wrong word. By implication, however, the dome representing space being part of the creation of earth and heaven is indeed Heaven, where the lesser light “rules” the stars; thus making space God's home. My point was that we now know this is not true because we can see and measure a great deal of the space around us so unless God chooses not to be found, which considering the folly of humanity may not be so unreasonable, this myth has been busted. So we must choose either not to believe or accept that there is something beyond that which religion misunderstood. Myth or reality.
Again, you are mostly correct; "we are able to grasp “a” (one of many) meaning(s) of racial and religious conflict" but like the Hatfields and the McCoys, do we really understand why we are fighting or are we blindly going where our ancestors have gone before us? This is a key to my point. One can of course make whatever assumptions they want about scripture and the lessons of the Disciples but the conclusions or the resulting beliefs will, unless due diligence is given, be based solely on current experiences and thus may, in fact inevitably are, quite a far reach from what was originally intended. For example, have you ever heard a news station repeat a small part of a political speech, just enough to make the candidate sound either very good or very bad depending on the political agenda? Yet when you listen to the entire speech and hear it in context, you realize that what you understood from the media's misrepresentation was completely different than what was actually presented. The lessons of the Bible are no different. When taken out of context, they can take on new meaning; or worse, a life of their own. Without the "context" of the culture and beliefs of the time, it's almost impossible to truly grasp the intended meaning of the message you are receiving and because our brains tend to fill in the blanks in our comprehension with our own imagination; in effect this is creating a new message rather than receiving the original.
A possible and indeed controversial example of this is Levictus: “Thou shalt not lay with mankind as with womankind”. The popular interpretation of this is that homosexuality is an abomination. Another possible interpretation of this, as implied elsewhere in the Bible, is that sodomy is an abomination – also supported by the fact that the culture of the time was solely male dominated to the degree that women were considered property rather than people. Our society, having grabbed our torches and pitchforks in rise against a deviation of our cultural beliefs (which had been around for ages but for some reason became more prevalent of simply upset the wrong person), have chosen the former (presumably because it suits the current cause) but is this a mark of the actual meaning or have we as a people simply failed to consider the banes of the culture that wrote that phrase? Such assumptions, after all, are really just guesses until allegedly all the facts have been considered … and even then there is sometimes room for debate or worse for agenda. In the memorable words of the Moody Blues, “red is gray and yellow, white, but we decide which is right and which is an illusion.”
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: The Bible. Myth or Reality?

Unread post

I agree with your perspective on relativity--that the prouncements of the Bible need to be considered relative to the culture of the times. The barrier between me and devout believers is they feel, to a large degree, that God has made irrelevant any notion of limitation due to the particular societal conditions of the times. He spoke outside of time and space with an authority valid for eternity.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: The Bible. Myth or Reality?

Unread post

t_w_smith_2015 wrote:Flann-5: You’re right. Firmament is earlier in Genesis and not part of my quote – my apologies for using the wrong word. By implication, however, the dome representing space being part of the creation of earth and heaven is indeed Heaven, where the lesser light “rules” the stars; thus making space God's home. My point was that we now know this is not true because we can see and measure a great deal of the space around us so unless God chooses not to be found, which considering the folly of humanity may not be so unreasonable, this myth has been busted. So we must choose either not to believe or accept that there is something beyond that which religion misunderstood. Myth or reality.
Hi t-w. I don't dispute that the biblical narratives are set in different times and cultures to ours and that understanding these cultures aids our understanding of these writings.
I think this can be overstated. For example the language of the gospel of John and the words of Jesus are surprisingly simple and it's no surprise that we are told that the ordinary people heard Jesus gladly.We also as I said have explanatory comments by the authors on cultural aspects which suggests the intent of communicating these things to Gentiles unfamiliar with the Jewish religious and social culture.
Granted these writings as all writings are subject to interpretation and we do get different interpretations of various passages for diverse reasons.
Most like the gospels are readily understandable but there are obscure passages where things are not as clear.
Not just to be pedantic but to clarify, the sun and moon are said to rule the day and night and are not said to rule the stars and I don't see how this creation has to be God's home.
If in the beginning as stated God created the heavens and the earth he pre-existed it and did so elsewhere. Also the biblical God is described as Spirit and not physical or material. The Russian cosmonaut who commented that he didn't find God in his space travels is basically dissing a strawman. He couldn't have seen God by definition.
We find the quite startling statement in scripture, of God saying "No man can see my face and live."
And accounts in the bible of the revelation of God to various degrees show a rather overwhelming experience as standard.
If there is an inherent glory in the vastness of space the galaxies and the natural order there is greater and profounder in the being of the creator himself.
The biblical God transcends creation but is also omnipresent so occupies it also.
As is well known Christianity claims that God entered his creation in the incarnation of Jesus Christ so from that perspective God was revealing rather than hiding himself from humanity.
I accept that this to some extent is a matter of faith but not without reasons historically and experientially from those who hold it.
User avatar
Gnostic Bishop
Just realized BookTalk.org is awesome!
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 12:36 pm
9
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: The Bible. Myth or Reality?

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote:
Gnostic Bishop wrote:When I use terms like “I am God”, or “you are God”, I am not speaking of the traditional miracle working God of scriptures and myths. He does not exist as far as we can know as he has never made an appearance to prove his reality.

What I am trying to convey to you by saying that you are a God in your own right is to be master of yourself and you need not be a sheep. You can, as Jesus says, pick up your burdens and responsibilities for your sins and follow his mind set. Be a shepherd. Lead by example.

What I am trying to convey is that the only God you can ever know is the good you find within yourself.
The thing is Bishop that you are redefining the meaning of the word God here. It already has a well understand meaning for the vast majority of people.
How many think that the word God means "the good you find within yourself?" This has it's own meaning and I would challenge you to produce any dictionary definition of God that agrees with your definition.
You have also spoken of your "apotheosis." This too has a well defined and understood meaning so you are using well understood language and then upbraiding me for taking the obvious meaning of these things and pretending they mean something like finding the good within yourself which they by definition don't.
Gnostic Bishop wrote:That is not the same as worshipping myself.

Pay attention to how that works and you will not have to raise my anger by lying.
You need to pay attention to the actual meaning and definition of the words you use Bishop.
Incidentally, where in the gospel did Jesus say "pick up your burdens and responsibilities for your sins?"
Your pal Timothy Freke in the video you linked and apparently endorse, from what looks like an upmarket padded cell claims Jesus didn't exist so presumably never said anything!
Correct. We see Jesus as a mythical archetypal good man. You might have noted that his reality is still hotly contested.

I do not really care if he was real or not and look for any wisdom that the ancients put in his mouth. You might also note that scriptures has more than one Jesus in it because of the consolidation of good man archetypal wisdom that they tried to put in scriptures.

As to my redefining the word God. Sure. I do so because modern people have forgotten what that word meant to the ancients who mostly saw it as a man.

Google Divine Council. You should also know that the ancient Emperors of the ancient world also declared themselves to be Gods and their sons the sons of God.

As to Jesus telling us to follow him instead of ridding him as a scapegoat.

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearc ... chtype=all

Regards
DL
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: The Bible. Myth or Reality?

Unread post

Gnostic Bishop wrote:We see Jesus as a mythical archetypal good man. You might have noted that his reality is still hotly contested.
You have a schizoid approach here. At times you try to present Jesus as a mythical archetypal bad man and at other times good. You in your infinite wisdom pick and choose according to your personal taste.
Hotly contested by who? You? Timothy Freke? Don't make me laugh.
Gnostic Bishop wrote:As to my redefining the word God. Sure. I do so because modern people have forgotten what that word meant to the ancients who mostly saw it as a man.
There's no difference between a God and a man then? Not according to the Hebrew bible and that goes back to very ancient times.
If the ancients thought Gods were men what were they sacrificing animals to,each other?
Did they think the farmer in the next field being God could control the weather so they sacrificed to each other?
Even these pagan religions understood the limitations of man and did not think such absurdities.
t_w_smith_2015
Getting Comfortable
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun May 24, 2015 9:01 pm
8
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: The Bible. Myth or Reality?

Unread post

Flann-5: Not quite right. "[1:16] God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night - and the stars." I agree with you that it space beyond the "vault" doesn't have to be God's home but that has historically been the dominant interpretation, as best as I've learned, from Catholicism to Orthodoxy; hence "looking up to the heavens" and averting your eyes to the ground. I really don't want to get so caught up in minute details even if the details you have offered are very interesting. You make very good points but the simple fact is that we apply our own experiences to supplement our lack of understanding with contemporary experience when interpreting that which we are "learning" and that at best distorts the original message.
To be quite honest with you, the comment about God wanting to hide from humanity was written in jest, not based on any historical or biblical reference. Sorry for any confusion. Further, I'm not talking about seeing God's face, I'm talking about believing and in light of the "advancements" of humanity, we now know, or think we know, that certain criteria set forth by the Bible simply aren't accurate (of course this "knowledge" may be the cause of our eviction from Eden in the first place and perhaps even a symptom of our inherent sin). Of course this isn't surprising considering that at one time the great minds of religion knew beyond any shadow of any doubt that the earth was flat. Even more, some rites like killing a woman for attending a religious ritual when she is "unclean" (Levictus I believe) simply can't happen anymore so at best people are forced to either selectively adhere to the teachings of the Bible or be incarcerated. I appreciate your devotion to scripture and indeed I'm not arguing against faith but I haven't seen anything yet that disproves my initial assertion; that without the proper context, time and place and beliefs etc, the intended meaning of scripture is potentially (probably) lost to the drama or politics dominating society at that moment in time. Also, before things go any further, allow me to thank you for a wonderful debate.
User avatar
Gnostic Bishop
Just realized BookTalk.org is awesome!
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 12:36 pm
9
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: The Bible. Myth or Reality?

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote:[
quote="Gnostic Bishop"]We see Jesus as a mythical archetypal good man. You might have noted that his reality is still hotly contested.
You have a schizoid approach here. At times you try to present Jesus as a mythical archetypal bad man and at other times good. You in your infinite wisdom pick and choose according to your personal taste.
Only those who do not look think that only one Jesus is presented in scriptures.

Any time you want to stop running from moral debates on what Jesus taught, I am here for you.

And yes, morality is partly personal taste as morals are subjective.

That is why one can easily see that there is more than one Jesus in scriptures.
Hotly contested by who? You? Timothy Freke? Don't make me laugh.
Only a fool would make such a statement when a consensus has yet to be reached.
Gnostic Bishop wrote:As to my redefining the word God. Sure. I do so because modern people have forgotten what that word meant to the ancients who mostly saw it as a man.
There's no difference between a God and a man then?
Who but men have spoken for your imagined miracle working God?

That God has yet to show up. If he did, the Haig would have first dibs and I would hope that I would have the second as I have a bullet with his name on it.
Not according to the Hebrew bible and that goes back to very ancient times.
You show a total ignorance of the Jews. From ancient times the Rabbis have always been able to overrule the written traditions and that God when they did not agree with what was written.
If the ancients thought Gods were men what were they sacrificing animals to each other?
Again you show how little you know.

Yes, they were basically using their sacrifice to forgive each other then celebrate the fact with the cooked lamb. It was their way to have closure and a new start by shedding old grudges.
Did they think the farmer in the next field being God could control the weather so they sacrificed to each other?
There you go looking for some miracle working God again to suit your own delusions of what God is.
Even these pagan religions understood the limitations of man and did not think such absurdities.
[/quote]

They were not idiot enough to reach their myths literally until Christianity showed it was stupid enough to believe theirs and that gem of thought helped usher in the Dark Age of free thought and Inquisition.

You are still in the Dark Age of free thought.

Regards
DL
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: The Bible. Myth or Reality?

Unread post

You have a schizoid approach here
A schizoid would fail a Voight-Kampff test:
The Voight-Kampff test attempts to distinguish androids from human beings by autonomic responses to questions that should elicit an empathic response. Because it seeks to gather and measure biological information for security purposes, the empathy testing procedure is a kind of biometric identification system.
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=126
A very advanced form of lie detector that measures contractions of the iris muscle and the presence of invisible airborne particles emitted from the body. The bellows were designed for the latter function and give the machine the menacing air of a sinister insect. The VK is used primarily by Blade Runners to determine if a suspect is truly human by measuring the degree of his empathic response through carefully worded questions and statements.
http://bladerunner.wikia.com/wiki/Voight-Kampff_machine



Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”