Some Of The Problems With God's Bible

[NoGods]

The bible has many issues, and not all deal with inerrant problems or contradictions. The bible misses the mark in general knowledge, history, and a lack of even the most rudimentary understanding of the world we live in, and gives just the most basic morals listed. Most Christians will read this and start shouting foul, buts it the bible as it is.

 

1) The bible is morally corrupt and list only the most basic of morals.

 

It talks of murder, bearing false witness and stealing. These three were in fact present in all societies of antiquity. They make sense and help to keep overall oder. Humans are a very tit-for-tat species. You don't kill, because you don't want to be killed. Most humans are honest, and would not lie on another person if it was going to cause them problems in some way and the same goes with stealing. These are true for all normal, mentally stable humans, though there could be times where the moral thing to do is lie, steal or kill but not for revenge, gain or self gain, etc.

 

The bible never says slavery is wrong and even justifies it just like every one else did during ancient times. There is killing after killing in it for god's great plan (gain). In general, rape is allowed. Women have no rights. It had laws to kill you for working on the sabbath or killing your disobedient children. Jesus somehow was sent to correct all of this, but he never said women were equal to men, or that rape and slavery were really wrong. The only moral commandments he gave were to love god (really a repeat of the first three commandments), love others as you love yourself and to treat others the way you want to be treated. The last one is actually attributed to Confucius 500 years before Christ, but is even older and shows the tit-for-tat thinking in humans.

 

2) The most general science knowledge.

 

The bible really has four flat tires on this one. You would think that the one true god, the creator of all things could give a few hints or at the very least get the ones given right. Let's start with the earth itself and it's place at the very lest in our solar system. How hard would it have been to tell that it was a sphere that rotated once every 24hrs and that is also revolved around the Sun, a star. Maybe a little verse like this:

 

<begin-corny>

"How great is my love for you, that I gave you life to live on the great watery ball, earth. The earth rotates to form the days and nights of your life with me. It revolves around the sun and receives it light like you receive my love."

<end-corny>

 

But really, would that have been so hard to include something similar? No, humans just lived for thousands of years thinking that the earth was flat and in the center of everything. And who told us? People that were condemned for doing so.

 

In the bible what we do learn is, whales are fish, bats are birds and the mustard seed and not the orchid is the smallest seen on earth. The bible does not know of plate tectonics and many other things that could fill a book, but I will stop. (Though there is a little more below)

 

3) The bible contradicts itself, is not inerrant and conflicts with known history (earth and otherwise).

 

The fossil record totally slaps Genesis 1 & 2 in the face. Fossils are layered the way evolution predicts, (simple) one cells first, then more complex life next building on the last. We see no plants on the land before any early sea life and no complex sea life before one cell organisms. The bible did not even say anything every about micro organisms. I will stop here as the bible does not hold "water" against evolution and natural selection.

 

The bible says that there was a great flood that covered the whole earth. Science (and the earth) say that there was not.

Finally, the bible has many contradictions and errors, too many to list here, but I can list many on request.

 

Others would list more or even different issues with the bible, so mileage with it's ex-users varies.

 

The bible was written and shaped by early man who knew very little about the world they lived in. Anything they did not understand, they placed on the back of a god or gods. This helped them cope for the most part, but held them back more than it helped I think.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Religion never was meant to move us forward, it was made to hold authority in place. By authority, I mean the Bible was made to keep the Maccabaeans in power. There is no evidence of the Kingdom of David, but the territorial borders of Israel seem an awful lot like the territorial borders of the Hasmonian dynasty, at least with regards to part of it. The whole territory spanning from the Nile to the Euphrates part is just nonsense.

[MagickMonkey]

Dude, you can't expect writers of fiction to think of everything.

[NoGods]

Dude, you can't expect writers of fiction to think of everything.

 

Amen.

[dB-Paradox]

But this brings into mind the style which ancient people wrote. Herodotus of Halicarnassus wrote as an objective historian, and even he writes things which are bizarre and fictitious. In fact, it was apparently a common style of writing, to write in myth. It was apparently the message that was the important thing. For example, did the temple of Delphi actually magically defend itself when attacked in war? Or is this supposed to tell us something about the importance of the temple? Likely, Moses did not lead the Israelites across a parted Red Sea, but rather the Israelites were free from oppression and this was a nice picture of that freedom. (Geographically, this has significance also, since the Red Sea actually separated [or parted] the Israelites from the Egyptians.)

 

When viewed like this, the bible may actually make more sense.

[NoGods]

But this brings into mind the style which ancient people wrote. Herodotus of Halicarnassus wrote as an objective historian, and even he writes things which are bizarre and fictitious. In fact, it was apparently a common style of writing, to write in myth. It was apparently the message that was the important thing. For example, did the temple of Delphi actually magically defend itself when attacked in war? Or is this supposed to tell us something about the importance of the temple? Likely, Moses did not lead the Israelites across a parted Red Sea, but rather the Israelites were free from oppression and this was a nice picture of that freedom. (Geographically, this has significance also, since the Red Sea actually separated [or parted] the Israelites from the Egyptians.)

 

When viewed like this, the bible may actually make more sense.

 

Yeah, I know in many modern Jewish believers say it's the truths the story has and not the the actual truth.

 

My main point in what I listed is; If there really was an infinitely powerful and present creator, they would have probably done a lot better job of getting descent info to mankind, among other things. What we have though, is a bunch writings from bronze and iron age men who had nothing other than their superstitions to pass on.

[MagickMonkey]

Yeah, I know in many modern Jewish believers say it's the truths the story has and not the the actual truth.

 

Sounds like an attempt to extract useful meaning out of bullshit.

[Guest I Love Dog]

 

The bible was written and shaped by early man who knew very little about the world they lived in. Anything they did not understand, they placed on the back of a god or gods. This helped them cope for the most part, but held them back more than it helped I think.

 

Good post!

 

I think that anyone with a grain of intelligence can see what the bible is and what it is not. The problem that I see is that there are so many Jews and Christians who believe quite sincerely that the whole book is the inerrant word of their god.

[Discern]

whales are fish, bats are birds

 

Not trying to defend the bible, but I find evidence like this is just semantics. For all I know, whales are known as fish and bats are known as birds in the Hebrew language. Did scientific definition of species even exist back then? Also, it could just be the english translation.

[par4dcourse]

whales are fish, bats are birds

 

Not trying to defend the bible, but I find evidence like this is just semantics. For all I know, whales are known as fish and bats are known as birds in the Hebrew language. Did scientific definition of species even exist back then? Also, it could just be the english translation.

 

Oh semantics. Pi is about 3 and rabbits look like they chew cud.

[NoGods]

whales are fish, bats are birds

Not trying to defend the bible, but I find evidence like this is just semantics. For all I know, whales are known as fish and bats are known as birds in the Hebrew language. Did scientific definition of species even exist back then? Also, it could just be the english translation.

 

My point is.... The bible is said to be dictated by YHWH in some places and inspired it in all places. He is said to be the creator of the universe but could not get any general knowledge to mankind and the stuff he did was wrong or at least muddled. Believers should think about things like this, but we know they won't normally.

[dB-Paradox]

My main point in what I listed is; If there really was an infinitely powerful and present creator, they would have probably done a lot better job of getting descent info to mankind, among other things. What we have though, is a bunch writings from bronze and iron age men who had nothing other than their superstitions to pass on.

You're right, and that's how the bible should be appreciated...as superstitious beliefs which try to explain the truths of the objective world. Things like suffering, good fortune, and human nature in general. So don't worry about "if there really was an infinitely powerful and present creator" because there wasn't/isn't. Who cares that the bible is said to have been dictated by Yahweh. It doesn't matter who says these things, it wasn't. But I don't think this should smother the beauty of the truths they were trying to portray, do you? Every culture had (or still has) some form of this "truth behind myth". It's poetic. What we should have a problem with (and maybe this is where you were going) is the people who adhere to the bible's divine authority and shove it on others, especially children. It's no different than a good Shakespeare play. It's truth in irony (thinking about Macbeth) but not true itself. And if all of a sudden a wave of Shakespearean believers should arise, should we despise the the art, or the ones who abuse the art?

[seriously]

My main point in what I listed is; If there really was an infinitely powerful and present creator, they would have probably done a lot better job of getting descent info to mankind, among other things. What we have though, is a bunch writings from bronze and iron age men who had nothing other than their superstitions to pass on.

You're right, and that's how the bible should be appreciated...as superstitious beliefs which try to explain the truths of the objective world. Things like suffering, good fortune, and human nature in general. So don't worry about "if there really was an infinitely powerful and present creator" because there wasn't/isn't. Who cares that the bible is said to have been dictated by Yahweh. It doesn't matter who says these things, it wasn't. But I don't think this should smother the beauty of the truths they were trying to portray, do you? Every culture had (or still has) some form of this "truth behind myth". It's poetic. What we should have a problem with (and maybe this is where you were going) is the people who adhere to the bible's divine authority and shove it on others, especially children. It's no different than a good Shakespeare play. It's truth in irony (thinking about Macbeth) but not true itself. And if all of a sudden a wave of Shakespearean believers should arise, should we despise the the art, or the ones who abuse the art?

 

Uh. Have you read the OT? It takes a twisted mind to come up with some of that stuff, and you're supposed to be reading it with a straight face. Sorry if I don't find it "beautiful" or "poetic."

[Hawkins]

I speculate that most opinions in this thread are actually faith-based and can hardly proven. For example, how ancient people thought...blah blah blah are all about imaginations from your own mind by your own faith, until you can actually get into the minds of those ancient people.

 

That only shows that your faith differs from that of the Christians. And with the "science this and science that" added to your faith-based statements, it is clearly that the Bible is right at least about one point, that is, you eat too much from the Tree of Knowlege to think that you can judge properly as God does.

[Guest Valk0010]

I speculate that most opinions in this thread are actually faith-based and can hardly proven. For example, how ancient people thought...blah blah blah are all about imaginations from your own mind by your own faith, until you can actually get into the minds of those ancient people.

 

That only shows that your faith differs from that of the Christians. And with the "science this and science that" added to your faith-based statements, it is clearly that the Bible is right at least about one point, that is, you eat too much from the Tree of Knowlege to think that you can judge properly as God does.

If your right, which your not. Pot meet kettle.

[dB-Paradox]

My main point in what I listed is; If there really was an infinitely powerful and present creator, they would have probably done a lot better job of getting descent info to mankind, among other things. What we have though, is a bunch writings from bronze and iron age men who had nothing other than their superstitions to pass on.

You're right, and that's how the bible should be appreciated...as superstitious beliefs which try to explain the truths of the objective world. Things like suffering, good fortune, and human nature in general. So don't worry about "if there really was an infinitely powerful and present creator" because there wasn't/isn't. Who cares that the bible is said to have been dictated by Yahweh. It doesn't matter who says these things, it wasn't. But I don't think this should smother the beauty of the truths they were trying to portray, do you? Every culture had (or still has) some form of this "truth behind myth". It's poetic. What we should have a problem with (and maybe this is where you were going) is the people who adhere to the bible's divine authority and shove it on others, especially children. It's no different than a good Shakespeare play. It's truth in irony (thinking about Macbeth) but not true itself. And if all of a sudden a wave of Shakespearean believers should arise, should we despise the the art, or the ones who abuse the art?

 

Uh. Have you read the OT? It takes a twisted mind to come up with some of that stuff, and you're supposed to be reading it with a straight face. Sorry if I don't find it "beautiful" or "poetic."

You're reading it too literal, then. Try reading other ancient myth, and you'll see it's all the same. It's not our style of writing, for sure, so try not reading it as such.

[hereticzero]

I speculate that most opinions in this thread are actually faith-based and can hardly proven. For example, how ancient people thought...blah blah blah are all about imaginations from your own mind by your own faith, until you can actually get into the minds of those ancient people.

 

That only shows that your faith differs from that of the Christians. And with the "science this and science that" added to your faith-based statements, it is clearly that the Bible is right at least about one point, that is, you eat too much from the Tree of Knowlege to think that you can judge properly as God does.

No. No faith required to be atheist. The bible is not supported by facts. There was no exodus from Egypt, Jews did not even exist until 500 years before Iesus was born and they invented themselves and their religion, Judaism, which they took from Babylonian religions. All of the prophecies were written years after the fact. Even the OT prophet Jeremiah disbelieved his religion enough to point out that god never gave the law to Moses and the scribes of the bible were liars putting words in the mouth of god he never spoke. Historical fiction is still fiction.

[oddbird1963]

I speculate that most opinions in this thread are actually faith-based and can hardly proven. For example, how ancient people thought...blah blah blah are all about imaginations from your own mind by your own faith, until you can actually get into the minds of those ancient people.

 

That only shows that your faith differs from that of the Christians. And with the "science this and science that" added to your faith-based statements, it is clearly that the Bible is right at least about one point, that is, you eat too much from the Tree of Knowlege to think that you can judge properly as God does.

It's a pretty desperate mind that must resort to calling atheism "faith-based."

 

And opinions are just opinions. They can be totally speculative and made up out of the imagination. They can also be summations of assessments made from the best information that science, history and logic have to offer. But none of that constitutes "faith.

 

To sustain the claim that "most opinions in this thread are actually faith-based " you really have to severely distort your definition of faith.

 

Why not just ask for clarification about specific opinions? Why not ask people for the basis for their opinion?

[dB-Paradox]

It's a pretty desperate mind that must resort to calling atheism "faith-based."

My father-in-law tried telling me it takes (and I quote) "a thousand times as much faith to be an atheist and believe in evolution than it does to be a Christian". My GOD! How much more of a delusional mind can one have! I only thought of this after the fact, but I wish would would have said, "And it takes a thousand times as much energy to not collect coins from all over the world as it does to collect them."

[par4dcourse]

 

. And with the "science this and science that" added to your faith-based statements,

 

How dare we confuse the issue with science and facts. If god says Pi is 3 who are we to question. Make it work, dammit.

 

 

 

[NaturalMary63]

you eat too much from the Tree of Knowlege to think that you can judge properly as God does.

 

 

For the record, according to the Bible, when one eats from the Tree of Knowledge (as in the Garden of Eden) one DOES become like God.

 

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

 

Which, by the way, is what the serpent had told Eve.

Gen 2:4-5 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

[Guest Valk0010]

I speculate that most opinions in this thread are actually faith-based and can hardly proven. For example, how ancient people thought...blah blah blah are all about imaginations from your own mind by your own faith, until you can actually get into the minds of those ancient people.

Actually trying to get into the minds of those ancient people, told me its all bullshit and not divine. Since things like say the moral and logical judgments of even the new testament, make perfect sense and perfect sense in regards to justice if taken within a 1st century context.

 

That only shows that your faith differs from that of the Christians. And with the "science this and science that" added to your faith-based statements, it is clearly that the Bible is right at least about one point, that is, you eat too much from the Tree of Knowlege to think that you can judge properly as God does.

So might makes right? Just because god is god, doesn't mean we don't have a right to question it. Take a earthly example, one of the closet earthly rules I can think of, as far as being close to a god in power, was stalin. So if I was a russian living during the time stalin did, just because stalin was the supreme ruler of russia, does that mean I couldn't or shouldn't try to question him, or subvert him. Might does not make one unquestionable, it just makes doing that, more scary.