Some Key Areas Where I'm Stuck

[TruthFollower]

Hi, my belief in the bible has ricocheted backwards and forwards a number of times.     Here are some things I've got stuck over lately which I think when understood, may alleviate some of the compulsions I've had to return to Christianity.  

 

At the moment I'm not understanding the necessity for a blood sacrifice for the remission of sins.    Since Jesus blood was holy and only a tiny amount could have saved the population of the world, why did he have to die?     

 

 

Also, it's seems exhausting to try and prove everything in the Bible is true.   Yet many things in the Bible do seem to have been proven.   Has anyone disproved completely accounts that have been given?    Is tackling the bible that way too unwieldy a task when much of it does record, with some errors, historical events?

 

 

 Also, some things in the Bible just don't make any sense as they are without additional explanation.   For example honour your parents, but next to nothing is mentioned about abusive parents.   Or, love thy neighbour as thyself, but what if he doesn't appreciate the same things you do?

[TruthFollower]

Oops, posted before I finished.....grateful for any advice or thoughts from those further along this journey...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

One thing to consider is that all scripture is given by inspirational of god, according to 2 Timothy 3:16.  Now, I came from a literalisit denomination which held the bible to be inerrant and infallible, based on this verse, among others.  But, even if a person doesn't view the bible as being the perfect revealed word of god, this verse makes it clear that every verse in the bible carries the inspiration of god behind it.

 

If you can find a single scripture verse that doesn't sound like it was inspired by the god described in the bible, then this verse in 2 Timothy falls apart, too.  Your example of honoring your parents is a good demonstration of this.  In the old testament, god commanded that we should honor our father and mother; but in the new testament, jesus said, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26).

 

Somewhere, god changed his mind about the relationship between children and their parents; and not just changed his mind, but did a complete 180° from honoring them to hating them. 

 

How does the bible describe god?  Hebrews 13:8 describes god as  being the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.  In other words, god does not change.  Yet here we find an obvious example of god changing.  Not only does this change reveal a blatant contradiction in the Bible, but it also reveals that all scripture cannot be given by the inspiration of god.  Because an omniscient god would have realized this contradiction, which would have either prevented him from inspiring a verse that claims he doesn't change, or prevented him from inspiring the two verses that reveal the contradiction. 

 

Either way, following your example out to a logical conclusion demonstrates that god cannot be what the bible describes him as.  For me, that's the crux of the matter as concerns scripture. 

[older]

Hi TF:
You write:

 

"Also, it's seems exhausting to try and prove everything in the Bible is true.   Yet many things in the Bible do seem to have been proven.   Has anyone disproved completely accounts that have been given?    Is tackling the bible that way too unwieldy a task when much of it does record, with some errors, historical events?"

To your first sentence and your third, the burden of proof falls on those making the claim. You, we, and any others, need not prove anything. And the issue of disproving is a false one. It is not our job to disprove. Those who make the claim bear the burden of proof.

 

As to the Bible containing some historical events, that’s not an issue. That it does contain some known historical events does not validate or negate the rest of it. Claims of anything can contain both truth and falsehood. And since the Bible contains so many contradictions and falsehoods, anyone searching for truth would be best served by finding other sources for said truth.

 

In the world of journalism a good reporter always checks his sources and verifies any questionable claims via at least one and preferably two other sources. And so it is with, as the photographer Ansel Adams once said about the Bible: the myths of nomadic tribes from the Middle Eastern desert. If the claims can’t be verified via other sources, they need to be observable, testable, and independently verifiable. If not, then those claims should not be trusted.

 

If you are summoned for a jury in a criminal trial, to find the defendant guilty, you must find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not guilty. So to find the Bible credible, it must be found credible beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt exists, then the Bible is not credible. And we can cite so many issues with the Bible that our doubt goes beyond reasonable doubt to doubt so overwhelming that we can cast it aside as totally untrustworthy.

[TruthFollower]

6 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

One thing to consider is that all scripture is given by inspirational of god, according to 2 Timothy 3:16.  Now, I came from a literalisit denomination which held the bible to be inerrant and infallible, based on this verse, among others.  But, even if a person doesn't view the bible as being the perfect revealed word of god, this verse makes it clear that every verse in the bible carries the inspiration of god behind it.

 

If you can find a single scripture verse that doesn't sound like it was inspired by the god described in the bible, then this verse in 2 Timothy falls apart, too.  Your example of honoring your parents is a good demonstration of this.  In the old testament, god commanded that we should honor our father and mother; but in the new testament, jesus said, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26).

 

Somewhere, god changed his mind about the relationship between children and their parents; and not just changed his mind, but did a complete 180° from honoring them to hating them. 

 

How does the bible describe god?  Hebrews 13:8 describes god as  being the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.  In other words, god does not change.  Yet here we find an obvious example of god changing.  Not only does this change reveal a blatant contradiction in the Bible, but it also reveals that all scripture cannot be given by the inspiration of god.  Because an omniscient god would have realized this contradiction, which would have either prevented him from inspiring a verse that claims he doesn't change, or prevented him from inspiring the two verses that reveal the contradiction. 

 

Either way, following your example out to a logical conclusion demonstrates that god cannot be what the bible describes him as.  For me, that's the crux of the matter as concerns scripture. 

Hi TheRedNeckProfessor, thanks very much for replying.     What you've said is a helpful illustration and example of why the Bible can't be trusted.    At least, and this is another area where I'm struggling, in the modern day translations.   But I don't think I'm really inclined to study Hebrew and Greek, at least not to the level required to check this again with lots of examples.

 

There is something else at work though that keeps drawing me back.   I think it's the notion of someone loving you that much.    So still I need to think more about this.

[TruthFollower]

1 hour ago, older said:

Hi TF:
You write:

 

"Also, it's seems exhausting to try and prove everything in the Bible is true.   Yet many things in the Bible do seem to have been proven.   Has anyone disproved completely accounts that have been given?    Is tackling the bible that way too unwieldy a task when much of it does record, with some errors, historical events?"

To your first sentence and your third, the burden of proof falls on those making the claim. You, we, and any others, need not prove anything. And the issue of disproving is a false one. It is not our job to disprove. Those who make the claim bear the burden of proof.

 

As to the Bible containing some historical events, that’s not an issue. That it does contain some known historical events does not validate or negate the rest of it. Claims of anything can contain both truth and falsehood. And since the Bible contains so many contradictions and falsehoods, anyone searching for truth would be best served by finding other sources for said truth.

 

In the world of journalism a good reporter always checks his sources and verifies any questionable claims via at least one and preferably two other sources. And so it is with, as the photographer Ansel Adams once said about the Bible: the myths of nomadic tribes from the Middle Eastern desert. If the claims can’t be verified via other sources, they need to be observable, testable, and independently verifiable. If not, then those claims should not be trusted.

 

If you are summoned for a jury in a criminal trial, to find the defendant guilty, you must find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not guilty. So to find the Bible credible, it must be found credible beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt exists, then the Bible is not credible. And we can cite so many issues with the Bible that our doubt goes beyond reasonable doubt to doubt so overwhelming that we can cast it aside as totally untrustworthy.

Thanks for replying older, Im grateful to be able to reason this out with yours and others help like TheRedNeckProfessor.

 

I've almost totally thrown it out now, but I just have this reservation that I should check out scripture in the original languages.    However, I'm not a linguist so I just wondered whether you or anyone else has gone that far in your studies?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 hours ago, TruthFollower said:

However, I'm not a linguist so I just wondered whether you or anyone else has gone that far in your studies?

If the bible really is god's revelation of himself, would you need to be a linguist to understand it?  Surely an omniscient god would know how to communicate with you on your own level, in your language.  Surely an omnipotent god would be able to make himself understandable to you wherever you are in life right now, without you having to learn Aramaic. 

 

If there is a god who wants you to believe, if he wants to communicate with you, if he wants you to understand, then he will make it his priority to reach you in some way that leaves no doubt or confusion and doesn't require graduate studies in ancient culture.  If he really loves you and wants you to be "saved" then he will make it happen.

 

The fact that it hasn't happened demonstrates that god is not what the bible describes him as.  Because the bible describes him as being not willing that anyone should perish but that all should come to repentance.  If this is true, why would he not simply reveal himself to everyone irrespective of their command of bronze age linguistics?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

9 hours ago, TruthFollower said:

 I think it's the notion of someone loving you that much.   

Why does evil exist?

 

Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able to?  If so, then god may be all-loving, but he is not very powerful. 

 

Is god able to prevent evil, but not willing to?  If so, then god may be all-powerful, but he is not very loving.

 

The reality of the world we live in--famine, genocide, depravity, rape, murder, child abuse--this demonstrates that god is not what the bible describes him as.  Because the bible tells us that he is both all-powerful and all-loving.  But the existence of evil reveals that he cannot be both. 

[TruthFollower]

37 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If the bible really is god's revelation of himself, would you need to be a linguist to understand it?  Surely an omniscient god would know how to communicate with you on your own level, in your language.  Surely an omnipotent god would be able to make himself understandable to you wherever you are in life right now, without you having to learn Aramaic. 

 

If there is a god who wants you to believe, if he wants to communicate with you, if he wants you to understand, then he will make it his priority to reach you in some way that leaves no doubt or confusion and doesn't require graduate studies in ancient culture.  If he really loves you and wants you to be "saved" then he will make it happen.

 

The fact that it hasn't happened demonstrates that god is not what the bible describes him as.  Because the bible describes him as being not willing that anyone should perish but that all should come to repentance.  If this is true, why would he not simply reveal himself to everyone irrespective of their command of bronze age linguistics?

Thank you!!!    You explained that very well for me - really helpful.    I definitely became dumbed down as a result of years of trying to follow church teachings and I can't seem to hold several arguments in my head these days!   I might do some brain exercises in the hope that neuroplasticity can help. 

 

I'm still interested in learning about the different 'gods' that the Israelites followed at the time the OT was written, as it may account for some contradictions.    

 

 

 

 

[TruthFollower]

42 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Why does evil exist?

 

Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able to?  If so, then god may be all-loving, but he is not very powerful. 

 

Is god able to prevent evil, but not willing to?  If so, then god may be all-powerful, bit he is not very loving.

 

The reality of the world we live in--famine, genocide, depravity, rape, murder, child abuse--this demonstrates that god is not what the bible describes him as.  Because the bible tells us that he is both all-powerful and all-loving.  But the existence of evil reveals that he cannot be both. 

Thanks for your additional reply.   I know that in one place in the Bible it's written that God says he created evil (as well as good).    

 

I do still think there is good  - need to read up on ethics more I think. 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

33 minutes ago, TruthFollower said:

 I know that in one place in the Bible it's written that God says he created evil (as well as good).

Another point to consider.  In Isaiah 45:7, god says he created evil.  In Genesis 1:31, god said that everything he created was "very good."  So, god created evil and said that it was "very good."  However, in Isaiah 5:20, god says, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" 

 

Now, does this sound like an inerrant, infallible revelation of an omniscient and perfect god?  A book that says that god created evil, called it "good," and then turned around and condemned the idea of calling evil "good"?  Or does it sound like a contradiction that was obviously overlooked by the fallible men who scribbled the words down and cobbled together a religion out of them?

[older]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Another point to consider.  In Isaiah 45:7, god says he created evil.  In Genesis 1:31, god said that everything he created was "very good."  So, god created evil and said that it was "very good."  However, in Isaiah 5:20, god says, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" 

 

Now, does this sound like an inerrant, infallible revelation of an omniscient and perfect god?  A book that says that god created evil, called it "good," and then turned around and condemned the idea of calling evil "good"?  Or does it sound like a contradiction that was obviously overlooked by the fallible men who scribbled the words down and cobbled together a religion out of them?

  

I can only click "like" once but this one deserves repeating.

 

A personal story: I spent my career in photojournalism. While I was not an active shooter for most of that, I saw photographs that I can absolutely guarantee that you have not seen. Many of those images depict human suffering and intolerable conditions and situations that are so horrific that no publication or medium of any stripe would show them. And no matter how active someone's imagination might be, there is no way anyone could possibly dream, in one's worst nightmare, of such horrors. Those images and the stories I have heard from the photographers who took them prove to me that the Christian god, who not only allows such misery to occur but, according to some, makes it "part of his plan," cannot possibly exist.

[♦ Fuego ♦]

Another angle to consider is that you were conditioned to think of the Bible as true, but not the Koran or Bhagavad Gita or Upanishads, or the tablets of the Egyptian, Assyrian, and Babylonian deities, or the Mayan and Aztec deities (who also required lots of blood). Church purposefully presents a one-sided view of their book, because they want you to believe it and not question it. They also tend to ignore the barbaric passages in the Bible where its god orders and blesses genocide and mass rape of young virgins, or in some cases slaughtering even them. Most of us could not fathom such a god, but he fits right into the barbaric tribal culture that wrote the stories. It has taken 15 years for me to shake most of the thinking "ruts" I developed when passionately following the Bible god. Disobedience was something we were taught to fear, and now that we recognize that god was never real, the ruts of emotional reaction and subconscious thought still persist until the mind and emotions are re-trained. 

 

A lot of people are drawn to the "radical" Jesus standing up to the religious and political authorities and telling people to love one another. But nobody needs to join a cult to be kind or call for justice. Nobody needs to fear natural lust, even though Jesus equated it with crime. We can feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and be generous with hospitality without a deity requiring it. The whole world benefits the more we do these things and embody compassion. But who you want to be is up to you. How you want to behave, and what you want to embody is your own choice. There is no meaning to life but what we give it. A lot of people choose to value greed and popularity. Others devote themselves to causes. Your own moment-by-moment choice is a very powerful thing that can lead you into learning, becoming, and doing real things that are wonderful. 

 

[TruthFollower]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Another point to consider.  In Isaiah 45:7, god says he created evil.  In Genesis 1:31, god said that everything he created was "very good."  So, god created evil and said that it was "very good."  However, in Isaiah 5:20, god says, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" 

 

Now, does this sound like an inerrant, infallible revelation of an omniscient and perfect god?  A book that says that god created evil, called it "good," and then turned around and condemned the idea of calling evil "good"?  Or does it sound like a contradiction that was obviously overlooked by the fallible men who scribbled the words down and cobbled together a religion out of them?

Hi TheRedNeckProfessor, I must admit that here I'm not following so well because according to the text i think that if the fall happened and sin and consequences of it came into the world in Genesis, then before that things were very good, and then with the curse came evil on earth afterwards.  So that could explain the text in Isaiah later.   So I don't think that God was calling evil 'good'.

 

However, according to Genesis evil did also exist in the universe before the fall because in Genesis 1 the word for darkness near the beginning alludes to it.

 

Hope I'm making sense.    I recently  read a Jewish article on Genesis.

[older]

Genesis. Hm. So the children of Adam and Eve had to commit incest in order to populate the world. Swell.

 

As others have written, God sent himself to earth and then killed himself in order to avenge himself for a curse he put on us because one of our distant ancestors and a rib woman ate fruit off a magical tree after being told to do it by a talking snake.

 

So the question is: Do people believe this because it makes sense, or because other people have convinced them that bad things will happen to them if they don't?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

6 minutes ago, TruthFollower said:

Hi TheRedNeckProfessor, I must admit that here I'm not following so well because according to the text i think that if the fall happened and sin and consequences of it came into the world in Genesis, then before that things were very good, and then with the curse came evil on earth afterwards.  So that could explain the text in Isaiah later.   So I don't think that God was calling evil 'good'.

 

However, according to Genesis evil did also exist in the universe before the fall because in Genesis 1 the word for darkness near the beginning alludes to it.

 

Hope I'm making sense.    I recently  read a Jewish article on Genesis.

Perfect sense.  But, tell me, if evil did not exist before the fall, then how could eating the fruit give Adam the knowledge of good and evil?  See, the tree bore fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, not of sin and righteousness.  So "sin" cannot be conflated with evil, in this instance.  Therefore, both good and evil must have existed prior to Adam eating the fruit.  They both had to have been created by god, according to the story; because they both already existed before the Garden and the Serpent and Eve and all the rest of it.  The Serpent even tells Eve that she will become like god, knowing the difference between good and evil.  But how would that have been possible unless evil existed before she and Adam ate the fruit?

 

In reality, we don't have anything besides what god says that would indicate that the world was perfect or even "very good' prior to the fall.  Unfortunately, not a lot of what god says in the creation story can be trusted.  For example, he said that Adam would die the same day he ate the fruit; and he made it clear that a "day" consisted of a morning and an evening.  But we know from Genesis 5 that Adam lived for 930 years--a long time and many "days"--after eating the fruit.  So, this was a lie.  To make sense of this obvious lie, people interpret "death" to mean "spiritual death"; but nothing in the text itself supports this interpretation.  Moreover, if the world were indeed perfect, or "very good", would Adam have even understood what death was, or how the threat was relevant to him?

 

We also know from the text that god never warns Eve, or even talks to her about the fruit.  He only talks to Adam.  So, when the Serpent first approaches Eve, her initial response is that they are not allowed to eat the fruit, nor even touch it, lest they surely die.  The problem is that god never said anything about touching the fruit.  Not to Adam, and certainly not to Eve, who god never even spoke to in the first place.  So, the idea that touching the fruit was prohibited was something introduced later, by someone other than god.  Possibly, Adam made it up and told it to Eve in the hopes of ensuring that she wouldn't have anything to do with the fruit.  Possibly Eve made it up in an effort to appear more victimized than she really was.  Either way, the prohibition against touching the fruit was also a lie.  Either Adam lied to Eve; or Eve lied to the Serpent.  But, how could either one of them lie, if the world was still perfect, "very good," and sin had not yet entered it?

 

When you really start picking the pieces of Genesis apart, does it sound like an inerrant, infallible revelation inspired by a perfect, omni-everything god?  Or does it sound more like ancient myths and legends passed down by ignorant goat herders, who quite possibly did not understand what plot holes were?

[walterpthefirst]

Hello TruthFollower.

 

Also, it's seems exhausting to try and prove everything in the Bible is true.   Yet many things in the Bible do seem to have been proven.   Has anyone disproved completely accounts that have been given?    Is tackling the bible that way too unwieldy a task when much of it does record, with some errors, historical events?

 

I'd like you to compare what the bible says about the six day creation of the universe with what science tells us about the age of the universe.  Doing this should quickly tell you that the bible is in historical, factual and scientific error from get go.  In chapter 2 of the gospel of Mark, Jesus declares that the Sabbath was made for man.  By doing this he accepts what Genesis says about the six day creation and god resting on the seventh.

 

However, we now know that that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and has been evolving ever since.  It was not fully completed in just 144 hours, less than ten thousand years ago.  Therefore, scripture cannot be historically, factually or scientifically reconciled with what we now know about reality.  The bible is in error.  It is disproven.

 

But...

 

If you want to claim that Genesis is not meant to be read literally, but as some kind of metaphor, then you have a big problem.  The fall from grace ceases to be historical and becomes metaphorical.  Which means that there was no real and historical need for Jesus to die for our sins.  Our sins aren't real and historical, they are just metaphors.  Here's the deal!  The only way the bible stays real is if it deals with reality realistically.  And it doesn't - not in Genesis, nor in the words of Jesus about Genesis.

 

So, you don't have do years of exhaustive research nor chase down every last detail of scriptural minutia, TruthFollower.

 

It's actually very simple.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[TruthFollower]

52 minutes ago, older said:

Genesis. Hm. So the children of Adam and Eve had to commit incest in order to populate the world. Swell.

 

As others have written, God sent himself to earth and then killed himself in order to avenge himself for a curse he put on us because one of our distant ancestors and a rib woman ate fruit off a magical tree after being told to do it by a talking snake.

 

So the question is: Do people believe this because it makes sense, or because other people have convinced them that bad things will happen to them if they don't?

Hi older, I keep losing the internet so this is the third attempt.

 

That question is certainly very important to consider !!!    I can definitely remember people convincing me that bad things would happen!    

 

As you see my mind very quickly reverted back to treating the text as if it was all true again! 

[older]

Hi TF:

 

This is turning out to be a most interesting discussion. Glad you're here.

 

I recently read something about how various movements, political, religious, multi-level marketing, whatever, control their members. It's called the BITE model, and was developed by cult expert Steven Hassan in a 2021 work titled, "The BITE Model of Authoritarian Control: Undue Influence, Thought Reform, Brainwashing, Mind Control, Trafficking and the Law."

 

The BITE model consists of Behavior control, Information control, Thought control, and Emotional control.  Here's a link to a site that gives more depth to it. After reading through it, it has "Christianity" written all over it. You might want to take a look at it.

 

https://freedomofmind.com/cult-mind-control/bite-model/

[TruthFollower]

2 hours ago, Fuego said:

Another angle to consider is that you were conditioned to think of the Bible as true, but not the Koran or Bhagavad Gita or Upanishads, or the tablets of the Egyptian, Assyrian, and Babylonian deities, or the Mayan and Aztec deities (who also required lots of blood). Church purposefully presents a one-sided view of their book, because they want you to believe it and not question it. They also tend to ignore the barbaric passages in the Bible where its god orders and blesses genocide and mass rape of young virgins, or in some cases slaughtering even them. Most of us could not fathom such a god, but he fits right into the barbaric tribal culture that wrote the stories. It has taken 15 years for me to shake most of the thinking "ruts" I developed when passionately following the Bible god. Disobedience was something we were taught to fear, and now that we recognize that god was never real, the ruts of emotional reaction and subconscious thought still persist until the mind and emotions are re-trained. 

 

A lot of people are drawn to the "radical" Jesus standing up to the religious and political authorities and telling people to love one another. But nobody needs to join a cult to be kind or call for justice. Nobody needs to fear natural lust, even though Jesus equated it with crime. We can feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and be generous with hospitality without a deity requiring it. The whole world benefits the more we do these things and embody compassion. But who you want to be is up to you. How you want to behave, and what you want to embody is your own choice. There is no meaning to life but what we give it. A lot of people choose to value greed and popularity. Others devote themselves to causes. Your own moment-by-moment choice is a very powerful thing that can lead you into learning, becoming, and doing real things that are wonderful. 

 

Thanks so much for sharing Fuego, and for reminding me, us, that there's hope.

[TruthFollower]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Perfect sense.  But, tell me, if evil did not exist before the fall, then how could eating the fruit give Adam the knowledge of good and evil?  See, the tree bore fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, not of sin and righteousness.  So "sin" cannot be conflated with evil, in this instance.  Therefore, both good and evil must have existed prior to Adam eating the fruit.  They both had to have been created by god, according to the story; because they both already existed before the Garden and the Serpent and Eve and all the rest of it.  The Serpent even tells Eve that she will become like god, knowing the difference between good and evil.  But how would that have been possible unless evil existed before she and Adam ate the fruit?

 

In reality, we don't have anything besides what god says that would indicate that the world was perfect or even "very good' prior to the fall.  Unfortunately, not a lot of what god says in the creation story can be trusted.  For example, he said that Adam would die the same day he ate the fruit; and he made it clear that a "day" consisted of a morning and an evening.  But we know from Genesis 5 that Adam lived for 930 years--a long time and many "days"--after eating the fruit.  So, this was a lie.  To make sense of this obvious lie, people interpret "death" to mean "spiritual death"; but nothing in the text itself supports this interpretation.  Moreover, if the world were indeed perfect, or "very good", would Adam have even understood what death was, or how the threat was relevant to him?

 

We also know from the text that god never warns Eve, or even talks to her about the fruit.  He only talks to Adam.  So, when the Serpent first approaches Eve, her initial response is that they are not allowed to eat the fruit, nor even touch it, lest they surely die.  The problem is that god never said anything about touching the fruit.  Not to Adam, and certainly not to Eve, who god never even spoke to in the first place.  So, the idea that touching the fruit was prohibited was something introduced later, by someone other than god.  Possibly, Adam made it up and told it to Eve in the hopes of ensuring that she wouldn't have anything to do with the fruit.  Possibly Eve made it up in an effort to appear more victimized than she really was.  Either way, the prohibition against touching the fruit was also a lie.  Either Adam lied to Eve; or Eve lied to the Serpent.  But, how could either one of them lie, if the world was still perfect, "very good," and sin had not yet entered it?

 

When you really start picking the pieces of Genesis apart, does it sound like an inerrant, infallible revelation inspired by a perfect, omni-everything god?  Or does it sound more like ancient myths and legends passed down by ignorant goat herders, who quite possibly did not understand what plot holes were?

Yes, well, I can't help laughing because I've been so slow to spot the plot holes too!!!

 

I see what you are saying about evil being present on earth already, because of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 

 

As for Adam and Eve, dying, I took  it to mean the death or loss of innocence, but you're right, it doesn't say that, it just says on that day they would die. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 minutes ago, TruthFollower said:

As for Adam and Eve, dying, I took  it to mean the death or loss of innocence, but you're right, it doesn't say that, it just says on that day they would die.

This is one of the major problems with the bible and the christian religion.  Personal or denominational interpretation has to be added to the parts of the bible that don't make sense or that seem to say something contradictory.  The bible says "X"; but it actually means "Y".  You just have to read it with the right understanding, or the right interpretation.  But does that sound like something an omni-everything god would inspire?  Would he inspire such confusion if he really was not willing that anyone should perish?  A document that doesn't say what it means; and, often, doesn't even say anything?  

[Wertbag]

23 hours ago, TruthFollower said:

Has anyone disproved completely accounts that have been given?

I think the most famous example of a biblical claim that can be shown to be false is a global flood.  The bible is clear in what it claims, and yet the world does not show the physical marks that such an event would create.  Empires existed prior, during and after the claimed time of the flood.  Ancient cave paintings made with soluble pigments survive.  Ancient tombs and pyramids remain bone dry.  It is clear that such an event did not happen, and some Christians have attempted to claim it was a local event, hyperbole or just a moral story in order to get around this obvious gaping hole.  It is a hard re-interpretation to make when the bible is so overt with its claim that the event was global.

If it was local then it doesn't wipe out all evil, collecting the animals is irrelevant and needing an ark at all is pointless (just walk away from the area and you'll be fine).  It has to be global to fit the narrative, and yet we clearly see this never occurred.

[pantheory]

On 10/16/2022 at 2:40 PM, TruthFollower said:

Hi, my belief in the bible has ricocheted backwards and forwards a number of times.     Here are some things I've got stuck over lately which I think when understood, may alleviate some of the compulsions I've had to return to Christianity.  

 

At the moment I'm not understanding the necessity for a blood sacrifice for the remission of sins.    Since Jesus blood was holy and only a tiny amount could have saved the population of the world, why did he have to die?     

 

 

Also, it's seems exhausting to try and prove everything in the Bible is true.   Yet many things in the Bible do seem to have been proven.   Has anyone disproved completely accounts that have been given?    Is tackling the bible that way too unwieldy a task when much of it does record, with some errors, historical events?

 

 

 Also, some things in the Bible just don't make any sense as they are without additional explanation.   For example honour your parents, but next to nothing is mentioned about abusive parents.   Or, love thy neighbour as thyself, but what if he doesn't appreciate the same things you do?

 

Howdy again TruthFollower,

 

Animal cacrefice is a part of all Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Moslims. In the story of Cain and Able, Cain gave a vegetable sacrifice and Able gave an animal sacrifice to God and God was pleased with Able. Other middle eastern and north African religions believed in animal blood sacrifices, as well as many ancient religions all over the world.  So nothing unique about the Bible in this way.

 

There is little historical corroboration of the historical events of the Bible. Most of such stories have both big and small errors within them.

 

As far as totally ridiculous and absurd parts of the Bible that can easily be proven wrong, look at the Books of Genesis and Revelation. Both books are nothing but an obvious joke in light of modern day science.

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

What I always found disappointing in the Bible was the exclusion of the other inspired works. I wish the Ethiopian Jubilees had been included. Certainly would've made things much more interesting! It made no sense to me that for acceptance of all things inspired, not all things inspired were accepted. One issue I found with the legitimacy of the story telling of the bible revolves around JC's resurrection. I know that there are countless sites that point to the recounting of his crucifixion and death. For me, these sources are questionable, none are firsthand nor recent after his death. Further, for the well-documented time period he allegedly existed, you would think there would be equally, if not more, sources accounting for the dead reanimating and visiting throughout the city when he died. Matthew 27:52-53  

This alone should have garnered an amazing amount of evidence because the firsthand audience would be wider, increasing the likelihood of being recorded sooner than Christ's resurrection. Yet, there's nothing. Some might say, ohhh, they were just embellishing. But, that means the authors weren't being honest. This means their inspiration was not so genuine. At least, that's my perception of it. 

Does the bible have some historical references that are accurate? Absolutely. I allude it to a cultural rag mag that shares all the sordid details of a culture's earliest beginnings. But, you'll also find that the same stories are retold in the OT. Jacob and his wife for one. That was quite a salacious story and I'm not surprised they repurposed it (still using the same character names but different story roles in a different time period).

I understand the desire to feel loved by a greater force than the fickle heart of man. But, when you really start digesting the message, that omniscient love is just as fickle, manipulative, and abusive as man. And this shouldn't be surprising since man translated, wrote, and historically admitted to editing it to convey his preferred messaging. For example, the extensive Council of Nicaea biblical edits in the 4th Century AD conducted by the Romans under Emperor Constantine. Was this inspiration? Was this manipulation? Is it still the word of an alleged god? We have no way of every knowing for sure.

 

I encourage you to rethink what a god is. This for me answered a lot of my doubt and gave me a surer footing in the world. Like many on here, I grew up a devout believer (Pentecostal then Baptist). But, when I sat down and tried to define God, envision what that concept means, I realized it isn't a thing, but a title conferred. This made me dive even deeper into my personal understanding. I put scripture aside, because as mentioned in earlier posts, believers are never truly given an independent approach to evaluating their relationship with the divine. It's all spelled out in obscurely interpreted bits and pieces to fit the preferred lifestyle and faith structure of our leadership. Putting all that aside and simply imagining what a god would be, I realized I came up with a lot of characteristics that contradicted, made no sense, and ultimately made me realize I would be highly skeptical of any being that showed up claiming that role.

Ultimately, I came to accept that fact and went a step further to say that if such a being showed up, I'd have to treat it as an alien. Too much scifi? Perhaps. But if you've ever watched Q on Star Trek the Next Generation, you'll catch my drift. There's so many things we don't know, and science offers more reasonable possibilities than a god of the gaps approach. I've come to enjoy saying "I don't know" because it gives me an opportunity to learn more. And the more I learn, the more I know for certain the bible is simply a history of an ancient culture that was later bastardized by the Romans and continually throughout time.