Skeptic's Annotated Bible Refuted!!

[ceo_esq]

So... when it says homosexuality is an abomination, that's just symbology?

When it says God created the world in six days, that's just symbology?

When it says Jesus died and rose from the grave, that's just symbology?

When Paul says, "if this is just symbology, we are wasting our time," that's just symbology?

Trenchant. You've been missed, Yahzi.

 

[Doctor X]

Yahzi:

Indeed!

Here is the Basic Rules of Interpretation:

1. If it supports your theology/beliefs/prejudices--take it literally.

2. If it contradicts the same, itself, appears offensive, or even silly--take it metaphorically.

Of course it help if you beat your head with it occassionally to prevent the Sin of Reason from taking hold. . . .

--J.D.

 

[Radrook]

OK, I get it now. Yeast is sin and 144,000 just means a lot. The Bible should not be taken literally, but should be interpreted by the reader. How's about I just look at it as one really huge game of Telephone, in which the original story got hopelessly mangled after decades of being told and retold?

In other words, there may be a kernel of truth there somewhere, but since I can't determine which piece is true, I'll just flip all the cards over and decide I'm not going to bother believing any part of it until it's been proven.

You have a right not to believe in anything you do not wish to believe in. But since you do go out of your way to ridicule other people's beliefs, then those whose beliefs you ridicule do have a tendency to try to clarify matters.

Actually, if the Bible seems mangled and unintelligible it is because you lack the essential knowledge to understand. The Bible cannot be interpreted any which way a you suggest. Doing so throws the whole context out off kilter.

For example, if I go about saying that God promises only heaven to faithful ones then I am ignoring many of promises of God where the earthly paradise is mentioned as a reward.

Isaiah 65:17
"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.

Matthew 5:5
"Blessed are [Ps 37:11] the [Or humble, meek] gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.

2 Peter 3:13
But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.

The condition of himanity on this new earth are described in Revelations:

Revelation 21
4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

Even the animals will be at peace:

Isaiah 11
6 The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling [1] together;
and a little child will lead them.
7 The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The infant will play near the hole of the cobra,
and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest.


So we have to be very careful how we go about choosing to understand. Otherwise our beliefs will stand out as sore thumbs and be immediately identifiable as being spurious and unwarranted.

Im did leave some areas in my previous post that needed explanation. There are so many points here that in order to remain concise one has to focus on a few and take the others gradually.

Yes, yeast is used as a symbol of false teachings and sin. The context tells us which of these is being referred to. The 144,000 mentioned can be taken as a literal number. Especially since it mentions the number of members taken from each tribe.

We have to keep in mind that God did make a promise to Abraham that through his seed the nations would be blessed.
In view of this it should be no surprise that he chooses 144,000 for special privileges.

It is also very important to keep ion mind that the Bible contains salvational and nonsalvational issues. For example, believing that Jesus died for our sins and accepting his Ransom sacrifice is absolutely necessary in order to gain salvation.

John 17
3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Knowing what 144000 means in the book of Revelations is not. So even if we lacked accurate knowledge about certain things in Revelations or other parts of the Bible we would still have the simple essentials that we need in order to approach God with a clear conscience.

Also, please try not to attribute things to the writer that he did not write. I did not say that the whole Bible is to be taken symbolically. That would be madness. Obviously there are things in the Bible which are literal. For example, the Ethiopian Eunuch's studying the book of Isaiah--not understanding it and asking Philip for assistance is literal. Jesus' birth to Mary is literal. His choosing his twelve apostles is literal.

I am certain that you are intelligent enough to realize this. So I will understand that what you are really saying is that w can be arbitrary in deciding what is and what is not literal in the Bible. To which I say no you cannot. Why? Because the Bible is clear on when it wants you to take it literally, historically, metaphorically, poetically, prophetically, or otherwise. In fact, the Bible itself provides clues to meaning in order that we know what it means when it does speak symbolically.

Take for example the beast described in Revelations as rising out of the sea.
In the book of Daniel we are told that God compares nations to beasts. In another that he compares the sea to wicked mankind.

Isaiah 57:20
But the wicked are like the tossing sea, which cannot rest, whose waves cast up mire and mud.

Such a key even helps us understand what Jesus said when he mentioned the roaring of the sea:


Luke 21:25
"There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea.

We can also understand where the beasts mentioned in Daniel are originating from:

Daniel 7
2 Daniel said: "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me were the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea. 3 Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea.

Neither are we left to guess what such beasts represent:

Daniel 7:17
'The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth

So you see, contrary to what many ignorant persons think, or at least need to think, understanding the Bible is definitely not an arbitrary choose what you may affair. I for example I would say that the beasts mentioned here are not kingdoms, then I would be contradicting the Bible. In short, writing my own version. Or if I ignored the keys provided by the Bible itself in order to understand Revelations, then I would be writing my own version.,

The truth really is that with such keys of knowledge we are able to easily understand hat Revelations is talking about and will avoid falling into the ungainly pitfall of calling things we are not qualified to understand because we lack sufficient necessary knowledge silly. So for those familiar with these easily understood keys, there is no confusion at all.

BTW

You are 100% free to consider the whole book just a jumble that got mangled via being told and retold. I am not trying to convert you. I was simply responding to what seems to be a serious confusion based on lack of essential knowledge. I just wanted to point out that there are ways to understand the Bible that you seem to be unaware of.

As for viewing the Bible as a telephone book and a game -- please keep in mind that any book can be subjected to that approach and be made to seem ridiculous. But to the knowledgeable, the one engaging in such an activity would appear not in a very good intellectual light.

 

[Doctor X]

Radrook:

Right, one last time.

Actually, if the Bible seems mangled and unintelligible it is because you lack the essential knowledge to understand.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. You have yet to demonstrate any evidence that your rejection of biblical scholarship is based on anything other than what you want to be true rather than actual textual evidence.

The Bible cannot be interpreted any which way a (sic) you suggest. Doing so throws the whole context out off kilter.

Appeals to context do not save your position. On the contrary, the context argues for his interpretation.

For example, if I go about saying that God promises only heaven to faithful ones then I am ignoring many of promises of God where the earthly paradise is mentioned as a reward.

You also ignore where it is stated that only those predetermined to be saved--"born from above"--anothen--are saved. In other words, you have to consider what the contradictions indicate rather than try to pretend they really mean the same thing.

You should take to heart for yourself your suggestion:

So we have to be very careful how we go about choosing to understand. Otherwise our beliefs will stand out as sore thumbs and be immediately identifiable as being spurious and unwarranted.

I will not "parse" your whole post. However, allow me to touch on a few issues.

. . . believing that Jesus died for our sins and accepting his Ransom sacrifice is absolutely necessary in order to gain salvation.

Not according to Jn:

In response to the rather likable Nicodemus; both complimentary and insightful greeting, Junior responds with, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless one is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God,'" ( Jn 3:3). All of the variants accept anothen--ανωθεν. The ending --then-- θεν--places the adverb ano-- ανω--"above" in the ablative. Jn is the only text cited to support translating ανωθεν as "again" or "anew;" all others have it signify "from above" with "from the heavens" serving as the limit. Textual evidence from other passages in Jn corroborates the proper translation as "from above." Chastising the Pharisees, Junior proclaims, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world," ( Jn 8:23). The contrasting terms ek kato-- εκ κατω-- for "from below" and ek ano-- εκ ανω-- for "from above" underscore the inherent distinction between Junior and the Pharisees. They are not different people, they are a different species. The contrast and context forces the RSV to accept the proper translation of ανω. Translating ανωθεν as "again" or "anew" is unjustifiable, and frankly, unconscionable.

Nicodemus wonders how he can become born from above. Verse 4 reads, "Nicodemus said to him, 'How is a man being an old man able to be given birth to, not being able to go to the womb of his mother a second time and to be given birth to?'" Clearly, he cannot. He cannot change his nature. "'That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit,'" ( Jn 3:6). Men, then, are either born ανωθεν, inherently chosen, or they are not. Junior knows who the chosen are ( Jn 2:23-25). He gives them the ability to discover their birthright. The blind young man did not miss the mark, he just could not see it. Outer appearances do not reflect inner truth, for a blind young man and a Samaritan whore are chosen while the respected and influential Nicodemus is not.

--Author Moi with references below

Also, please try not to attribute things to the writer that he did not write.

You should apply the same admonishment to yourself regarding the texts. See above.

Obviously there are things in the Bible which are literal. . . . Jesus' birth to Mary is literal.

Is it? Which one? Mk has no such birth, neither does Jn. Mt and Lk's are mutually exclusive. Is he born prior to 4 BCE or after 6 CE. It is one or the other.

Why? Because the Bible is clear on when it wants you to take it literally, historically, metaphorically, poetically, prophetically, or otherwise.

Really. Then these must be literal:

Exodus 22:28-29: You shall not put off the skimming of the first yield of your vats. You shall give Me the first-born among your sons. You shall do the same with your cattle and your flocks: seven days it shall remain with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me.

Ezek 20:25-26: Moreover I [YHWH--Ed.] gave them statues that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know I am the Lord.

No, you take literal what supports your beliefs and make symbolic that which does not. Of course, that is not a consistent or scholarly criterion. We are interested in exegesis not eisegesis.

You are 100% free to consider the whole book just a jumble that got mangled via being told and retold. I am not trying to convert you. I was simply responding to what seems to be a serious confusion based on (sic) lack of essential knowledge.

To which he can respond that your view "seems to be a serious confusion based on a lack of essential knowledge" of biblical scholarship and criticism. Thus, this claim:

I just wanted to point out that there are ways to understand the Bible that you seem to be unaware of.

is rather ironic. Nevertheless, you have been pointed to references and ask to support your claims by addressing the references. For some reason, you have chosen to ignore this. I may not like Einstein--I really need to travel faster than light to make it to Nimbus 9 and their population of Nymphomaniacs--however, if I want to debate Einstein with physicists and have any relevance I have to demonstrate knowledge of physics and Einstein.

As for viewing the Bible as a telephone book and a game -- please keep in mind that any book can be subjected to that approach and be made to seem ridiculous.

You may find it enlightening that a chaired professor, widely respected, demonstrates your process of eisegesis by preaching sermons-on-the-fly from a phonebook.

But to the knowledgeable, the one engaging in such an activity would appear not in a very good intellectual light.

You should consider well how that admonishment actually to yourself.

The same scholar above actually has an "out" for you.

--J.D.

Reference:

Aland K, et al. Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 3rd. Ed., corrected, Institute for New Testament Textual Research, United Bible Societies, Munster, Westphalia, 1966.

Levenson JD. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity

Smyth HW. Greek Grammer. Harvard University Press, 1984, &#182

 

[DangerousBeliefs]

You are reading a book written in symbols literally.
The Bible uses the words "woman" and "virginity" as symbols. Not only in Revelations, but in the OT as well.

Here's the problem... which parts are symbolic or analogies and which are not?

How do we know you're right?

33,000 Christian sects will say your answers are wrong (no matter the answers!)

Here's a simple question I have yet to get an answer on... in the Bible, what is my clear path to getting to Heaven?

(Hint: there isn't one!)

 

[Yahweh]

Yahweh, did you read that essay carefully? I can't take any position on its accuracy, but it has the most comprehensive research bibliography on Mithraism I've seen online, and is more thoroughly footnoted than any online source arguing the contrary thesis. What makes you dismiss it out of hand?

At least part of the reason I doubt the accuracy of the article describing Mithraism originating 4+ centuries well after Christianity is the fact was suppressed by the Christians in the 4th Century AD, and the last worshippers of Mithras come from the early 5th Century AD. It is identified as arriving in the Eastern Mediterranean around the first or second centuries BC, the origins of the religion may be from the 14th Century BC.

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Martin Luther King Jr.'s Essay "The Influence of the Mystery Religions on Christianity":

Mithraism is perhaps the greatest example of paganism's last effort to reconcile itself to the great spiritual movement which was gaining such sturdy influence with its purer conception of God.[Footnote: Dill, Roman Society From Nero to Marcus Aurelius, p. 585.] Ernest Renan, the French philosopher and Orientalist, expressed the opinion that Mithraism would have been the religion of the modern world if anything had occured to halt or destroy the growth of Christianity in the early centuries of its existence. All this goes to show how important Mithraism was in ancient times. It was suppressed by the Christians sometime in the latter part of the fourth century A.D.; but its collapse seems to have been due to the fact that by that time many of its doctrines and practices had been adopted by the church, so that it was practically absorbed by its rival.

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Martin Luther King Jr.'s Essay "A Study of Mithraism":

The history of Mithraism lies deep in the roots of the past. Documents which belong to the fourteenth century before Christ have been found in the Hittite capital of Boghaz Keui, in which the names of Mithra, Vanuna, Indra, and the Heavenly Twins are recorded. It is also known that they were written long before the separation of the Indian and Iranian races. But to give the exact origin of this cult and to determine exactly where Mithra came from would be merely conjecture.

Many have held the opinion that Mithra came originally from the high plateuas of the Hindukush; and the differences in his nature, when he is found later in India and Iran, were due to environmental influences in the two distinctly different areas. In the VedasVedas: the four collections of the sacred literature of the Aryans.

I've not gone through the article extensively (it is a very long read), but as the origins of Mithraism is apparently a large part of the article, I'm afraid I call to question its legitimacy.

 

[Radrook]

Here's the problem... which parts are symbolic or analogies and which are not?

How do we know you're right?

33,000 Christian sects will say your answers are wrong (no matter the answers!)

Here's a simple question I have yet to get an answer on... in the Bible, what is my clear path to getting to Heaven?

(Hint: there isn't one!)

First, a person who comes across a book written in symbols and stubbornly insists on taking the book literally is making himself unnecessarily difficult. If I were shown a book of chess problems, and argued that they did not resemble positions which arise out of chess games, then I would be told that the book cannot be expected to give positions arising out of chess games because the book is a book specifically written in the chess problem mode where those composing the problems could not care less if the position is or is not possible to attain in a chess game. If I were to insist, then the person would rightfully conclude that I am trying to make myself unnecessarily difficult.

As I previously explained, the Bible is clear when it is speaking factually. For example, the books of Genesis, Exodus Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josuah, Judges kings 2 kings are all patently historical accounts.

We have here the origins of humanity, its fall, the subsequent promise of a restoration, the tracing of the line of descent of the savior of mankind through to Noah--to Shem his son, to Terah, to Abraham, to Issac, to Jacob, to Judah and so on.
We have the account of the establishment of a nation specifically chosen to represent God on earth and illustrate the futility of righteousness through Law We are shown how the nation was given this law. We are told of how the nation came to be in captivity and was liberated. It's subsequent lack of faith and period of wondering in the wilderness. Its attempts to occupy the land of Caanan. We have the account of how the Levitical priesthood was establish, a priesthood that foreshadowed the promised savior and reminded of mankind's need for restoration via redemption, WE have the period when this nation did not have a king.

It is called Judges. During this time we have such men as Barak, Gideon and Samson executing their responsibilities as judges in Israel. We are told of the difficulties that the nation encountered in its relationship with the neighboring peoples. We have the book of Ruth establishing her as the line through which the savior would come.


Then we have a record of Israel under its kings after Israel had petitioned to be appointed a king. We have here the choosing of Saul as Israel's first king. His replacement by David who is identified as the line through which the savior would come.

In short, there is no basis to arbitrarily approach these historical accounts as symbolic because that was not the main purpose of these books. Their purpose to provide a factual record in order to let us see how God gradually took time to produce the Messiah and show us just how futile it is to depend on our own imperfect efforts in order to gain righteousness.

Their purpose was also instructional.
Books such as Psalms and Proverbs give us much-needed advice.

The major and minor prophets show us clearly what the consequences of disobedience to God are. They also show us that God is merciful in that he restored Israel to its homeland after they repented.

So no, you just cannot jump into the Bible and start giving it arbitrary meanings without those arbitrary meanings looking ridiculous.

True, there are many denominations.
True, all claim to be correct.
But does that mean that the Bible itself is self contradictory?
Or does it simply mean that only a few have been allowed to comprehend it for reasons which just might actually be none of our concern since the author of a book has a right to make that book available to whom he pleases for whatever reason he might choose?

 

[Radrook]

Here's a simple question I have yet to get an answer on... in the Bible, what is my clear path to getting to Heaven

Sorry, I forgot to cover this questions.
You say that you know the answer to getting to heaven question.
You say that it is none.
So since that is the answer you feel comfortable with.
I will leave you with that answer.

How do we know you're right?

I guess you don't.

 

[triadboy]

Sorry, I forgot to cover this questions.
You say that you know the answer to getting to heaven question.
You say that it is none.
So since that is the answer you feel comfortable with.
I will leave you with that answer.

I believe DangerousBeliefs is questioning your understanding of the path to Heaven. Once you commit to one path - he will show you the other - they can't both be right.

 

[Radrook]

I believe DangerousBeliefs is questioning your understanding of the path to Heaven. Once you commit to one path - he will show you the other - they can't both be right.

I agree.
Absolutely!

 

[T'ai Chi]

Does anybody have any theories why the 144,000 number was chosen? Is it interesting from a numerology or symbolic point of view?

 

[ceo_esq]

At least part of the reason I doubt the accuracy of the article describing Mithraism originating 4+ centuries well after Christianity is the fact was suppressed by the Christians in the 4th Century AD, and the last worshippers of Mithras come from the early 5th Century AD. It is identified as arriving in the Eastern Mediterranean around the first or second centuries BC, the origins of the religion may be from the 14th Century BC.

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Martin Luther King Jr.'s Essay "The Influence of the Mystery Religions on Christianity":


From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Martin Luther King Jr.'s Essay "A Study of Mithraism":


I've not gone through the article extensively (it is a very long read), but as the origins of Mithraism is apparently a large part of the article, I'm afraid I call to question its legitimacy.

You're relying on a class paper MLK wrote as a 20-year-old college sophomore 65 years ago? And which relies on 100-year-old scholarship by Cumont (the difficulties of whose conclusions are pointed out by modern experts cited in the Tektonics essay)? You need to review the elements of a good argument from authority.

Further, you're mischaracterizing the Tektonics essay when you suggest that it asserts that Mithraism originated long after Christianity. Its principal point in this regard, for which the author is at least able to cite modern scholarly authority, is the probable lack of continuity between ancient Iranian Mithraism and Roman Mithraism:

By the time of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies in the early 70s, the lack of evidence of an Iranian/Roman continuity led Mithraic scholars to suspect that Roman Mithraism was "a new creation using old Iranian names and details for an exotic coloring to give a suitably esoteric appearance to a mystery cult" [Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies. Manchester U. Press, 1975.]

 

[DangerousBeliefs]

As I previously explained, the Bible is clear when it is speaking factually. For example, the books of Genesis, Exodus Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josuah, Judges kings 2 kings are all patently historical accounts.

Ah ha! A claim we can test. Do you have any factual evidence for these chapters?

 

[Gregor]

Does anyone remember the brief stint a few years ago when the ever-offensive Robert Turkel visited these very hallowed halls? It was a brief visit, as most of us here wouldn't drink the coolaide.

However, I think we've previously debated the issue of mithracism and the consensus was that the dearth of textural evidence for the hard details from either Persian Mithracism or Roman Mithracism cannot support a strong argument of direct borrowing by Xianity. However, some syncretism must be conceded by almost all.

And Dr. X - always nice to read your posts. Miss them at IIDB.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Further, you're mischaracterizing the Tektonics essay when you suggest that it asserts that Mithraism originated long after Christianity. Its principal point in this regard, for which the author is at least able to cite modern scholarly authority, is the probable lack of continuity between ancient Iranian Mithraism and Roman Mithraism:

Nevertheless, nascent Roman Mithraism is traceable to the 1st century CE.

 

[ceo_esq]

Nevertheless, nascent Roman Mithraism is traceable to the 1st century CE.

Off the bat, I don't see anything in the Holding essay that contradicts this, although it does assert that nearly all still-existing evidence of Roman Mithraism dates from significantly (at least a century) after the events of the New Testament.

 

[Ossai]

Radrook
If god is going to create a new earth and heaven and it’s going to be perfect (no crime, suffering, etc). Why didn’t god do it the first time?

As for viewing the Bible as a telephone book and a game -- please keep in mind that any book can be subjected to that approach and be made to seem ridiculous. But to the knowledgeable, the one engaging in such an activity would appear not in a very good intellectual light.

So your selections of the bible supporting you point of view were clearly written. You didn’t have to take bits and pieces from various chapters and then spin each so that they as a whole said what you wanted. Oh, wait that’s exactly what you did!

As I previously explained, the Bible is clear when it is speaking factually. For example, the books of Genesis, Exodus Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josuah, Judges kings 2 kings are all patently historical accounts.

Take just the first one you mentioned, Genesis, and examine it in detail. Two different creation stories, a world wide flood myth borrowed from the Babylonians, multiple gods, god cursing future generations for the sins of one person, etc, and you’re claiming it’s factual?

But does that mean that the Bible itself is self contradictory?

All you need to determine if the bible itself is contradictory is to read it. Yes, it is contradictory.

Ossai

 

[triadboy]

Mithra - the sun god - relates directly to Zorostrianism. Zorostrianism predates Judaism. (Mithra is also manifested in the Hindu religion as Mitra, the sun god.)

I hope no one is assuming that Mithra didn't exist until AFTER xianity - that would be wrong. Mithra existed BEFORE Yahweh (as you know Him).

Knowing that ancient societies were Henotheistic - it is easy to see that people worshipped Mithra BEFORE Yahweh - much less Jebus.

 

[LW]

I hope no one is assuming that Mithra didn't exist until AFTER xianity - that would be wrong. Mithra existed BEFORE Yahweh (as you know Him).

Well, the Celtic fertility goddess Damona also predates Christianity, but I hope that no one uses that as an evidence that Wicca predates Christianity...

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Take just the first one you mentioned, Genesis, and examine it in detail. Two different creation stories, a world wide flood myth borrowed from the Babylonians, multiple gods, god cursing future generations for the sins of one person, etc, and you’re claiming it’s factual?

You have missed the biggest: the cosmology entailing a (solid!) firmament, waters above that firmament, "lights" governing day and night attached to it, etc.