"Andrew" <thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:2008051719471216807-thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 2008-05-17 15:38:13 +0100, "Adonis" <zerocalories@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>
>>> "Hundreds" of years later? Hardly. A few decades perhaps. But don't
let
>>> facts get in the way of your opinions, will you?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Facts are the basis of opinions. The fact is, nobody really knows who
>> authored the works contained in the bible. The dates of the writings
are not
>> agreed on.
>
> But the degree of disgreement is not wide enough to allow 'hundreds of
years'
> to be at all reasonable. The Gospels were written in the later 1st
Century -
> there is near-universal consensus about that.
>
Yea, I'll agree to that. The gospels were written much later, now with
that out
of the way, what scriptures did jesus teach and refer to then?
>> What else is not agreed on? Is the book to be taken literally or
>> figuratively?
>
> Everything's so black and white with you, isn't it?
>
>> Is the collection of stories the word of god or not.
>
> Depends what you mean. If you mean literally that God dictated it in
some way,
> then no.
>
>> If it is the word of god, what part? Is the character god the same god
in
>> both the OT and NT? Is the character jesus god or not. Did the events
like
>> the flood, burning bush the did not burn, talking donkey, the talking
>> serpent, dead people that have been dead for more than a brief time
coming
>> back to life, food falling from the sky, devils causing pigs to commit
>> suicide.
>
> Some yes, some no.
Which leads to whom decides what is "divine inspiration" and what is
gibberish?
If this "divine god can "inspire" people to create a manuscript that by
most
christians is claimed to be the word and instruction manual from god, this
same
god can by "divine inspiration" write in that book false hoods. Your own
reasoning on this matter is a paradox.
>
>> This book is supposed to be the revelation of this god that created
this
>> earth and all that is in it, in what can only be described as a miracle
given
>> the amount of time the bible said it took. The true facts are that all
the
>> stories of the bible were borrowed, copied, copied and changed slightly
to
>> fit what the author is trying to say, from other writings form
societies that
>> are far older than the bible.
>
> "All the stories of the Bible?" Surely not. You generalise much too
broadly
> here. Some stories (the Noah story being a good example) are reworkings
of
> older stories, but they are reworked to reflect the author's religious
> insights (inspiration, if you like) and to communicate something to his
> readers
>
Yup; the Noah story is a redo. If you read it in it's context, it is not
about
the author's religious insights. There is no moral of the story, it is
written
as an event that is claiming to be fact about this loving god admiting a
mistake
and his correction of that mistake.. And yes; ALL the stories are a redo
of
older, much older societies. The death and resurrection. The virgin birth.
The
hero who through all are saved to salvation. It is not new and unique to
the
bible.
>> The bible is nothing more than a ancient version of the Hollywood
movie
>> remake, only this one was the money maker so the old ones were
forgotten.
>
> You do talk some gibberish, don't you?
>
|
