"It got a bit blown up in the telling.."

[Elijah John]

To borrow a phrase from Thomas Mc Donald, "It got a bit blown up in the telling".

Thomas was referring to the episode where someone was struck down dead for touching the Ark of the Covenant. The tale indicates that the person meant well, and was trying to steady the cart, but was killed anyway.

Thomas indicated that the reality behind the event was probably a freak, workplace accident where the cart fell on him and killed him. But it "got a bit blown up in the telling".

I'm thinkin that many of the Bible tales have a core reality behind them, but also "got a bit blown up in the telling".

It's easy to be dismissive of the tales considering the unlikely nature of them (if taken literally). And in the words of Thomas Paine, the Bible sometimes does it's cause no justice. Paine put it this way: (to paraphrase from memory) "The Bible has produced nothing but atheists and fanatics".

For debate: Do skeptics err, and are they too quick to dismiss Bible tales as worthless? (Or even harmful or superstitious). In dismissing the tales of the Bible, are skeptics omitting the very real human propensity to exaggerate, and "blow things up in the telling"?

And conversely, are Fundamentalists erring too, when they accept the tales literally, as written. Are they also disregarding the very human propensity to "blow things up in the telling"?

(Thank you Thomas, both Thomases )

[earl]

The Bible is not a well preserved document.
This said it is for many easy to attack .
It is not the believer's fault for so much misunderstanding they have but the fault lies in the ones who intentionally and unintentionally failed to preserve the texts and any other reason where preservation failed by uncontrollable circumstances .
In addition ,one can see that over generations the God concept grew and grew through a long line of prophets.
Over centuries of teachers unknowingly teaching a embellished history it became traditions that became cement too hard to crack

[Thomas123]

[Replying to post 18 by Purple Knight]

Purple Knight: And that's the very best light I can put any of this in.

Come out from behind the Narnia logic veil and state your position plainly.
Only then can we examine what you are proposing correctly. Is it a duality of Good and Evil or an approximate of this. You can do better , I think.

[Thomas123]

Post 15(Thomas) : . It got a bit blown up in the telling, without doubt and the story served its narrative purpose, but..

The duality of function attributed to this Ark box, stands as a symbolic testimony to the pitfalls of God use. This Ark is perceived as the worlds first weapon of mass destruction while creating within the people an over reliance and a vulnerability. Isn't that what the arms race does, even today.
This over dependence on a placebo effect box is a human misuse of the Creator God's potential. The Philistines gave back the box because it messed with their ability to rationalize properly.This was forgivable idolatry, in my book and it served time and purpose ,up to a point. It was a prehistoric can of Red Bull for the most cynical of theists, but for others it is a necessary and lasting symbol of Yahweh reverence among humans. A box of tricks or an encapsulation of worship? Both!

[Zzyzx]

.

The Bible is not a well preserved document.
This said it is for many easy to attack .

Agree.

It is not the believer's fault for so much misunderstanding they have but the fault lies in the ones who intentionally and unintentionally failed to preserve the texts and any other reason where preservation failed by uncontrollable circumstances .
In addition ,one can see that over generations the God concept grew and grew through a long line of prophets.

Embellishments, modifications, editions, insertions, etc are common in folklore and other traditions

Over centuries of teachers unknowingly teaching a embellished history it became traditions that became cement too hard to crack

The cement is cracking; however, believers are patching furiously " trying to maintain an air of credibility for themselves and to deflect or hide criticisms

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to post 18 by Purple Knight]

Purple Knight: And that's the very best light I can put any of this in.

Come out from behind the Narnia logic veil and state your position plainly.
Only then can we examine what you are proposing correctly. Is it a duality of Good and Evil or an approximate of this. You can do better , I think.

What if we're given an evil Bible and a nasty, nasty God on purpose, and that's the test?

[William]

[Replying to post 24 by Purple Knight]

What if we're given an evil Bible and a nasty, nasty God on purpose, and that's the test?

It seems to me that while the idea of 'god' (a creator/explanation for creation) can be considered an essential expectation which would foster in the thoughts of a self aware being within a perfectly ignorant avatar, we can also expect from this, that the individual (species) will create an approximation of itself onto the god-mirror, so it is not the case that the image presented is an evil nasty nasty God, when taken in the collective sense.

This - in part - is why the book does not present just an evil nasty god...but rather, an evolving learning one...because those who wrote the words were evolving and learning and are not altogether 'evil' or 'good'.

The 'good' or the 'evil' will be drawn out of the individual as they choose to interpret - not only the words in a book - but the story of life itself.

The idea that we currently exist within a creation allows us to look at that creation and interpret what the creator might 'be like'.

You - if I recall correctly - tend toward the image of the creator being a sadist boy-child with an ant hill. This is because you interpret the story of life itself in that way.

Others interpret it differently.

The likely case is that the creator is light-years ahead of us in terms of knowledge of its self - we are still dressing the creator up in masks and costumes...which is understandable enough right up to the point where we then worship those as true representations of said creator...whether these are worshiped as stones with laws written on them, as a crucifix with a man nailed to it, a storybook with black and red ink in it...or whatever...

[Purple Knight]

You - if I recall correctly - tend toward the image of the creator being a sadist boy-child with an ant hill. This is because you interpret the story of life itself in that way.

I interpret the Bible that way particularly. I'm not the only one. But I'm open to that being the test. God puts on a nasty mask on purpose. Just a thought.

[William]

You - if I recall correctly - tend toward the image of the creator being a sadist boy-child with an ant hill. This is because you interpret the story of life itself in that way.

I interpret the Bible that way particularly. I'm not the only one. But I'm open to that being the test. God puts on a nasty mask on purpose. Just a thought.

To make a point. The bible is a story which puts a variety of mask and costume on dressing up a particular idea of god.

Not only 'blown up in the telling' but twisted and doctored... to suit the mirror image of the story-tellers.

That is the better way to 'interpret the bible'.

All things considered...