Rational religion.

[Elijah John]

For debate.

Is there any reasonable way to approach religion and the Bible?

If so, how if not "picking and choosing"

Also.

Is the Bible entirely evil and irrelevant? A complete anachronism?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 6 by Justin108]

You seem to be saying that the notion that God exists is completely irrational. Got it. We'll have to agree to disagree on that fundamental premise.

But I'm not sure how you can say that because Science itself has not disproven God, unless of course, I missed the headlines.

But let us suppose for the sake of argument that God exists, and He has something to do with the Bible.

What then, if not "picking and choosing" would you consider the most rational and least "hypocritical" approach to the Bible based on your your spectrum of rationality?

Or is the mainstream Christian or Jew just as irrational as the Fundamentalist in your book?

If God exists, what is the flaw in seeing the Bible as being inspired by God, but not as infallible dictation. Inspired the way love poetry is inspired by the beloved?

This way, one does not have to defend every absurd, atrocious or erroneous part the Bible may contain, and one is still able to mine some gems that inspire a person to be a better person, and live a better life.

[William]

For debate.

Is there any reasonable way to approach religion and the Bible?

If so, how if not "picking and choosing"

Also.

Is the Bible entirely evil and irrelevant? A complete anachronism?

Picking and choosing is indeed the only way to approach the bible. I have found little gems of wisdom within it, but I also find the same with other books.

It gives me an understanding into the idea of one type of god and in that - because it is a popular idea, into the minds of those who believe it in a literal sense.

I don't approach the bible thinking it to be literal, but figurative and metaphorical.

I also understand it to be a political device rather than something inspired by some actual god and tend to observe the idea of the god it presents as made in the image of 'man' as it were, which is a great clue as to why I consider it to being historically a political device...along with the fact that it has been used in that way and helped shape the events of history.

[Justin108]

You seem to be saying that the notion that God exists is completely irrational.

That's not what I'm saying. Unlike most atheists, I actually find the notion of intelligent design to make a fair amount of sense. However, if there was a God, I am absolutely sure he would be a Deistic one. And as such, he would have nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible. So it's not the existence of God that we disagree on as much as it is whether or not this God actually had anything to do with the Bible.

But let us suppose for the sake of argument that God exists, and He has something to do with the Bible.

I'll meet you half way and suppose the first premise is true, but why are we supposing the second?

What then, if not "picking and choosing" would you consider the most rational and least "hypocritical" approach to the Bible based on your your spectrum of rationality?

As I asked before, give me a few examples of what you would "pick and choose" from the Bible?

1. What do you believe is in the Bible that actually came from God?
2. How did you come to conclude this came from God? Was it simply because you personally agree with it?

If God exists, what is the flaw in seeing the Bible as being inspired by God

It really depends on what you mean by "inspired". Does it mean God physically influenced these people to write the Bible like some kind of Jedi mind-trick? Or is the Bible simply "inspired by God" in the same way that Animal Farm was inspired by the Russian Revolution?

If you believe the former, that God deliberately influenced the authors of the Bible in some kind of supernatural way, then you will need to support that. However, if you believe the latter, that the Bible was simply inspired by the idea of God then we might agree. But then the entirety of the Bible is still nothing but man's take on what they think God is like. If I were to write a poem about God right now, it would be just as God-inspired as the Bible, but the end result would be nothing but my ideas. So what value would this poem have over any other written word? If the Bible was merely inspired by God in this mundane way, what value would it carry above any other book?

This way, one does not have to defend every absurd, atrocious or erroneous part the Bible may contain, and one is still able to mine some gems that inspire a person to be a better person, and live a better life.

I simply do not understand why you need the Bible for this. What gems do the Bible have that cannot be found elsewhere in books that do not claim to be from God?

[William]

You seem to be saying that the notion that God exists is completely irrational.

That's not what I'm saying. Unlike most atheists, I actually find the notion of intelligent design to make a fair amount of sense. However, if there was a God, I am absolutely sure he would be a Deistic one. And as such, he would have nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible. So it's not the existence of God that we disagree on as much as it is whether or not this God actually had anything to do with the Bible.

But let us suppose for the sake of argument that God exists, and He has something to do with the Bible.

I'll meet you half way and suppose the first premise is true, but why are we supposing the second?

What then, if not "picking and choosing" would you consider the most rational and least "hypocritical" approach to the Bible based on your your spectrum of rationality?

As I asked before, give me a few examples of what you would "pick and choose" from the Bible?

1. What do you believe is in the Bible that actually came from God?
2. How did you come to conclude this came from God? Was it simply because you personally agree with it?

If God exists, what is the flaw in seeing the Bible as being inspired by God

It really depends on what you mean by "inspired". Does it mean God physically influenced these people to write the Bible like some kind of Jedi mind-trick? Or is the Bible simply "inspired by God" in the same way that Animal Farm was inspired by the Russian Revolution?

If you believe the former, that God deliberately influenced the authors of the Bible in some kind of supernatural way, then you will need to support that. However, if you believe the latter, that the Bible was simply inspired by the idea of God then we might agree. But then the entirety of the Bible is still nothing but man's take on what they think God is like. If I were to write a poem about God right now, it would be just as God-inspired as the Bible, but the end result would be nothing but my ideas. So what value would this poem have over any other written word? If the Bible was merely inspired by God in this mundane way, what value would it carry above any other book?

This way, one does not have to defend every absurd, atrocious or erroneous part the Bible may contain, and one is still able to mine some gems that inspire a person to be a better person, and live a better life.

I simply do not understand why you need the Bible for this. What gems do the Bible have that cannot be found elsewhere in books that do not claim to be from God?

Thanks for this post. It is really inspiring and thought-provoking for the critical thinking it has obviously employed.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 8 by JehovahsWitness]

You seem to forget that the books of the NT were themselves subject to "picking and choosing" Compiled by commitee. Roman Catholics chose the original Christian Canon, and Protestant reformers gave you the version that JWs embrace now as the "Word of God".

Which group was infallible in their choices?

My personal belief is that God is omnipotent and that whoever wrote and compiled the bible canon did so under his mighty power and direction. I believe that Jehovah himself "picked" scripture he had inspired and "chose" not to include cooking receipes, shopping lists and non-inspired writings of which there is an endless amount.

Humans in this case were simply instruments through which God can got what he wanted done.


For more on this topic you might like to consult my post: The human "pens" in the hand of the Almighty #1
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 718#833718


JW

[William]

My personal belief is that God is omnipotent

If the bible is to be taken as literal and linear, then the God of the Garden was not all knowing.

At least not as far as the story goes.

Therefore your beliefs are a product of an ongoing evolution of this idea of GOD.

9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?�

An all knowing God would know the answer so is the question rhetorical?

11 And he [the Lord God ]said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?�

Two more rhetorical questions?

13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?�

Why the questions if the answers were already known?

The only logical answer to that is the questions were designed to get the humans to speak their evil and hear themselves doing so, even though they could easily have spoken their good.
If this God is all knowing then he already knew what their answers would be. So it would't have been for his benefit that the questions were asked.

Therefore it can be assumed that if your assumption is correct in your belief that this God is all knowing, then everything that He did in relation to creating human kind was known by him in advance and he was just going through the motions.

and that whoever wrote and compiled the bible canon did so under his mighty power and direction. I believe that Jehovah himself "picked" scripture he had inspired and "chose" not to include cooking receipes, shopping lists and non-inspired writings of which there is an endless amount.

Have you ever considered that political motivation was part of the process and that those motivated by such had their own agenda unrelated or in opposition to that Gods agenda?

Humans in this case were simply instruments through which God can got what he wanted done.

Or, is political motivation and unrelated/opposing agenda of no particular concern and even preferable in relation to this all knowing God and his agenda?

Because it seems to me that knowing how things would turn out was no barrier in deciding to create humanity and place them on a planet in a vast un-accessible universe where they could be used - apparently forever as instruments of worship and non-equals for that.

I sometimes think, if that were me I would do things differently. I wouldn't require anyone worships me as if I am some grand critter and they are lucky to be alive to have the opportunity. Indeed, if I was all knowing and thus knew that, I would not have created the universe and put consciousness into it at all.

Not because I might see some beneficial end result - but because the path from A-Z would not be considered righteous enough for me to justify it.

However, if I was NOT all knowing, (but rather ingenious nonetheless) I might consider giving it a go with a preferred outcome in mind, and commit myself to dealing with the unpredictable as I went along, altogether committing myself to see it to the end, ...and that also means having to work with what I have even if it is not the most preferable...
...Which tends to be one impression I get about that idea of GOD when I read the bible

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 9 by Elijah John]

# QUESTION Did the Catholic church compile the bible?

It is not unusual to read that the Cathoic church selected the books should be included in the bible canon notably at Council of Nicea. This is far from the case.

The official listing for the Hebrew Scriptures (often called the Old Testament) was fixed by the end of the fifth century B.C.E. Jesus Christ and his apostles used only books from this catalog when quoting Scripture. Jesus for example quoted or refered to over half of the books of the hebrew scriptures without once making a single referrence to the so called apocryphal books. Catholics therefore evidently had no say in compilation of the 39 books of the Hebrew scriptures.

# Did catholics decide which books would be included in the Christian Greek Scriptures ("New Testament")?

No. Unlike the Hebrew scriptures which were for the most part professionally copied and catagorised, the Christian Greek scriptures were indeed effectively collections of letters; letters that were copied by the "addressees' or the people that received them. As the letters (and gospel accounts) became available they were circulated from congregation to congregation, each congregation (or groups of congregations) making and keeping their own copies. As time progressed then, the congregations would effectively have "collections" of books which had been available to them or catalogs.

Who decided which books (letters/gospels) were authorative?

While the apostles and eyewitness followers of Jesus were alive this was not an issue. Those 12 men and other elders associated with them would ensure that no unauthorized teachings circulated in the congregations. It was during this period (from around 41-90 CE) that the gospels were written.

After the death of those first century and early second century "church Fathers" the need did arise to protect what had already been authorized since the did indeed begin to emerge uninspired gnostic writings from dubious sources. This listings are often referred to as "catalogues".

There are at least 16 outstanding early catalogs of the Christian Greek Scriptures, from the Muratorian Fragment of 170 C.E. to the Third Council of Carthage of 397 C.E. All of the outstanding Early Cataloges included all four Gospels (Muratorian Fragment for example which refers to Luke as the THIRD book of the gospel). Before the end of the second century there was a universal accptance of the gospels,

What does this mean? It means the books that were to be considered "sacred scripture" were fixed not long after the last book was penned. If the Council of Nicea came and gave their "official" stamp of approval to the collection, it was done AFTER the fact.

This council did not remove any books that previously had been included (on the contrary it chose to INCLUDE extra books that had no place in the earlier canons). So did the 'Catholic' Coucil of Nicea decide? Not at all, it was all decided long before this famous meeting by the first century Christian community itself headed by the Apostles and later trusted men in the Christian community as reflected in catalogues written long before the Catholic church existed.




RELATED POSTS

Did the Catholic Church compile the bible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 66#p838566

Is there is evidence that the apocryphal books were NOT originally recognized as part of the inspired Scriptures?
viewtopic.php?p=838822#p838822

How should we view Iraneus' and other early catalogues?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 84#p923384

Does the idea of a Great Apostacy negate the authenticity of the bible canon? [this post]
viewtopic.php?p=1045515#p1045515

When did "The Great Apostacy" take place?
viewtopic.php?p=1044471#p1044471

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

BIBLICAL COMPILATION , APOCRYPHA and ...THE GREAT APOSTACY

[Zzyzx]

.

Humans in this case were simply instruments through which God can got what he wanted done.

If that was the case, God certainly told a lot of weird stories and didn't seem to know very much about the Earth and the universe (comparable to what humans probably 'knew' during biblical times).

Could it be that Bible writers just pretended to hear things from God -- or made up things in their mind?

If people write things and claim they came from God, does that mean that what they write actually came from God? If many believe what is written was from God, does that mean it is true? If it was written a long time ago, does that assure truth and accuracy?

[William]

[Replying to post 9 by Elijah John]

# QUESTION Did the Catholic church compile the bible?

It is not unusual to read that the Cathoic church selected the books should be included in the bible canon notably at Council of Nicea. This is far from the case.

The official listing for the Hebrew Scriptures (often called the Old Testament) was fixed by the end of the fifth century B.C.E. Jesus Christ and his apostles used only books from this catalog when quoting Scripture. Jesus for example quoted or refered to over half of the books of the hebrew scriptures without once making a single referrence to the so called apocryphal books. Catholics therefore evidently had no say in compilation of the 39 books of the Hebrew scriptures.

# Did catholics decide which books would be included in the Christian Greek Scriptures ("New Testament")?

No. Unlike the Hebrew scriptures which were for the most part professionally copied and catagorised, the Christian Greek scriptures were indeed effectively collections of letters; letters that were copied by the "addressees' or the people that received them. As the letters (and gospel accounts) became available they were circulated from congregation to congregation, each congregation (or groups of congregations) making and keeping their own copies. As time progressed then, the congregations would effectively have "collections" of books which had been available to them or catalogs.

Who decided which books (letters/gospels) were authorative?

While the apostles and eyewitness followers of Jesus were alive this was not an issue. Those 12 men and other elders associated with them would ensure that no unauthorized teachings circulated in the congregations. It was during this period (from around 41-90 CE) that the gospels were written.

After the death of those first century and early second century "church Fathers" the need did arise to protect what had already been authorized since the did indeed begin to emerge uninspired gnostic writings from dubious sources. This listings are often referred to as "catalogues".

There are at least 16 outstanding early catalogs of the Christian Greek Scriptures, from the Muratorian Fragment of 170 C.E. to the Third Council of Carthage of 397 C.E. All of the outstanding Early Cataloges included all four Gospels (Muratorian Fragment for example which refers to Luke as the THIRD book of the gospel). Before the end of the second century there was a universal accptance of the gospels,

What does this mean? It means the books that were to be considered "sacred scripture" were fixed not long after the last book was penned. If the Council of Nicea came and gave their "official" stamp of approval to the collection, it was done AFTER the fact.

This council did not remove any books that previously had been included (on the contrary it chose to INCLUDE extra books that had no place in the earlier canons). So did the 'Catholic' Coucil of Nicea decide? Not at all, it was all decided long before this famous meeting by the first century Christian community itself headed by the Apostles and later trusted men in the Christian community as reflected in catalogues written long before the Catholic church existed.

Just out of interest, does evidence exist to back up this claim regarding the history of the bible and if so where can this evidence be found?

Also, how do you explain the organised religion of Catholicism being the main authority of Christianity for so long, with the belief that Peter was the first bishop of Rome? (Pope) and that being the case, why do you believe that the Catholic Church had naff all to do with creating the Bible?

After all, Paul was a Roman Jew and eventually Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

It stands to reason Catholicism was influential in regard to the creation of the Bible. As well as that, perhaps these catalogues were in the charge of that which evolved into the Catholic Empire?

Sounds to me just as likely a case of human beings shaping the idea of God to suit their political agendas, and the Bible certainly can be interpreted that way, as well as to mention the various dirty deeds done in the name of the Bible.

It does not have a good history by association...so it pays to be dubious about the sources of its evolution into eventual print, and the God it portrays.

Have you ever really questioned the validity of that God or just accepted him because 'the Bible tells you so'?

[JehovahsWitness]

QUESTION Did the Catholic Church compile the bible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 566#838566

Just out of interest, does evidence exist to back up this claim regarding the history of the bible and if so where can this evidence be found?

Hebrew Bible

That the Jews had an accepted set of books they viewed as sacred scripture by the 3rd century BCE supported by commentaries, such as the first century writer and philosopher Philo (a contemporary of Josephus) who referred to "the law of Moses" and "national scriptures" - The Works of Philo, p. 494

Josephus, who himself referred to "our sacred books. They indeed contain in them the history of five thousand years." Flavius Josephus of the Antiquities of the Jews - Preface

The Dead Sea Scrolls, which include fragments from every book of the Old Testament except for the Book of Esther, dated at approx 200 BCE, testify to the existence of such an catalog. - Israel Museum, Jerusalem
http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/project

The Christian Greek scripture writers (dated approx 40-90 CE) make frequent reference to these Jewish writings, often quoting the Greek Septuagint, the oldest fragment of which, Papyrus Fouad 266 is dated to the first century or 2nd century BCE. - Housed at Societé Royale de Papyrologie, Cairo, Egypt

Christian Greek

The evidence regarding the collections of Christian copies if found in the sheer volume of manuscripts available around the world. To date, over 5800 Greek New Testament fragments have been found. One of the most extensive collection is The Chester Beatty biblical papyri, which includes a manuscript of the epistles of Paul from sometime near 200 C.E., a manuscript of the four canonical Gospels and the book of Acts from 200-250 C.E. - Chester Beatty Library, Dublin, Ireland. The Bodmer collection includes copies of some of the canonical Gospels that may be as early as the late second century or early third century C.E., and the famous John Rylands Fragment(P52) dated at approx 125 CE, is holds a fragment of the Gospel of John that is widely thought to be the earliest Christian manuscript - The Rylands Library (Manchester)


Catalogs : List or catalogs of recognized books provide a historical record of how the bible developed. Below is a list of some of the earliest bible catalogues.


source: "All Scripture Inspired of God" pub WBTS 1963, study IV p. 303