Biblical opinion and facts.

[nobspeople]

When reading the bible, how does one separate the opinion of the author from facts?
Is there a sure proof way to do this, or is it based on one's personal experience and opinion?

If there isn't a sure proof way, how can one person (let's call him Bill) how another person to Bill's opinion about a particular biblical verse or story?
In other words, if Bill knows this story means ABC, but someone else disagrees, does Bill have the right to hold the other person accountable to what Bill knows the story means?

[Paul of Tarsus]

Thank you for the reply. By 'held accountable' I mean, in this case, does Bill have the right to tell the other person they are wrong and he is right.

I'd say that yes, Bill can say he's right and those who disagree with him are wrong.

In regards to inspiration, anyone can be inspired by anything. Or nothing. If one claims 'God inspired me', isn't faith that would make another believe them or not?

I'm not sure if I understand your question, but we do put faith in those religious writers we believe. We believe by faith that they are inspired by God.

Additionally, the Gospels tend to have different views of the same story
The women reported the resurrection to the men (Matt. 28:8);
The women did not report the resurrection to the men (Mark 16:8).; some containing parts others don't.

I think it's safe to say that Mark 16:8 is telling us that the women who ran from Jesus' empty tomb said nothing about it while they were yet afraid. After recovering from their fear, they would have been free to testify.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #12]

I'm not sure if I understand your question (If one claims 'God inspired me', isn't faith that would make another believe them or not?)

It could have been worded better - apologies.
If someone said "God inspired me" wouldn't you have to have faith in that person to believe what they say is true?
And if so, wouldn't you have to know that person to be able to do that?

I think it's safe to say that Mark 16:8 is telling us that the women who ran from Jesus' empty tomb said nothing about it while they were yet afraid. After recovering from their fear, they would have been free to testify.

Interesting ideal. And, normally, that would make sense. But if God is indeed inspiring the writing, one would think he would be able to nip these little things that can cause issues (aka doubts) before they start. In other words, if he's inspiring two writers for the same story (which itself is odd - seems one writer would suffice), wouldn't he ensure the writers speak the same story?
At least that what some would expect: a perfect, all capable being inspiring people to write the same story without negating their free will while still allowing their cultural and social influences to come out.

[1213]

… and departed; and he went away and hanged himself…
… falling headlong, he burst apart in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. …

Both of those can be true. For example, he hanged himself and the rope snaped and he fall.

[Difflugia]

… and departed; and he went away and hanged himself…
… falling headlong, he burst apart in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. …

Both of those can be true. For example, he hanged himself and the rope snaped and he fall.

If the Bible means, as you put it, "what it directly says," then wouldn't at least one of the auhors have directly said that? By that logic, anything that the Bible doesn't say can be added to anything that it does. I'm reminded of a Dave Barry column from some years ago:

Dear Mister Language Person: I am curious about the expression, "Part of this complete breakfast." The way it comes up is, my 5-year-old will be watching TV cartoon shows in the morning, and they'll show a commercial for a children's compressed breakfast compound such as "Froot Loops" or "Lucky Charms," and they always show it sitting on a table next to a some actual food such as eggs, and the announcer always says: "Part of this complete breakfast." Don't they really mean, "Adjacent to this complete breakfast, " or "On the same table as this complete breakfast"? And couldn't they make essentially the same claim if, instead of Froot Loops, they put a can of shaving cream there, or a dead bat?

A. Yes.

I'm pretty sure that such word games aren't what most people would consider to be what an author (or God) "directly says."

[brunumb]

But if God is indeed inspiring the writing, one would think he would be able to nip these little things that can cause issues (aka doubts) before they start. In other words, if he's inspiring two writers for the same story (which itself is odd - seems one writer would suffice), wouldn't he ensure the writers speak the same story?

We never get an explanation of what inspired by God actually entails. It seems to me to be one of those vague, hand waving gestures that is supposed to imbue the writing with some degree of authenticity that it doesn't really deserve. There is no sign of any god being involved in the process at all. We have a disparate group of largely anonymous writers producing texts over a period of time with no real indication that what they are writing is an accurate record of events. We don't know their motivations beyond producing what can be seen as just religious propaganda. There are numerous other authors that produced works of the same genre that never made the cut when the Bible was compiled. The way this occurred also shows no sign of any divine intervention. There are no extant copies of the originals, only alleged transcriptions, translations and copies of copies. It's hard to see any inspiration or the workings of any god anywhere in this. If there is, then this deity is really something of a bumbling fool if that is the way he produced what should be the most important document for all mankind.

[benchwarmer]

… and departed; and he went away and hanged himself…
… falling headlong, he burst apart in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. …

Both of those can be true. For example, he hanged himself and the rope snaped and he fall.

Perhaps you can explain to us how he fell "headlong" if he was hanging from a rope and it snapped. I would assume he was hanging from his neck and not his ankles.

It's truly fascinating watching the word gymnastics that must be used when discussing something that is "directly as it says".

Let me guess, the rope snapped and in the milliseconds afterwards an extremely large bird slammed into his head and pushed him so he would fall headlong rather than just hit feet first and crumple into a pile.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to brunumb in post #16]

If there is (devine inspiration), then this deity is really something of a bumbling fool if that is the way he produced what should be the most important document for all mankind.

I hear believers say "God never changes" yet they are, many times, lightning fast at explaining what God meant[/t] when it suits their needs in one particular instance and or limit God by saying he can't do this or that, all the while pontificating he's all powerful. And these same believers expect others to accept their claims of this god as fact and believe?

There's almost as many caveats and differing opinions (often of the same thing) as there are words in the bible it seems.

[1213]

...
Perhaps you can explain to us how he fell "headlong" if he was hanging from a rope and it snapped. ...

Firstly, Bible doesn’t say that the reason for death was that he fell. It is possible that he fell also for example when he was carried a way after he had hanged himself. In any case, by what the Bible tells, there is not given two reasons of death, which is my main point. How it did happen, I don’t know. I can tell different possible ways, but it is only guessing.

If Judas was hanging himself on some hill, it is possible that when the rope broke, he fell and rolled down hill and ended to the bottom headlong. Because this is easily possible, I think it is wrong to say that there is contradiction. And it is weird how people seem to be upset, if I point out this fact and ruin their baseless contradiction claim.

[1213]

...If the Bible means, as you put it, "what it directly says," then wouldn't at least one of the auhors have directly said that? By that logic, anything that the Bible doesn't say can be added to anything that it does. ...

I think it is always best to take only what is written. In that case there would not be that idea of two deaths, because Bible doesn’t say what was the cause of death. If we are accurate, we know only this much from the scriptures: “…he went away and hanged himself…” (Matthew 27:3-5) “…falling headlong, he burst apart in the middle and all his bowels gushed out…” Acts 1:18-19. Neither of those tell the actual cause of death. Obviously, if he fell and was burst apart, that probably would have killed him, but it is possible he was already dead in that moment. Usually hanging also leads to death, but it is not told it was the actual cause of death. What is told in the Bible, leaves room for many possibilities. The idea that Bible gives two causes of death is only an interpretation or readers own addition to the story, not what is really told literally.

[brunumb]

...If the Bible means, as you put it, "what it directly says," then wouldn't at least one of the auhors have directly said that? By that logic, anything that the Bible doesn't say can be added to anything that it does. ...

I think it is always best to take only what is written.

Acts 1:18-19 King James Version
18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

Matthew 27:3-5 King James Version
3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.
5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

What we clearly have are two descriptions of distinctly different events, not just in reference to the fate of Judas but also the fate of his bribe. To make these accounts square with each other you have to invent fanciful details that are not there and then somehow account for why those significant details are absent. Each one, read as written, in no way suggests that anything pertinent has been omitted.