Bible-fact, fiction,or mythology?

[brunoparga]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

But I think that there is/was a LOT of value in the teachings of Jesus.

Just a comment to what Zeta and Silverman said, as this originated from my post about the violence down here: most of the Brazilians, the perpetrators and the victims of violence alike, proclaim themselves to be Christians. In fact, there are more people at least nominally Roman Catholic here than in any other country.

Originally Posted by jinydu

Well, that is often difficult because whenever science disproves a claim that is claimed to be based on the Bible, the relevant biblical passages are then simply reinterpreted to conform to the new scientific discoveries.

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

That is the weakest objection I have heard in some time.
[...]
One could say that one was from their grandfather. The Matthew account makes a point in calling out the numbers of generations, 14x3.
[...]
Next.

I may not have understood it well, but the numerological evidence regarding the number of generations is only correct if nobody there is anything but the son of the other, isn't it so? So, I'd ask Uncwilly for a clarification on this point.

I'd also point out that his arrogant tone is typical of the kind of attitude towards religious texts which leads to the fact jinydu has mentioned. Besides that, I'm waiting for Uncwilly to answer to jinydu's objection about the formation of the Solar System and everything

BTW, if I don't read the greek in Matthew 1 wrong, it says literally that Abraham generated Isaac, and Issac generated Jacob, and so on. That's confirmed by the Vulgate. I may not have used a good verb in English, but the relationship meant is *father and son*, not anything else.

Zeta, you have two results and you discard the one which doesn't fit your theory.

Tony, I think religion has indeed been a part of human development. But I think not only we're in a different stage (one where religion isn't necessary anymore), I believe we're in a *better* stage. Because we know more about the world, and because many, many of us behave towards others and the world in respectful, caring ways, ways which were impossible or highly unlikely by the time religion dominated the world, I believe we're better off, and the less religion, the better.

Zeta, I think your rewording of Tony's post fits reality much worse than the original. I believe the religious positions represented here to be much stronger defended, even when it is evident that they have no rational basis; on the other hand, non-religious seem to be much more prone to ask and change their minds (it only so happens that no decent proof has been presented - e.g. I could ask Uncwilly to prove anything in the Iliad to be wrong and if he couldn't I could believe it to be a precise account of the Trojan War and of the Gods that really exist).

Sorry for the long post.
Bruno

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

R.D. Silverman,

Okay. It sounded from your post that you were speaking directly to me (using the pronoun "you" in the phrase "keep them TO YOURSELF"), but I guess that was more directed towards these religious right people you were talking about.

Please accept my apology. I should have used the word "one", rather than
the word "you", i.e. keep one's religion to one's self. I did NOT mean you
personally, but rather the generic "you", i.e. the audience.

[Zeta-Flux]

Dear R.D. Silverman,

No problem. After your second to last post I realized I was misreading you, and that you were speaking generically (which I am more than prone to do myself). I appreciate your apology.

-------------------------

xilman,

I went back to Luke 2 and Matt. 1, and I was slightly surprised by the difference in the number of generations (as you pointed out). Something I hadn't noticed before. I'm not sure it could be explained by those in the kingly line taking young brides (or something along those lines). If it has a solution it'd probably be along the lines of generation gaps (as suggested by Uncwilly).

It is interesting that Matthew makes the point about 14 generations. If you count them, he sort of fudges the numbers (to makes three sets of 14) by counting one person twice. I've heard he does this because 14 is the number one gets from the name of David (and of course, 3 is good). Thus Matt. is trying to make Christ truly the rightful heir of David. Matthew does this again later when he says that Christ gets both a colt and an ass (trying to make Christ fulfil a prophecy, which the author of Matt. misread as saying both). The other gospels just say that he rode in on a colt (which really does fulfil the prophecy).

My favorite Bible contradiction is when Paul and his compatriots see a light and hear a voice, but later in Acts this isn't how Paul recollects the experience. (I forget if he says they didn't see the light, or didn't hear the voice.)

[Spherical Cow]

Here's a link to a related recent column by a syndicated writer that appears in many US papers-

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...s/15378051.htm

Norm

[Fusion_power]

The lineage of Christ errors are easy to spot. If you look carefully you will find a couple of the late series of kings of Israel missing. I don't have the info handy, but its pretty easy to find. This obviously affects the count of 14 generations.

One of the most often quoted "errors" is the description of Mary as a virgin in modern translations. The literal translation of the original text (or as close to original as we can get) is "young woman". Investigate what the term young woman meant to the jew of that day and time and you will find that it meant a woman past childhood but before marriage. The inference is that a young woman is a virgin. This was the underlying reason why the translation rendered young woman as virgin.

Another translation erratum is where the word lizard was translated as spider.

If you want to read some very interesting scriptures, check out the book of Job. Some key phrases would be circle of earth, dead above the waters and dead beneath the waters, etc. Interesting enough, some parts of Job appear to describe a long vanished civilization that has not been found to this day.

Fusion

[T.Rex]

Originally Posted by Fusion_power

One of the most often quoted "errors" is the description of Mary as a virgin in modern translations. The literal translation of the original text (or as close to original as we can get) is "young woman". Investigate what the term young woman meant to the jew of that day and time and you will find that it meant a woman past childhood but before marriage. The inference is that a young woman is a virgin. This was the underlying reason why the translation rendered young woman as virgin.

Did'nt you mean to say: "... a woman past childhood but before marriage. The inference is that a young woman is expected to be a virgin." ?
It seems you are saying that the "original text (or as close to original as we can get)" did not say/assert/affirm that Mary was a virgin. So the goal of the "original text" was not to emphasize that Mary was a virgin but simply to give information about the age of Mary and that she was not married: a teen-ager !
"Young women" of that sort are supposed to be virgin, but many mariages are decided in order to hide a different reality ... Even for jews 2000 years ago.

And never forget that the probability that Mary, Joseph and Jesus, as described in The Bible, never existed is: 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 %, in my opinion.

Tradutore, traditore !!!!

Tony

[Spherical Cow]

Having first learned of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in this thread, I feel obligated to provide this update:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/perso...iref=hpmostpop

Apparently, the "pastafarian" religion is gaining respectability...

Norm

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Fusion_power

One of the most often quoted "errors" is the description of Mary as a virgin in modern translations. The literal translation of the original text (or as close to original as we can get) is "young woman". Investigate what the term young woman meant to the jew of that day and time and you will find that it meant a woman past childhood but before marriage. The inference is that a young woman is a virgin.

First, off "the" inference implies that there is only one plausible one, which I dispute. The texts [both the original and the translations] say she was betrothed to Joseph, and their betrothal was awaiting the final formal Jewish wedding ceremony to complete the multi-stage marriage ritual. Now, if historically it were extremely uncommon [or proscribed] for a Jewish bride-in-progress to sleep with her betrothed, then the "virgin" inference would be justified - can anyone tell us whether that was the case?

Anyway, I personally don't believe any of the virgin-birth mythology, nor any of the other supernatural stuff in the bible. Believers, answer me this: if Jesus' teachings were genuinely worth listening to, what does it matter whether he was the result of a virgin birth or the literal Son of God? I'll tell you why those kinds of myths are important to the believers, and most especially to the proselytizers of the faith:

1) It makes the teachings [actual, alleged, and inferred] not-subject-to-question. If Jesus were a mere mortal, people might actually have the temerity to ask tough questions about his teachings [and other later-added elements of the christian creed, in its various - and often mutually incompatible - forms], and that is dangerous to Those Who Have a Vested Interest.

2) Public Relations and Marketing: Historically speaking [e.g. before the FDA and analogous organizations were created to monitor drug safety and claims of efficacy] it's been a lot easier to sell "Miracle Magic Potion!!" than it has been to sell "Cod Liver Oil for the Soul." Miracles, signs and wonders always sell better than "hey, if you study this stuff really diligently, you might learn something."

3) Gaining of Market Share: I could explain it, but suggest you just watch the "selling the new religion" scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian. Basically, all new religions struggling to gain market share from older established ones have gotta find a way to put the "sell" in "proselytize."

[Xyzzy]

http://snarfd.com/2007/11/28/the-fly...n-pumpkin-pie/

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

http://snarfd.com/2007/11/28/the-fly...n-pumpkin-pie/

The comments are hilarious: especially the one by BobKincaid, a ways down the page. Ramen, brother!

And I couldn't resist this bit of GW-related insight:

“There is also correlation between Global warming and the drop in the numbers of pirates in the world. ARR.”

Quite a compelling scientific Arrrgument there - Someone alert Al Gore and the IPCC, stat!