Nobody likes to be called a dummy by a dummy.

Were the events in the Bible fictitious?

http://reason.com/blog/show/121522.html

Were the events in the Bible fictitious -- not just the miracles, but those involving kings and empires?


I don't doubt the historical accuracy of the Bible, given people writing their own history tend to spin events a bit. It was written by a real body people in a real time period, why would one assume it's all fake?
Permalink son of parnas 
July 26th, 2007 11:09am
Your text output algorithms need a bit of debugging.
Permalink Cheers 
July 26th, 2007 11:11am
Since there is independent historical evidence to document a lot of it, yes, I'm going to say that most of it is probably accurate, viewed in the context of the original authors.
Permalink Send private email Clay Dowling 
July 26th, 2007 11:12am
The intention was accuracy. But people tell tales and I wouldn't set my clock by what was written. today 75% of Americans don't believe the single gunman theory re:JFK. A biblical account would reflect the uncertainty, try to frame the assassination as a moral. Cuban ex-pats livid over the President's abandonment of their cause. A jilted lover. Or some such tale.
Permalink strawdog soubriquet 
July 26th, 2007 11:20am
I believe much of it is historically accurate.  I believe the point in writing it down was to provide a record of history and mythos of a people, to provide a reference for the relationship between Man and God, to provide a justification for the laws they wished to live by.

I believe the people who wrote it down were inspired to write what they felt to be true, and the people who copied it over the centuries tried as hard as they could to maintain that truth.

I believe the recent insistance that the Bible is "literally true" comes from a very dark place.  That is the place that wants to bind people to a single, very limited understanding.  To compress the tapestry of truth expressed in fact and legend and the created world into a tiny little island of fear and ignorance and enforced "good behavior".

So the question "were the events fictitious", or even "is it literally true", are both questions too simple to be answered truthfully with a "yes" or "no" without doing damage to the truth.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 26th, 2007 11:24am
I think mixed.

Kings, empires and such were all probably real.

I don't think some dude really lived in a whale's belly, or lions didn't eat Daniel (or wouldn't have, anyway), and I think Goliath was probably some dude with a disorder that made him grow a bit taller than most.

But I think the points of taking time to reflect on your past actions, God protecting you, and God helping you overcome insurmountable challenges are not at all bad things to promote.
Permalink Send private email JoC 
July 26th, 2007 11:28am
First of all, if you only have the Written Bible, you will get a distorted picture, because there is a companion Oral Tradition that explains and elucidates it. For example, during the Binding of Isaac, Isaac was 37. When he resolved the baby splitting thing, King Solomon was 12. Torah holds that a fetus does _not_ have the status of a person. Nowhere in the "Old Testament" does it ever say "an eye for an eye." I could go on and on and on.

The idiots who believe in a "literal interpretation" of the Bible are too lazy to have learned the Hebrew alphabet, let alone actually read the real thing. I can't imagine what drives them.

For the record, I'm not proselytizing, I don't care what you all believe.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 26th, 2007 7:10pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: July, 2007 Other topics: July, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics