BF2S Forums how long has the bible been "a message" and not literal truth

It's always been a book of fables. Unless you really think the Earth is a few thousand years old and the centre of the universe.

since Charles Larkin

Well it was consider truth for a very long time and if you went against it you pretty much got killed and was considered a demon. And yes there are still people who fully believe in the bible and take it 100% as truth. It has been acting as a message under this time too.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

twiistaaa wrote:

...some christians took the message to far...

Is this really what Jesus had intended with his message to help the poor, giving up materialism and greed?

http://revolution115.files.wordpress.co … museum.jpg

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/image … n18_02.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v83/r … LDSEAT.jpg

Honestly, if that isn't directly against his "message" I'm not here.

Catholic Church likes to make a little on the side,

by little I mean a lot,

by a lot I mean BILLIONS!

Different denominations have different answers to that.

Some of the more mystic based eastern variants have thought that from the start, some still claim it's 100% true

The bible has a lot of historical accuracy but of course events that may or may not have happened are sometimes exaggerated to prove a point or to pull people in. As in any religious text, including the Koran, there are mystical, unbelievable events that take imagination to accept. For the most part, the bible and any other major religious text are positive and teach high morals. Of course they will also try to scare you to death if you don't follow the teachings.

We have to remember how old these texts are, how often they have been written and re-written and interpreted. The basic good messages are still good, there are historical accuracy as far as people and places so you have to use your own brain to weed out fact and fantasy....its not that hard, unless you are uneducated, which I believe is a more of an issue in many Muslim countries.

Lastly, I grew up Christian, married a Muslim and I do not know of any Christian who believes the Earth is only 2,000 to 10,000 years old. Every Christian I know does not take the "7 days" literally. Yes, there is conversation about the age of things and how things come about but every Christian I know is not fanatical or stuck on every word being exactly what it says. I believe most people with any intelligence understands that. There are people in all religions who cant see past the words and go too far, not only Christianity. This OP applies to pretty much every religion.

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

The bible has a lot of historical accuracy but of course events that may or may not have happened are sometimes exaggerated to prove a point or to pull people in. As in any religious text, including the Koran, there are mystical, unbelievable events that take imagination to accept. For the most part, the bible and any other major religious text are positive and teach high morals. Of course they will also try to scare you to death if you don't follow the teachings.

We have to remember how old these texts are, how often they have been written and re-written and interpreted. The basic good messages are still good, there are historical accuracy as far as people and places so you have to use your own brain to weed out fact and fantasy....its not that hard, unless you are uneducated, which I believe is a more of an issue in many Muslim countries.

Lastly, I grew up Christian, married a Muslim and I do not know of any Christian who believes the Earth is only 2,000 to 10,000 years old. Every Christian I know does not take the "7 days" literally. Yes, there is conversation about the age of things and how things come about but every Christian I know is not fanatical or stuck on every word being exactly what it says. I believe most people with any intelligence understands that. There are people in all religions who cant see past the words and go too far, not only Christianity. This OP applies to pretty much every religion.

+1

Mekstizzle wrote:

Wasn't the Bible written by a bunch of Greeks a long long time after the whole Jesus shenanigans happened.

Nope, the OT/Torah existed for thousands of years before the aleged time of Jesus.  The Gospels, I think you are reffering to are often accused of being manufacturered a long time after the supposed events.

Mekstizzle wrote:

Also, then it was changed and changed again like a bitch by the Romans and various other European powers to suit their own ideas and to further consolidate control over people.

I think you have to understand the time.  In an oral society, it wasnt uncommon for jewish rabies to commit the entire torah to memory.  As such, if you went around preeching a false account of what it said, you would be quickly corrected by others who where aware of your mistake.  Just go into a pub and quote the wrong scores for last nights football matches and see how long it takes for something to correct you (doesnt count if there drunk ).

The manuscripts that we have, are actually fairly consistent, I believe the errors translate into one word being wrong every three pages (atleast in the NT), so regardless of whether or not it happened, what the text says, is fairly accurate to what was intended.  The OT hebrew, is what causes the problems, partiuclarly translating to english.  KJV of the bible is probably the biggest achilies heel to christianity, its too old.

@OP.

I believe the bibles intent is to try and convey how man can enter a relationship with his creator.  The OT is fairly alegorical in it's teachings, but the NT, attempts to give a biographical account of the time during christs ministry.  As such I believe your supposed to take the NT, seriously (atleast, if you are a believer), the OT, not so much.

Mekstizzle wrote:

No, don't bring the OT into this. Everytime I ask Christians, especially on this forum, about the OT, they're like "but Christianity focuses mainly on the NT, basically the OT doesn't count" - Everytime. Don't try and say that this time now...

You said:

Wasn't the Bible written by a bunch of Greeks a long long time after the whole Jesus shenanigans happened

The bible consists of the OT, and NT.  The OT existed for thousands of years before the alleged time of christ.  So to say it was made up after him (by a bunch of greeks) makes no sense. 

I even alloted for the mistake by saying, I think you mean specifically the NT (i.e gospels etc), in which that is a completly fair accusation.  To say the OT was made up by greeks about 2000 years ago is shite.

Kmarion wrote:

Since Galileo argued with Rome saying that it was meant to be allegorical.

I wouldn't say this is very far off. He was still regarded as heretical, but around the Renaissance and Enlightenment times I would argue is correct.

Bell wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

No, don't bring the OT into this. Everytime I ask Christians, especially on this forum, about the OT, they're like "but Christianity focuses mainly on the NT, basically the OT doesn't count" - Everytime. Don't try and say that this time now...

You said:

Wasn't the Bible written by a bunch of Greeks a long long time after the whole Jesus shenanigans happened

The bible consists of the OT, and NT.  The OT existed for thousands of years before the alleged time of christ.  So to say it was made up after him (by a bunch of greeks) makes no sense. 

I even alloted for the mistake by saying, I think you mean specifically the NT (i.e gospels etc), in which that is a completly fair accusation.  To say the OT was made up by greeks about 2000 years ago is shite.

Obviously I didn't mean the OT, I knew that was made by some Yids much before the Greeks made the NT, but the reason why I completely disregarded the OT was because that's what most people here do when they're trying to defend Christianity

DesertFox- wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Since Galileo argued with Rome saying that it was meant to be allegorical.

I wouldn't say this is very far off. He was still regarded as heretical, but around the Renaissance and Enlightenment times I would argue is correct.

Yes he was.. I did not say he wasn't labeled a heretic, nor was I arguing that it was even widely accepted then. I was referencing my earliest knowledge of real public challenges to the literal interpretation.

It's turtles all the way down tbh.