OK, what I’m saying is that, if you accept that the bible is not the truth, why twist and turn by trying to second guess what the real meaning of his word is?
Why not the simple conclusion that it isn’t his word?
That’s what I mean, and think H4E meant, with ‘it is all false.’ Not that there isn’t a single word in it that isn’t true.
There just isn’t any premise anymore for his existance.
I want an edit function 
because people come to belief in God for reasons other than that he is mentioned in the bible; they may (or may not) find that the bible offers insight into his character and properties.
could you expand a little on that comment?
Sure, If you’d like care to expand first on:
QUOTE]*Originally posted by Mangetout *
because people come to belief in God for reasons other than that he is mentioned in the bible
[/QUOTE]
Do you mean by that that people firstly believe in God because they are taught to believe. Instead of reading the bible and then believe?
Sure; as an example - [very concise version]I came to belief in God because of a series of (what I believe to be) experiences of his presence; after this began happening, I stumbled across a group of Christians who showed me how my experiences tied in with their philosophy. Arguably things might have turned out quite differently if I had stumbled across a different group.
Hmm, yes, but isn’t that philosophy you bumped into not based on the bible?
Whether you call it a philosophy, or whatever subset of the J-C religion, it all boils down to an interpretation of what they think the bible is supposed to teach.
The bible remains the ultimate basis for the religion.They all justify themselves with quotes from it.
If the basis is found to be faulty, where does that leave the religion?
Based on an understanding of the God that Christians believe is described in the Bible. Christianity (in theory, at least) is based on Christ, not a book.
I think a lot of the problem we’re having with this debate is that there is a confusion between truth and literal-ness (or something like that). Was Job an actual historical figure? Maybe, maybe not. But his story does get across some truths about God, whether the dude actually existed or not. It teaches that faithfulness to God is a much higher virtue than faithfulness (and attatchment to) anything on this Earth, and will, in the end, be rewarded. It also teaches us the God is transcendant, and that his ways cannot be understood by the human mind.
Was Judith an actual historical figure? Probably not, but her story shows that God can do great things through what we humans perceive as a weak vessel (in this case, a woman, in a culture where women were almost regarded as subhuman).
In other words, parts of the Bible may not be factually true, but can still be used to illustrate truths. I mean, even the staunchest Biblical literalists probably don’t believe that Jesus’ parables were literally true. But they do believe the entire Bible is literaly true. Pretty big inconsistency, yeah?
Incidentally, the Catholic Church holds the the Bible is only infallible in matters of faith and morals- it is a book of religious teachings, not a science book. Thus a good, Bible believing Catholic is not required to believe that the Genesis creation story is literally true- just that it shows that the world, and everything in it were created by God, with a design and purpose in mind, rather than everything evolving by random chance.
Another thing I’ve noticed about the fundamentalist, literalist crowd is that very few of them have read the Bible in it’s entirety. They pretty much memorize selected verses and passages of scripture, which they spew forth as answers to questions that they cannot come up with a reasoned, knowledge-based response for.
In church services, fundamentalists tend to read a single verse, or at best, a very short passage of Scripture, and then deliver a lengthy sermon on whatever “Biblical principle” this passage is being used to illustrate. In the Catholic Church, and in the more liturgical Protestant sects where Biblical literalism does not hold sway, a (relatively) lengthy passage of Scripture is read, and then a brief homily or sermon is delivered on the principle of the Scripture.
When the fundamentalists do use a lengthy passage, they read one verse, or sometimes just a phrase, then stop and interject with their own interpretations of what the Scripture is saying. I’ve heard the Bread of Life Discourse picked apart in this way. It seemed to me that the preacher was constantly interjecting in order to keep his audience from hearing, and thinking about, what the Scripture was actually saying, because his own teaching was at odds with the Scripture.
Did the Greeks regard their religious stories — Heracles strangling the serpent, Perseus killing Medusa, Zeus’s golden showers 
to name a few — as entirely factual and inerrant?
I’d still be interested to know if the ‘Jim’ device I used in that other thread is made any less ‘true’ because Jim himself is a figment of my imagination.
So?
What’s wrong with learning about how to be a better person, how to love one another, and how to remain calm and at peace?
Why does everything have to be a salvation issue, His4ever?
Leave that to God-and concentrate on LIVING the word-not just preaching it.
Concentrate on feeding the people, of giving, of love-and leave your salvation in the hands of Christ. Because whatever you do to others, you do to Him.
Let me clarify my earlier opinions and state that I believe there’s simply different methods of knowing. It’s evident that logic and critical thinking are the preferred methods of knowing on these boards. While those are most assuredly valid modes of knowing, I suspect that they aren’t the only valid ones. Some people are more attuned to discerning religious truth through logic, some through authority, some through experience and some through a multiplicity of other methods of knowing religious truth.
Is it less valid to state that one has discerned religious truth from authority than from logic?
I come into contact with the literal fundies regularly. I see them waiting for and asking God to sweep away all their troubles. The constant “help me Jesus”, repeatedly throughout the day serves to help them avoid a close look at the cause and effect of how they got into their situation in the first place. These same persons allow themselves to go about doing amoral or self-destructive behaviors with ease because they know they will be forgiven.
His4ever said:
OK, so you’re a complete literalist – you don’t see how that can mean anything other than what it says. Fine.
Do you believe that we live on a flat earth?
Why do I ask? Because the late Isaac Asimov wrote an article about this subject, “The Circle of the Earth.” It is some 15 pages long, but I’ve done my best to summarize it here for you:
In Isaiah 40:22, the Bible (King James version) says, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth…” A circle, as you well know, is a two-dimensional figure; a sphere would be the proper three-dimensional structure. Obviously, the Earth is a sphere (well, pretty close) NOT a circle.
Another verse to the same effect is a passage in the Book of Proverbs, 8:27. “When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth.”
A compass draws a circle – a flat circle. So, as Asimov says, “we can imagine God marking out the flat, circular disk of the world in this fashion.” But even “compass” is not the best translation from the Hebrew. The Revised Standard Version of the Bible has the verse as: “When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep.” It’s even more specifically a flat circle.
As other evidence, the rest of the Isaiah 40:22 cited earlier says, “…that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.” As we know, a tent is a piece of material “spread outward above and then down on all sides until it touches the ground. A tent is NOT a spherical structure that surrounds a smaller spherical structure. No tent in existence has ever been that.” (I.A.) And, of course, the ground underneath a tent is flat. Thus, according to this verse, humans live inside the tent of the heavens, on the flat Earth.
Now, of course with a flat Earth, what keeps everything from falling? Well, it rests on something. The Bible does mention, rather casually, what the Earth rests upon. Asimov contends that the Bible doesn’t go into more detail because everybody in the time period when it was written was assumed to “know” that the Earth is flat, the heavens are a tent, and the Earth rests upon pillars. But, like I said, there is a casual mention.
In the 38th chapter of Job, Job questions God about injustice and evil. God says to him, "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the cornerstone thereof? (Job 38:4-6)
So, what are these “foundations”? Well, since the Bible writers had never even heard of such things as mantle and the liquid iron core of the earth, and since they NEVER refer to the regions under the Earth’s surface as composed of rock and metal, it obviously isn’t that. So, we must come to the conclusion that the “foundations” of the Earth are the objects upon which the flat Earth rests.
Elsewhere in the Book of Job, Job says about God, “The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.” So, it looks like we’ve found the “foundations” – the “pillars of heaven.”
There was more to the article, mostly dealing with hell below the circle of the Earth, but I think the point about the Earth being flat according to a literalist reading of the Bible has been made.
I’m intrigued by the mysticism of the Kabbalah, though I don’t “believe in it.” I cannot help but see a devout Muslim as so dedicated to the principle that there is one God who alone deserves worship and honor that they, not believing Jesus to be an incarnation of a person within that godhead, condemn us Christians for “worshipping three gods.” (I always look on how they feel about us as a very strong parallel to how a sincere Protestant feels about the Catholic cultus of devotion to Mary and the saints and angels.)
And, of course, no such debate, especially with David bringing up the flat earth Scriptures, would be complete without a reference to the Discworld concept that their world is indeed a flat surface with an edge over which water flows in a gigantic waterfall, held up by four gigantic elephants on the back of an even-more-gigantic turtle – and that there is a group of religious sectarians who believe, contrary to the scientific evidence, that the world is a sphere. 
Everything doesn’t have to be a salvation issue, unless that happens to be a part of the subject of the OP. There have been several OPs that seem to include that subject. We can talk about something else, if you want. Movies, flowers, airplanes, whatever. And to your comment about leaving salvation in the hands of Christ, it is in His hands. But we’re to share the gospel, not hide it in a closet hoping people will figure it out. So when the subject comes up, I’ll share my view on it. But certainly there’s nothing wrong with tring to be a better person or loving, etc. We can talk about other things, too. Doesn’t have to be salvation. When I feel I need to say something on it, I usually do. Sometimes I don’t.
Or, as Obi Wan Kenobi would say, “You will find that many of the truths we cling depend on a certain point of view.”
Genesis also says that the sky is solid and that the stars are stuck to the sky. It is essentally Sumerian cosmology (a round, flat disc with a dome over it and “…water above and water beneath…” i.e. above the dome and beneath the disc.)
Why can’t we just admit that the Bible is a collection of MANY different books, written by many different authors, with many different agendas, over hundreds of years.
Much of Genesis is derived from much older Mesopotamian mythology (the creation, Cain and Abel, the flood)
Some books are heavily mythologized history, which may have an odd core of fact here and there but it is now impossible for us to know what those cores were. The authors of thes books did not intend for them to be taken literally but were attempting to teach moral lessons, elevate their own tribal god over others, or explain why bad stuff sometimes happened to their people.
Other books are collections af archaic laws (such as page after page on how to sacrifice a ram) which seemed important 3000 years ago but which clearly have no relevance today. Some of these laws are also absurdly brutal and extreme by modern standards. (death penalties for working on the sabbath, or touching a pig) Is there some other hidden spiritual lesson inherent in these laws? I don’t think so. I think it’s safe to say that these are just the primative, backwards rules of a primative, backwards culture.
Then we have the rantings of the prophets. The less said about these whack-jobs the better.
How about the NT? We have some gospels written long after the crucifixion by people who never met Jesus. We have incredible allegations of miracles and resurrections, but amazingly absolutely no extra-biblical evidence to support them (Wouldn’t at least ONE Roman have noticed the resurrection?)
We have Christian communities in Acts who clearly expected JC to return in their lifetimes. We have letters and epistles which herald the imminent parousia. Where is Jesus?
Isn’t H4E a woman? Then according to Timothy 2:11,12 she is sinning by attempting to “teach” on the message boards
IMO the Bible is an archaic book, written thousands of years ago by ignorant shepherds. It contains some nice ethical messages, but frankly nothing any more profound than you would find in an to ancient mythologaverage episode of Star Trek. Why We need to grow out our superstitious attatchments to ancient mythology.
His4Ever’s willful ignorance reminds me of something that happened during my Hindo-shamanistic Buddhist phase (long story, don’t ask).
I was working at a factory job. Two of my cow orkers were serious fundamentalist Christian biblical literalists who were always pushing the Bible on me. One day, I was talking to one of them, and I finally agreed to read a chunk of the New Testament that was about as long as the Bhagavad Gita, on the condition that she, in turn would read the Gita (which, btw, has a philosophy that is very similar to NT Christainity, as found in the actual New Testament.). Well, I held up my end, I read the prescribed chapters of the NT. I then tried to hand my cow orker my copy of the Gita, and she literally threw her hands up in front of her face, then pushed the book away, sceaming, “NO!”. I was stunned. This woman was terrified of the possibility of being exposed to a religious viewpoint different from her own. Her pal (who was a much more reasonable sort, who I enjoyed having religious arguments with, and use to challenge to verbal sparring matches during lunch break) did agree to read the Gita, so I gave it to her to read.
The following Moday, both of these women were fired for reading their Bibles at their work stations during worktime. Not during their break, mind you. There were parts that needed to be assembled, and they weren’t assembling.
I never saw my copy of the Gita again.
Diogenes said:
Yup, obviously those weren’t the only references to a flat Earth. Plus I think earlier somebody brought up the “four corners” quote as well.
I’m waiting to see what His4ever has to say about all this… Though I suspect I already know.