Why should I respect the Bible?

Great Debates
1

Some background: A friend of mine earlier said a Japanese psychic would be stoned because the Bible said so. I disagreed, saying the Japanese wouldn’t care about what an old Hebrew book said. His reply:

One part of your reply I’d like to comment on is your referring to the bible as an “old book.” I would appreciate it if you please show a little more respect when talking about God’s holy word.

I’m afraid I don’t see what you’re talking about here. I stated the Japanese really wouldn’t care what that book said about psychics.

85% of Japan is either Buddhist or Shinto, religions that don’t require belief in a deity. Other than the Catholic Philippines, Christianity has never caught on in eastern Asia, despite all the missionaries. Islam has been far more successful in gaining converts there: Indonesia, which has the 4th highest population in the world, is 87% Muslim! (figures from the 2001 World Almanac)

Concerning the bible, how can I possibly show respect for a book that tells me:
[ul]
[li] A girl must marry her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-9)[/li][li] If someone “lies with a beast”, the poor animal that was attacked must be killed (Leviticus 20:15)[/li][li] Lot offers his virgin daughters to be gang-raped by a frenzied mob (Genesis 19:8)[/li][li] Those same daughters get their father drunk and perform incest with him (Genesis 19:31-36)[/li][li] A guy named Pekah somehow massacred 120,000 people in one day (2 Chronicles 28:6)[/li][li] An enlightening story about a girl who was raped, abused, and cut into 12 pieces (Judges 19:25-29)[/li][li] God accepts a human sacrifice without objecting (Judges 11:30-40)[/li][li] Two bears were sent to slaughter 42 children for teasing a bald man (2 Kings 2:23-24)[/li][li] Advice on how severely to beat a slave; it’s okay if they recover in two days (Exodus 21:20-21)[/li][li] Happiness is crushing defenseless infants against rocks (Psalms 137:8-9)[/li][li] There’s an earthquake and a bunch of dead people arise from their graves and are seen by many people (Matthew 27:51-3), yet no one other than the author records this astounding event.[/li][li] Jesus says you’ll go to hell for calling someone a fool (Matthew 5:22), then he later goes and calls people fools (Matthew 23:17)[/li][li] In a thinly veiled parable, Jesus says bring to him those who don’t believe in him and kill them (Luke 19:27)[/li][/ul]
And then I’m told that this is “God’s Holy Word”?

Okay, assuming you’re correct that this is a god’s word (ignoring that this is an unsupportable assertion), which god? Certainly those who follow Allah or Vishnu (the two largest religions) do not consider the bible the holy word. What about those who follow Zeus, Akua, Odin, Jupiter, Ahura Mazda, Osiris, or the many polytheistic or pantheistic religions? M. Jordan’s “Encyclopedia of Gods” (Facts on File, 1997) lists over 2500 gods.

Suppose we narrow it down to the Hebrew deity Yahweh (and why should we believe in that one over the other 2499?), how do we know which is that god’s words? The Jews consider 39 books of the bible as Yahweh’s holy word. Christians have added more books to those: Protestants add 27 books, the Orthodox add 33, the Catholics add 34, and Mormons developed a completely different book. I should note that all those additional books are rejected by the Jews, who started the religion in the first place (they should know, right?). So, which bible is god’s word?

Suppose we say the Protestant Christians have it right (another bald assertion), which version of the bible is that god’s word? In 2 Chronicles 22:2, the New American Standard Version says Ahaziah was 22 years old, while the Revised Standard says he was 42. In Acts 22:9, the King James Version states Paul’s men did not hear a voice, while the New International Version said they heard but did not understand it. In Deuteronomy 5:17 (the Ten Commandments), the KJV commands us not to kill, while the NIV relaxes this and says not to murder. So, which one should I trust?

But let’s just say one of those versions is correct and the others wrong (yet another assertion). Then it casts doubts on how “holy” the bible is! If the books were written or inspired by an all-powerful god, then there couldn’t be any errors, he would make sure his word and translations was inerrant. Yet, the bible is full of contradictions that appear in all versions and translations. One of the fundamental rules of logic is that two statements that contradict each other cannot both be true. Something cannot be both “A” and “not-A”. Not just in “minor areas” like Ahaziah’s age, but in critical matters, like the details of Jesus’ resurrection:
[ul]
[li] Who was Jesus’ grandfather (Joseph’s Dad)? Matthew: Jacob, Luke: Heli[/li][li] When was the crucifixion? Mark: 3rd hour, John: 6th hour[/li][li] When did the women go to the tomb? John: while it was dark, Mark: after sunrise[/li][li] Was the stone already moved when they arrived? Luke: yes, Matthew: no, they watched it roll[/li][li] Who did they see at the tomb? Matthew: 1 angel, Mark: 1 man, Luke: 2 men, John: no one at the tomb, but 2 angels later[/li][li] Did Mary Magdalene recognize Jesus? Matthew: yes, John: no[/li][li] How many apostles did Jesus appear to? The 4 gospels: 11 (minus Judas), 1 Corinthians 15:5: 12 apostles[/li][/ul]
It’s important to remember the books of the bible did not just appear ex nihilo on a sunbeam to Jesus’ followers. The New Testament was written between 60-200 AD, with the first gospel (Mark) not written until 4 decades after Jesus’ death. We do not know who the real authors were and have no original manuscripts. We do not have any copies of the epistles before the 2nd century AD, no gospel transcripts until the 4th century, and none of those in the original language. The 27 books that comprise the present NT were not agreed upon until nearly the 5th century, so early Christians had little access to them. The books themselves underwent many changes, for example: the resurrection story in Mark (16:9-20) is considered an interpolation, that is, added to the book by another later author.

Therefore I cannot see the bible as anything more than a mythological book that its adherents irrationally consider sacred. It’s not as harsh as it sounds: many Christians feel the same way toward the Muslims’ Qur’an, the Hindus’ Vedas, the Buddhists’ Tripitaka, and all other sacred texts besides their bible. I just don’t make that exception.

2

WOW!! someone has done their Homework… I will not quibble over loose translations of the bible or mis-refrenced cites. That would be silly. You are quite right, I am sure that need not be said. As for the actual question of your OP…??? what… You have outlined the basic world premise that people around the world can worship/read/be a deciple of/and beleive in whatever they want. If you are trying to come up with a logical reason why you should not beleive in the bible, you just did… Just because your friend asked you not to refer to the bible as just an old book, should be respected simply because s/he is your friend. You don’t have to beleive in the bible to respect it, other people beleive in it, you don’t have to. 95% of the world population beleive in some sort of religion. And yes a lot of the books are different. I commend your homework and your dilligence to a topic but your lack of respect for anothers beleif is a little out there to say the very very very least.

3

Hey ** Hubzilla** Did we get up today and say to ourselves “How am I going to piss off the Christians today?”

Besides, most Christians (But not enough, sadly) Mostly follow the New Testament. There were many would’be Messiah’s wandering Judea at the time of Jesus, so I’m sure if you looked around, you’d find all sorts of claims of miracles outside of the New Testament, even if said miracles weren’t atributed to Jesus.

Also, haven’t you ever heard of the phrase “Do as I say, not as I do?”

:smiley:

4

I’m in no position to say whether you should respect the bible (IANAC), but I have to say you should respect your friend, and accept differing beliefs as part of the package. If you two are really unable to agree to disagree, you might want to take another look at your definition of “friend”.

5

Hubzilla, you’ve got two different issues here.

The first one is, was calling the Bible an old book disrespectful? I’d say not–it is an old book. A collection of old books, in fact. The newest books in that collection are nearly two thousand years old. I really don’t think that, on the face of it, it’s disrespectful of the Bible to say that some group or other won’t care about the contents of an old Hebrew book. Unless you made the statement in a really contemptous or dismissive tone of voice, I can’t see any disrespect here and your friend is being oversensitive.

On the other hand, just because you disagree with a religion doesn’t give you the right to mock it in front of its believers. There are lots of religions (including large portions of Christianity) that I not only disagree with, I find ridiculous. But I’m not about to belittle them. I may have a polite, rational discussion with people I disagree with on these topics, and if they aren’t capable of being rational or polite, I move on. But by being insulting and disrespectful, you only anger the person you’re dealing with, instead of convincing them of the rightness of your position. You catch more flies with honey and all that.

Besides, I don’t doubt that you yourself would like others to treat the things you value highly with respect. If you claim that you should be treated respectfully because you’re right, and others can be ridiculed because they’re wrong and stupid, you’re acting just like the people you’re so contemptous of, now aren’t you?

6

Um, well, here’s a thought:

You should respect the Bible for the same reason you’d respect any other holy book that was followed by millions of people, like, say, the Q’uran, or the Book of Mormon, or the Talmud, or the writings of Buddha, or the sayings of Confucius, or the Hindu scriptures…

7

And that reason is?

8

Short answer: Why should you respect the Bible? Because people with open minds respect things with which they disagree. If there’s no respect, there’s no basis for discussion or understanding.

Longer answer: You post a list of reasons why you don’t think the Bible is worthy of respect. I’m not going to bother explaining each of those issues, because I’m certain that those are merely a sampling, and even if those are answered, you’d come up with more, which would seriously hijack the point. I will use a few of these as examples of why the Bible is worthy of respect, and I will trust that the point I’m trying to make has been made with those examples.

There are two approaches to dealing with Bible-believers. Respectful and disrespectful.

The disrespectful way is to use these points merely as rhetorical questions and to make accusations without actually caring whether or not there is an answer.

The respectful way is to exhibit genuine curiosity over how one can believe in the benevolence of a diety who would allegedly require a raped girl to marry her rapist. Asking a question like that of, say, an Orthodox Jew, would get you the following response: “She’s not required to marry him. The verse is merely saying he doesn’t have the choice to throw her away…if she doesn’t want to marry him, she’s allowed to refuse.” Having used the respectful approach, you no longer see this person as a monster who thinks it’s a good idea to force victimized girls into a cruel situation.

Having this respect enables you to come to an accurate understanding of other people and cultures, even if in the end you still disagree with them.

9

Did your friend say that psychics in Japan are in fact, routinely stoned based on Biblical (Old Testament) law? If so, that’s simply blatantly false, on a factual basis, like saying “the Taliban is a Shinto movement”. It would be hard to have much respect for a statement that silly, or for the beliefs of someone who is that out of it.

Or did your friend say that psychics in Japan ought to be stoned to death based on Biblical law? In other words, all societies–including Japan–ought to adopt laws based on the Bible, including provisions for the stoning of pyschics? If so, your friend may have other ideas about law that might, when you get right down to it, include the belief that you (HubZilla) have no right to express your own opinions about the subject (or about religion in general). If that’s the case, it would be hard for me to agree that I should “respect the beliefs of” someone who has no respect for my beliefs, to the extent of wanting to have the State suppress my freedom of speech and religion.

But I don’t really know. What exactly did your friend say? What’s your friend’s religious background?

A minor factual nitpick:

Actually, I believe Christianity has caught on fairly well in South Korea.

10

Well, now that the smart folk have weighed in, it’s worth mentioning that there are other good reasons to respect the Bible, and other “old books”.

Take, for example, the Communist Manifesto. That little rag is rapidly declining in social relevance to the point where some people would consider a contemporary edition of Punch to be more applicable to today’s world. Yet, it is worthy of respect. Why?

Paper cuts. You can still severely injure yourself with a copy of the Manifesto. With age comes mold and other nasty critters which can complicate the injury. In the hands of a Navy SEAL, it can kill a dozen different ways.

Now consider a big honkin’ bastard like the Old Testament. Your friend could well nigh beat you to death with one of 'em. Or, he could slide it out from underneath the broken leg of your couch just when you’re tipping up that glass of pig’s blood, or whatever it is you non-Christians drink. You could wind up ruining your slacks.

That’s why you should have respect for old books. Come to think of it, I’m suprised nobody has tried to ban 'em yet.

11

Hey Sofa, the Bible was banned and burned more than any other book.

12

'Cause zealots get real testy when you question their road map… they do VERY nasty things to you.

Other than that, very little reason.

13

You should respect it for its historical significance, of course. Without the bible, the history of western civilization would be far different. What would Gutenberg have printed first? Who would have fled to America and established New England? What holidays would we celebrate??? How can not show respect for the book that makes Christmas vacation possible?!

Oh, and it’s got some pretty good ideas in there too. The whole “Do unto others” bit, and the “Judge not”, and the “Thou shalt not kill” etc.

Oh, and a couple of religions have popped up around it. Religion has been a serious force in human history, regardless of what you might think about it.

As for respecting “God’s Holy Word”: <waves hand and says> pffft…

14

I could give a rats ass about the bible. It is so messed up and hypocritical, i don’t have the words to describe it. For example: “Thou shalt not kill.” The Crusades: lets go kill people in the name of god even though he told us not too!!

Silly Christians.

15

Well, strictly speaking, “Thou shalt not kill” vs. the Crusades isn’t an example of the Bible being hypocritical, but of Christians being hypocritcal. There are, however, plenty of other examples of the Bible contradicting itself.

16

Um, because thinking, rational, grownup human beings treat other cultures, and their religions, with respect?

I didn’t say “believe”, I said “respect”. I, personally, wouldn’t dream of coming onto a message board and posting something like, to paraphrase SSJ:

See what I mean?

17

I’m getting deja vu all over again. Must be a consequence of reading multiple boards…

Hi Hub! Nice to see you again! :smiley:

Seriously though, when you said

I think you’ve hit the proverbial nail on the head. In the same way that Christians are atheists where all other gods but YHWH are concerned, I am an atheist where all gods are concerned. They just believe in one more god than I do.

I think you are saying that where Christians regard other religion’s holy books as mythology and their own as sacred, you regard all religious books as mythology.

It’s a valid point.

But DDG’s post above makes the also very valid assertion that non-belief does not require non-respect. There’s really no point in just going around pissing off various theists for no good reason.

IMHO.

YMMV.

18

Bravo! Encore! Hear Hear! Yay! Lovely!

It seems to me that the friend of yours was showing no respect to that Japanese psychic’s religion, why should you or she respect your friend’s?

19

Myth - a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.

According to the above definition I believe that most Christians would accept that the bible is a collection of myths. I have seen another definition that stated that: the facts (in a myth) were usually, but not necessarily, false.

I have no idea about Vishnu, but Islam is based on the OT and they consider Jesus a great prophet, so I question the above statement. Personally, I have no problem with God and Allah being one in the same.

**

The above shows the context in which the statement was made about beating the slave and that it was not just about the beating. This sounds harsh at present, but back then slaves could be beaten to death without punishment.

[Quote]
Psalm 137
1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion.
2 There on the poplars we hung our harps,
3 for there our captors asked us for songs, our tormentors demanded songs of joy; they said, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”
4 How can we sing the songs of the LORD while in a foreign land?
5 If I forget you, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget [its skill].
6 May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth if I do not remember you, if I do not consider Jerusalem my highest joy.
7 Remember, O LORD, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell. “Tear it down,” they cried, “tear it down to its foundations!”
8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us–
9 he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

[Quote]

Again read in context it is much different than portrayed in the OP. I agree with the point Phlosphr made about agruing over every point. The above to me shows that the homework HubZilla did was subjective

20

Aside from being one of the rudest posts I’ve read in awhile, this is also one of the most ignorant comments I’ve heard. Your basis for the Bible being hypocriticial is that its followers are hypocrites? Makes a lot of sense to me.

Believers in the Bible are not ignorant and illogical. There are atheists of all degrees of intelligence and education and there are Christians of all degrees of intelligence and education.

As I’ve said in a previous thread, there is reason to believe in the Bible as the Divine Word of God. One-third of the Bible consists of very specific prophecies. These are in the Bible to prove to the skeptics that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. The following prophecies (this is just a sample) have been fulfilled and no historians can argue that the prophecies were either post-dated or that they did not come true:

  1. The prediction against Tyre in Ezekiel 26:3-21. This prophecy was fulfilled in three waves by Nebuchednezzar, Alexander the Great, and the Arabs. Alexander did throw the city’s (mainland Tyre’s) debris into the sea (26:12) as a means to get to the newly-formed island fortress the Tyrians had hid on. Today, the city is a “bare rock” (26:4) and local fisherman are using the area to spread their nets to dry (26:5). Read the prophecy, there is no doubt that it came true.

  2. The prophecy of Jerusalem’s enlargement in Jeremiah 31:38-40. You may need a map of Jerusalem for this. Jeremiah uses specific landmarks to describe, in detail, how Jerusalem would be enlarged in the future. Jerusalem, indeed, did enlarge in this way since the State of Israel was created. At the time, the people did not realize they were fulfilling Biblical prophecy.

  3. The prophecies against Gaza-Ashkelon in Amos 1:8., Jeremiah 47:5, Zepheniah 2:4, 6, 7. These prophecies say the Philistines will not continue (fulfilled), desolation shall come upon Ashkelon (fulfilled), and that Ashkelon will be reinhabited by the Jews (fulfilled by the State of Israel). For a long time, people thought that the prophecies against Gaza were not fulfilled because a city of Gaza did exist. But after a search was done, they found the ancient city of Gaza buried under a sand dune. Jeremiah 45:7 said "Baldness has come upon Gaza."

The concept of the Messiah was not new at Jesus’ time. Throughout the entire OT, prophecies were made concerning the Messiah. Jews simply do not believe the Messiah has come yet. Christian’s believe that those prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus. Daniel 9:24-27 is a prophecy concerning when the OT Messiah would come to earth. The term “weeks” in this context is a group of seven years not days. Daniel says that between the time the proclamation is made to rebuild Jerusalem and the time the Messiah is “cut-off,” there will be 69 weeks–483 years. The proclamation to rebuild Jerusalem was made by King Artaxerxes to Nehemiah in 444 BC (Neh. 2:1-8). Using the Jewish year of 360 days, 483 years later we arrive at 33 A.D (there is some debate about the exact date we would arrive at but all the calculations have come to around 32-34 A.D.–the time of Jesus’ crucifixion). Daniel also wrote that after the Messiah was cut-off, Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed. That sub-prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D.

And one last point against the argument that Jesus never rose from the dead. Jesus did, in fact, walk this earth at the beginning of the first century. Shortly after His crucifixion many people claimed (to their deaths) that they saw Jesus Christ and a fever spread over Jerusalem. Many Jews were becoming Christians. The Temple Priests and Pontius Pilate were not happy with this religious fervor. Since the priests and the Romans knew where Jesus was buried they could’ve easily nipped this movement in the bud by producing the body of Jesus. Yet they couldn’t. Paul to King Agrippa: “For the King, before whom I also speak freely, knows these things; for I am convinced that none of these things escapes his attention, since this thing was not done in a corner.” (Acts 26:26). All the events around Jesus’s Crucifixion and Resurrection were well-known throughout the empire very shortly after the actual events. Not one person could refute the disciples. They accused them of stealing the body of Jesus, but these same people, who wrote about loving God and your neighbors, being charitable, rejecting money, etc. were willing to die for their belief. People do not die for something they know to be untrue. If they stole the body (hard to believe the guards were sleeping since punishment for that was death or that they didn’t get woken up), they would not have allowed themselves to be stoned in the name of a mere man they took from a cave. Martyrs and liars are not the same type of people.

Not one person can refute the prohpecies that have been fulfilled throughout history. No one can chalk them up to mere coincidence. No other book has attempted and succeeded in making such specific prophecies that were actually fulfilled. No one can make the assertion that 1) Jesus didn’t live, 2) Jesus didn’t have a ministry, 3) Jesus didn’t claim to be God, 4) Jesus wasn’t crucified, 5) or that Jesus’ tomb was not empty the Sunday after he was crucified.