For those of you who have read/ are reading the Bible, feel free to express your criticisms of it on this 'thread'. I think it's a very interesting process when collecting other people's criticisms of the Bible. I'll go first - God created day and night before he created the sun (Genesis). This is impossible - God cannot even get the creation story right.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
God did not get the day night before sun thing wrong. The poorly educated people that wrote the bible did.
This is evidence that uneducated people were writing stuff they did not know about. It is evidence that the bible is in no way devine. And of course realizing the bible was written by uneducated bronze age people (it is all over the bible) means the bible can in no way be used to prove god or his teachings.
A few problems I have with page 1 of genesis page 1, KJB version.
How? That is a tremendous feat. No explanation. Later the book explains god is all powerful, but on the first page this is completely unsupported. The bible wants to say it is nonfiction. That it is the ultimate truth, but it's very first statement leads to a huge (possibly the biggest possible,) unsupported statement. It does not say later, let's explain. It simply expects the reader to immediately without any support accept that enormous claim. The claim that this "god" entity can create everything from nothing.
Worse still, reading the bible cover to cover it never provides any actual empirical evidence to support any of its statements.
Formless, void, darkness, deep.... but also water? Either a horrible translation and or, statement number 2 on this supposed non-fiction "fact" book that tells us how to live, is already jumping into highly interpretive "pretty" statements instead of fact listing, like a non fiction book should be doing when making great statements and the beginning of a book.
-
I could go on and on.
I could probably write 10 pages just on the first sentence really. So many things wrong with it.
God created the heavens and earth out of nothing and made everything in six days. Pure magic. But to cleanse the earth of sin he had to make it rain for 40 days and cover the earth in water. Why all that trouble and mess when he could have wrinkled his nose like Samantha and made us all go away?
The further you go in the Bible the more trouble god seems to have getting things done. In Egypt he had to arrange rivers of blood and plagues of frogs and flies. Sodom and Gomorrah took a couple of nukes. His last recorded magic trick required a pregnant virgin, 30 years of talk and miracles, and a crucifixion.
Algebe,
"Why all that trouble and mess when he could have wrinkled his nose like Samantha and made us all go away?"
Remember, you're dealing with a story. What kind of story would you have if the God character had zapped everything out of existence and started over? There wouldn't be a story.
If Arthur hadn't been able to pull the sword out of the stone there wouldn't have been a King Arthur and knights of the round table. All good stories have such major events that serve as transition points to move the story to the next level. That's what Noah's flood does in the biblical story.
They are still trying to convince us that torturing and murdering your son because the neighbor kid misbehaved is a good idea.
A lot of people criticize the Bible or believe it without knowing what the Bible is.
"God created day and night before he created the sun (Genesis). This is impossible - God cannot even get the creation story right."
Lesson number 1: The Bible is NOT a science textbook.
Christians are not meant to take the creation story literally (Creationism is fairly recent phenomena). They're meant to take truths from it, like, God created the universe. God created man in his image and likeness, thus telling us the truth that man has intrinsic worth which is more than any other creature.
This creation account was made to compete with other creation accounts where the existence of humans makes it appear as though we were an accident and have no more worth than other animals.
What would you have us say to people who tell us otherwise?
Tell them about how the Universe came about with the Big Bang, evolution and all. I do this all the time but add that God could have used all these tools to create the universe we know today. But since you don’t believe in that, you can stop at explaining the Big Bang.
Would you say the bible, (pick any one,) is fiction or nonfiction?
To me it certainly tries to pass itself off as non-fiction especially considering it's targeted audience (uneducated 1000+ years ago, through the words of "spiritual leaders" as many people could not read or even afford books.)
Actually you've touched on a very important point right there - illiteracy. The Bible was written in a way where it have to be read out loud to a group of people (not to be read at home since like you said, they couldn't afford it). As such, most of the Bible came in oral form before it was written down.
As to it being fiction or non-fiction. I'd say non-fiction, undoubtedly. But remember that non-fiction comes in many forms. Psalms is poetry. Songs and Sirach are wisdom books. Genesis 1-11 tell historical facts in a poetic form. It relays truths, which while they're not historically accurate, record facts about creation namely, that God created the universe and all. Was there a literal fruit of knowledge of good and evil? I think not. This literary tool was used to relay that man chose to defy God's will.
Seems bad practice to me for a book trying to pass itself off as non fiction, to not have supporting data in it. One could say the authors are lying or at the very least grossly negligent in their work of nonfiction at any point it makes a claim that is later found to be flatly untrue. Especially if the entire book is filled with unsupported claims.
Maybe by today’s standards. But these were books written in antiquity. They had a different standard then.
Can definitely agree with that.
Of course they did try to update many bibles to more modern style, lots of the huge flaws were left in it. Still claiming to be non-fiction.
@JontheCatholic So God couldn't actually give everybody His 'wonderful' book? In fact, most people "couldn't afford it". Can't you see that it's clearly a business?
What's a book to someone illiterate? It doesn't do much to persuade him to read because, he can't. Now, a lot of people get this wrong but God didn't actually leave a book on earth. After Jesus died and rose from the dead, he didn't leave a book. He left a church with teachers to teach the gospel. In fact for a long time, teaching was done by word of mouth so that it could reach everyone.
@JontheCatholic "What's a book to someone illiterate?" That's besides the point - why should one need to have money to educate themselves in the God they believe in? You've already admitted that many people couldn't afford the Bible at the time when illiteracy was dominant, hence suggesting that the Bible existed then. God really wanted to get his message across to people so decided to do so in the form of writing (when most people couldn't read) and this is even displayed when God commands Moses to mark out the commandments on a stone tablet - which requires the ability to read.
I also think it's ironic that many theists claim the Bible to be interpreted differently by each person who reads it yet we have "teachers to teach" its teachings. One might go as far to say that this is another example of indoctrination...
P.s. Why wouldn't God grant the ability to read to His creation when the Bible provides the sole foundations of Christianity?
You’re missing the point completely. Let’s take your example of the commandments written in stone. Why write it and make it accessible only to those who could read? That’s just narrow thinking.
These things were written to preserve these teachings. As long as they had ears to hear, they could still receive the word of God. Take the narratives of Jesus, for example. Did he write anything down? Did he tell people to write down notes? No! He spoke, his followers listened. Writing the things down became necessary to preserve the teachings.
As to your point about each individual Christian interpreting the Bible differently, that’s true. The thing is God didn’t just drop a Bible from the sky and say, “Do with it what you want!” He founded a church by his authority. This church then went on to compile the Bible and has the sole authority to interpret the Bible. And that church is still standing today.
@JontheCatholic When you say the writings are there to preserve the teachings, I think it's really important to point out that the first stone tablet was thrust to the floor by Moses who was in a fit of rage - that preservation didn't last too long. If God wanted His teachings to be preserved, why would He choose materials which can easily be destroyed as a foundation of his commandments.
As for Jesus orally conveying his teachings, he specifically asks: ‘Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?’ (Matthew 22:31) which implies that in order to gain true knowledge of YHWH, one should read the account of the Old Testament. Jesus doesn't teach everything which was said in the Old Testament automatically putting those who were illiterate at a disadvantage.
I think it's really interesting when you refer to the idea of God Himself finding a church. Can I ask what you are referring to here?
@Jon the Catholic: "What's a book to someone illiterate?"
Even when more people became literate after the invention of printing, the church still tried to keep them from reading the bible. They used Latin as a cloak of secrecy and severely punished anyone who created or distributed vernacular translations. Jan Hus and William Tyndale were burned alive to protect the Church's monopoly on Jesus' message of love and mercy.
Did not know that, but not surprised in the slightest.
@JontheCat, hi. What would you say about Leviticus or Deuteronomy (meant to be moral codes) or how would you label those dreadful stories in Judges of rapes, child sacrifice, dismemberments... Is this fiction or non-fiction; a parable, a metaphore, a moral...
Because for me it's nothing but an interesting collection of ancient myths, but written by cruel people with a distorted sense of morality and who were psychopathic.to current Westernised standards.
I'm assuming this is a two part question. The first one about Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the second one about Judges.
First, if you look at the progression in the Bible, God is slowly revealing his moral law to us. This story we call salvation history. It begins with very simple commands - "Do not eat from the fruit of the tree of good and evil." No mention of any other evils. Then moves on to giving the 10 commandments. The laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that you've stated was his way of putting the training wheels on man's salvation. As his people grow more to know about this moral law, he slowly removes the training wheels and holds mankind to the standard he/she was meant to be. Kinda like how you'd allow a younger child to act immature in public but reprimand an older child when they do the same thing.
As for the acts in Judges, you ask if this is fiction or non-fiction. Judges falls under the category of the historical books of the Bible, meaning their purpose was to record history. Now, if the opposite were true (where no atrocities were committed... at all) you'd probably raise the same concern that these people were simply hiding their dirty laundry. This isn't to say we should follow their examples. But the fact that the Jews were very upfront about their "dirty laundry" would actually be a point in favor of it being non-fiction.
Christians see a fall but ignore that the authors of that myth, the Jews saw an elevation.
You say A & E defied God. I agree and would myself.
Do you think they should have followed the command and remain with their eyes closed as scriptures say they were and too stupid to even know they were naked, or do you see their reward of a moral sense as good as God's as a fall?
Why do you follow the Christian view while ignoring the Jewish view.
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/20/comparative-theodicy/
‘Instead of the Fall of man (in the sense of humanity as a whole), Judaism preaches the Rise of man: and instead of Original Sin, it stresses Original Virtue, the beneficent hereditary influence of righteous ancestors upon their descendants’.
Regards
DL
Jon the Catholic,
The Big Bang is BS. It's just a Catholic priest's silly theory of creation. The universe is still being created from quantum foam from which elemental particles pop into existence until they finally create celestial hydrogen. Once that happens and the hydrogen forms stars all of the other elements are created.
If that’s what you believe, then go ahead. If creationists tell you that the creation account in genesis is to be taken literally, tell them that.
@Jon the Catholic
Which parts of your bible should we take literally, and which should we not? And why, please?
Just like any written work, if you find something confusing, who do you ask? The author would be your best bet. But say, a certain written work was compiled/written by an organization, I’d say that organization has the right to interpret said written work. So if you wanna know about the book of mormon, you’d go to a mormon church to your interpretation.
So you’d have ti look for where the Bible came from. And which institution compiled the Bible we have today. That institution has the sole right to interpret the Bible. Does that make sense?
@Jon the Catholic
No, it doesn't make any sense at all. Who were the authors of your bible? Do you know that the new testament writers names are fictional? And you're saying that a person who doesn't support the concoctions in your bible has no right to question it?
Fictional names? Where are you getting your sources, my friend?
You may question it. I do that all the time. The key is who would have the correct interpretation of the text, which you can get from the institution from which we get the Bible.
@Jon the Catholic Well, you're certainly right about the Bible not being a scientific textbook but let's not forget, God is supposed to be omniscient yet the one book which takes into account the creation of our world is deeply flawed. How do you think humans knew what God did if they didn't exist before the world was created? Because their supposed God told them. This proves that God can't even effectively communicate with His own creation.
Can you tell me the quote in the Bible which states "Christians are not meant to take the creation story literally...They're meant to take truths from it"? Or are you just assuming and therefore putting yourself above the Bible (God's word).
@Jon the Catholic Well, you're certainly right about the Bible not being a scientific textbook but let's not forget, God is supposed to be omniscient yet the one book which takes into account the creation of our world is deeply flawed. How do you think humans knew what God did if they didn't exist before the world was created? Because their supposed God told them. This proves that God can't even effectively communicate with His own creation.
Can you tell me the quote in the Bible which states "Christians are not meant to take the creation story literally...They're meant to take truths from it"? Or are you just assuming and therefore putting yourself above the Bible (God's word).
Pages