The Bible, fiction or non fiction?

[LOVEMUD]

I saw The DaVinci Code as well as The Passion when it came out and appreciated both. I thought it was intersting, and thought provoking. But I admit right away I do not have enough knowledge within religion to truly form an valid opinion towards either movie.

Just wondering what people think. I know this can be a heated topic as some say the Bible is stories told by Jesus' disciples (that is the New Testiment) and the Old Testiment is the word of Christ.

So what are your thoughts? The Bible, fiction or non-fiction?

I love to read my Bible and enjoy the stories as I learn from them. And I enjoy going to my church and listening to them read out of it and then tell you how to incorporate it into your life daily. Personally though, I have a hard time with it being re-written in so many newer versions. I become concerned that the translation may have gotten lost or changed, although I have not read all of the different versions of the Bible either. And why do we need so many versions? There are not several different versions of The Velveteen Rabbit, it is one story re-written in different languages for other nationalites, but the story stays the same.

We all perseve things through our own eyes and with our own thoughts and feelings.

[deuce228]

Frankly i think the bible is the greatest fiction book in history. No book can be greater as the bible has the following it does.

[Haggar]

Its apt that this ties in with the Davinci code..

Both are similar fact based fiction books.

You create a story around real people and events, that people want to believe. The real events allow the reader to believe that it is all true, since they see elements they believe are true.

[RyeBread]

there are entire curriculums built around the study of the various religious tomes.

I have not made it a career to study at this depth.

I continue to be amazed at modern discoveries of corroborative evidence of events that transpired in the bible as authentic historical fact.

Lee Strobel attempted to write a series of books from the perspective of a forensic reporter.

The case for faith.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/031...lance&n=283155

it obviously has drawn huge amounts of efforts by folks trying to debunk what he has written.

ultimately, it comes down to faith, which by definition means that there will not be "scientifically verifiable proof" that so very many people these days require.

[clarkstoncracker]

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a 'moral commandment' is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.- ayn rand



my thoughts on life is living for what is here, what I can see, touch or feel, for reality. I dont' believe a lick of that bible thing. Why base my life on what "might" happen, when I can change what WILL happen while I am here?

evolution my friend.

[RyeBread]

Originally Posted by Haggar

Its apt that this ties in with the Davinci code..

Both are similar fact based fiction books.

You create a story around real people and events, that people want to believe. The real events allow the reader to believe that it is all true, since they see elements they believe are true.

A problem I see with this off-handed approach to dismissing the bible as fiction.

The very early authors of the various gospels didn't have anything to gain by putting their perspectives, and interpretations of events down on paper - factual, or made up. In fact, many, by doing so risked and suffered persecution, torture and death.

It's true that there are religious zealots that will do anything based on what they believe, including suicide/martyrdom. However how many do you know of, that did so based on things they themselves made up?

Whether you believe that things transpired as written in the bible is up to you. To believe that organized religion, or that the early authors intentionally wrote it as fiction is to ignore the overwhelming evidence, and logic to the contrary.

This of course opens up a whole other dialogue about whether the authors understood, or correctly perceived that which they witnessed...

[RyeBread]

Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker

my thoughts on life is living for what is here, what I can see, touch or feel, for reality. I dont' believe a lick of that bible thing. Why base my life on what "might" happen, when I can change what WILL happen while I am here?

evolution my friend.

the way I live my life is largely based upon the morals, and fabric instilled by my loving parents. (we all test those, fail, modify, and adjust them to our own "best fit" as we mature)

That being said, my religious beliefs are not always consistent, nor even applicable in day to day living.

Some overzealous organized religious folk would condemn me, right along side the "heathens".

How does one reconcile that? By acknolwedging that we're all human, we all make mistakes, we all learn, live, and move on.

whether you view those mistakes as sin, or just goofs I guess is a matter of semantics.

[clarkstoncracker]

Originally Posted by RyeBread

the way I live my life is largely based upon the morals, and fabric instilled by my loving parents. (we all test those, fail, modify, and adjust them to our own "best fit" as we mature)

That being said, my religious beliefs are not always consistent, nor even applicable in day to day living.

Some overzealous organized religious folk would condemn me, right along side the "heathens".

How does one reconcile that? By acknolwedging that we're all human, we all make mistakes, we all learn, live, and move on.

whether you view those mistakes as sin, or just goofs I guess is a matter of semantics.

The Doctrine of Original Sin (the bible) declares that (man) ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge - he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil - he became a moral being/ He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor - he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire - he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which (the preachers) damn him are reason, morality, creativeness joy - all the cardinal values of his existence. -ayn rand


HOORAY FOR THE BIBLE! IT MADE US THINK! :tonka:

[Haggar]

Originally Posted by RyeBread

A problem I see with this off-handed approach to dismissing the bible as fiction.

The very early authors of the various gospels didn't have anything to gain by putting their perspectives, and interpretations of events down on paper - factual, or made up. In fact, many, by doing so risked and suffered persecution, torture and death.

It's true that there are religious zealots that will do anything based on what they believe, including suicide/martyrdom. However how many do you know of, that did so based on things they themselves made up?

Whether you believe that things transpired as written in the bible is up to you. To believe that organized religion, or that the early authors intentionally wrote it as fiction is to ignore the overwhelming evidence, and logic to the contrary.

This of course opens up a whole other dialogue about whether the authors understood, or correctly perceived that which they witnessed...

Except that the Bible as read today isn't the same as the early scriptures. And over the last 1500 years, the church has had a decided interest in adapting things to suit their needs. Even the simple editing and compilation of the bible itself, what was and was not included, is steering the direction of the book.

No, the original components weren't written as fiction for profit, although that does not mean they are true. There were certainly areas which would have been fictionalized for other gains in promoting their beliefs, and many sections which just simply aren't true, but were the best explainations of events with the knowledge at the time. Such is the case with most religious and mythological works from that and earlier times.


I over generalized my statements because I didn't intend to get into a scholarly debate on religious history.

[biohazardbill]

The Bible is whatever you want it to be. It cannot really be proven one way or the other. You yourself make the decision to believe whether it is fact or fiction, and you choose daily to live by His word or not based on your decisions. It is all about faith.

[LOVEMUD]

Originally Posted by biohazardbill

The Bible is whatever you want it to be. It cannot really be proven one way or the other. You yourself make the decision to believe whether it is fact or fiction, and you choose daily to live by His word or not based on your decisions. It is all about faith.

Very well stated! I agree.

[RyeBread]

Originally Posted by Haggar

Except that the Bible as read today isn't the same as the early scriptures. And over the last 1500 years, the church has had a decided interest in adapting things to suit their needs. Even the simple editing and compilation of the bible itself, what was and was not included, is steering the direction of the book.

No, the original components weren't written as fiction for profit, although that does not mean they are true. There were certainly areas which would have been fictionalized for other gains in promoting their beliefs, and many sections which just simply aren't true, but were the best explainations of events with the knowledge at the time. Such is the case with most religious and mythological works from that and earlier times.


I over generalized my statements because I didn't intend to get into a scholarly debate on religious history.

I wasn't referring to today's bible, or the hundreds of current translations that currently exist, but more generally speaking towards the original manuscripts - thousands of which still exist today.

To fully understand them, requires someone well versed in the history of the time (classical languages aren't really spoken/written these days) as well as higher learning in other, related fields.

Obviously, I am not one of those that has spent the time/effort to be able to read/understand, or even cite those original sources. For that, there needs to be a bit of faith, that the scholars of such tomes are doing their professional best to accurately write/interpret them.

This leap of faith to a non-believer is just as strange of a concept to accept as someone who is not versed in particle physics to understand a "laymen's article" on the beginning of the universe.

Do I also have a problem with modern day organized religion? Yes, and I'm also well aware of the abuses of organized religion over the 1500 or so years (prior to that, there really wasn't much "organization" in "organized religion")

I prefer the reading/interpretations of folks that don't claim a particular affiliation with a particular organized religion. but also confess to not having read much of that in a while.

:dunno:

[swampjeep]

Originally Posted by biohazardbill

The Bible is whatever you want it to be. It cannot really be proven one way or the other. You yourself make the decision to believe whether it is fact or fiction, and you choose daily to live by His word or not based on your decisions. It is all about faith.

yup, very true


as for proving it fact or fiction, it's like anything else in ancient history, and every theory of creation, even evolution as CC brings up, there is no real proof to it.

think of the story of creation in the bible, and the order of the bigining of the earth by scientist, throw out the time frame things happened, and you have the same thing...

as for different versions, it's like a dictionaries, there are lots of dictionaries, and not every word will be defined exactly the same in each, even reprints of older books are not 100% the same. I read a fantasy/fiction book 2 years ago that I had been looking for in a used book store, when I found it there where a couple, the old vertion was 260 pages, the new one was about 350, and both had about the same number of words on each page,

as for your movies:
The Passion was how Mel Gibson imagined the crusifiction, this was what he even said about it at the time of the movie's release

The Devince Code was written purely as a fictional book, refering to things from the Catholic church and/or bible; some fact, some fiction

personally I believe in God, and Christ, but not every detail of the bible. I believe much of the bible was a combination of how early man understood what God told them and how early man saw what was happening, along with stories they used to teach there children about life, and history

[Haggar]

Thats the key. I You don't need to believe one way or another, to gain value from its texts.

If some story provides guidance to you, does it matter if its 100% true or not.

[clarkstoncracker]

Originally Posted by biohazardbill

The Bible is whatever you want it to be. It cannot really be proven one way or the other.

That is a problem right there. Everything you do in life besides religion is based on fact.. Why let the fog of the unkown enter your life? Everything you do during the day can be proven via the scientific method.

If I told you I could make a honeybaked ham inside my ass, you would laugh at me..

But PROVE to me that I can't do it.

But if I said I could make a honeybaked ham out of a pig, then you would probably agree.

see the point?

reality exists as an objective absolute. facts are facts. TOTALLY independent of your feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

If jesus appears one day, and interacts with people, or if a god appears and interacts with people, or does something that can be proven, I will be a believer. I live each day for what I know as fact, not for some imaginery creature in the sky.

[bellmer]

i would say its fact. there is so many different versions cause they try to make it easier to understand. but there is the book of mormans and those are different. they say they are another acount of Jesus's life. i like to read the NIV version cause its in modern day english and easy to understand

[Stan]

Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker

That is a problem right there. Everything you do in life besides religion is based on fact.. Why let the fog of the unkown enter your life? Everything you do during the day can be proven via the scientific method.

If I told you I could make a honeybaked ham inside my ass, you would laugh at me..

But PROVE to me that I can't do it.

But if I said I could make a honeybaked ham out of a pig, then you would probably agree.

see the point?

reality exists as an objective absolute. facts are facts. TOTALLY independent of your feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

If jesus appears one day, and interacts with people, or if a god appears and interacts with people, or does something that can be proven, I will be a believer. I live each day for what I know as fact, not for some imaginery creature in the sky.

I made a reassembled chicken sandwich come out of my ass today after lunch.
Is that what you mean?

[brewmenn]

I believe that the writers of the bilble believed that it was all true.

Whether they were correct in thier interpritations of what they saw, and if it was actuatly translated correctly through the ages, I don't know.

[kerryann]

I think the bible is mostly true based on the perception of the writers. I have watched numerous shows on the discovery and history channels about events in the bible, where they have proven they could be true. If you look at some of the documentation from the same era, the stories are confirmed. they have also done shows which prove things like the walls falling at Jericho could happen. I think some of the things written were based on the perception of the writers, and I also think some of the things that religion holds true don't really matter. One example of the things I dont believe, is that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus's birth. The bible said she had other kids, and she was married. I mean joseph already got the raw end of the stick having to marry a chick already pregnant. I also dont think it changes the story of jesus if he was married.
i believe a lot of the bible. I dont think we as humans know what the afterlife is fully about, but I have lost too many loved ones to just believe that after this there is a dirt nap.