diariasmile (diariasmile) wrote in metaphydebate,

The Bible is a tertiary source, at best. Quoting the Bible to prove your point, is no better than quoting Harry Potter to do the same. The Bible holds as much accuracy in telling about the way people should live as Harry Potter does.

1. The Bible was written by man. It was a series of books that were written about events that pertain to God and Jesus. But it was written by man. It was not handed to a prophet on a cloud by God. It was events that were recorded by man. Man has failures. No man is perfect. Even the prophets are susceptible to their opinions reveling themselves in their writings.

2. The books in the Bible were written 50 years after the events that they discuss. On average. Some are written even later than that. Some of the books in the Bible were written by people that weren’t even there. Luke was born after Jesus died. How can Luke write in the entirety the events of something that he never witnessed? Luke followed Paul, who followed Jesus, so at best, Luke is getting third-hand information, thus we, the readers, get fourth-hand information. How can you believe so completely something that is so far removed from the actual source? It may have some truth in it, but you don’t know. All history is distorted with each telling, what makes the Bible an exception?

3. There was a church-appointed committee in the 3rd century CE that was elected to decide what books are to be included in the Bible. Let me repeat the important points in this statement. There was a church appointed committee that was elected to decided what books to be included in the Bible. There were a whole lot more books written on these events that were not even included in the Bible. You are not getting the full picture when you read the Bible. You are getting what the church wants you to get. Not only what the church wants you to get, but what the church of the 3rd century wants you to get. You are not getting the whole story, no matter how you look at it. The books that they decided not to include were burned. You know, kinda like what Hitler was trying to do, to make it look like what he was doing was the correct thing, for those that follow in the future. He wanted the future to look at what they were doing as a good and noble thing. So he was destroying the evidence. Sounds familiar, eh? Just did a little more research on this council, The First Council of Nicaea. There were a total of two preists that were at this committee that did not agree with the majority, and these two priests were exiled and suspended for not agreeing with the majority. Clearly this kind of committee would be willing to throw out stuff from the Bible that is different from their own personal beliefs, if they were willing to throw out these two preists just because they did not agree completely with the committee and their voices were shut out.

4. The bible used to be a rare book. It was not a common household thing. People had to travel far and long to get to where they could look at a copy of this book. This was before the printing press made it easy for everyone to get a copy of this book. With so few copies around, it would be easy to change a few things here, and few things there. If this is contrary to what you want it to say, and you have the power to change it, why wouldn’t you change it? It would be so easy, and who would be able to prove you wrong? Who knows what the church could do to alter this highly acclaimed book? And don't be telling me that the church would never do something so heinous. Look at what it did in the Inquisitions. Or maybe the Crusades?

5. Kinda going off further from point 4, there used to be no printing press, so the Bible had to be copied by hand. Even the best copiers do sometimes slip and switch words around, which over enough time can lead to greater differences in the meanings of the words. Also there is the whole matter that in the days when the Bible was written, English was not a language. The Bible was written in another language. A lot is lost in translation. Or misinterpreted. A common thing, don't belittle it. I saw a translation from English (1) to Spanish (2), and then back to English (3) again, and the 1 meant something totally different than 3 did. And this is just an example of what happened after just two translations. Imagine if it had been done a number of times, like it had been with the Bible.

6. Now there is the whole symbols things. The Bible is full of symbols and things that meant then, something entirely different than they do today. For example; the virgin birth. In those days, to say that someone was born of a virgin birth meant simply that this person was better than human. Something more than the usual. It was a common thing to say. Romulus and Remus for example, were of virgin birth. Some things in the Bible were not meant to be taken literally.

7. Like it or not, Jesus and his immediate followers were Jewish. The Jewish people did not at the time distinguish between writing history and writing literature. Their stories of history were their literature. That means that it wasn't all just a series of facts. It was a story with some history put into it.

You can't use the Bible to prove anything, there is no substance to it. If the Bible helps guide you in your way of life, by translating out the message that it contains, then that is all you can use the Bible for. You can't use it to tell others the "correct" way of living. There is no one correct path.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic