7 ms·

Without trying to be snarky, in my opinion that's a rather naive view of the Bible, in particular. The book forms a coherent whole with vast layers of meaning,

Without trying to be snarky, in my opinion that's a rather naive view of the Bible, in particular. The book forms a coherent whole with vast layers of meaning, story, interpretation and self-reference. Unfortunately the biblical literalists of some evangelical movements don't do it justice, and they get considerably more airtime than the people who take longer to explain things.

darkwater 5y ago
So, you don't really think there is an invisible, almighty, sentient being that rules everything in the known universe, with a varying over time definition of "known"? And what would be the "naive view"? Assuming that the Bible is stating that such a being exists?
- bencollier49 5y ago
  The Bible is an account, written over thousands of years, of people's attempts to understand God. Parts of it are impenetrable unless you're on that journey yourself. What goes wrong is when people cherry-pick bits of it out of context: Shellfish, sexual mores, etc.
  - RhysU 5y ago
    In a time without modern refrigeration, they may have been onto something with the shellfish.
    - whythre 5y ago
      Or the avoidance of pork- it’s distressingly easy to pick up parasites from consuming pork.
      - phonypc 5y ago
        Only if you feed the pigs carrion and under cook it. There was a big trichinosis issue in the mid-20th century, which is when some people speculated on its connection to religious pork taboos, but nobody really takes that idea seriously any more.
        whythre 5y ago
        You act like that is the only possible infectious agent. In addition to Trichinosis, Taenia solium and Toxoplasma gondii are also spread in undercooked pork- and those are modern health concerns. The animal eats almost anything and is capable of spreading more diseases than worms. It is no wonder it would be considered ‘unclean’ given the rudimentary cleansing rituals of the Old Testament Jews.
- nvahalik 5y ago
  > with a varying over time definition of "known" This is called progressive revelation[0]. > what would be the "naive view" That the Bible is no different than, say, the Aeneid, or the Odyssey, or any other epic saga whose purpose is to provide a myth (in the literary sense) as an explanation for why things are, though are not tied to history explicitly. > Assuming that the Bible is stating that such a being exists? The Bible makes clear and explicit claims about its author, where creation came from, how and why humanity exists, as well as its ultimate end. People often criticize those who hold to a Biblical faith as people trust in some "invisible, almighty, sentient being" yet themselves don't actually have any real answers to any of the most basic questions of creation and human existence. [0]: https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_1203.cfm https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_...
  - hn_version_0023 5y ago
  - Maursault 5y ago
    > or any other epic saga whose purpose is to provide a myth (in the literary sense) Saga is an Old Norse word meaning "what is said," borrowed by English-speaking Old Norse scholars to refer to Old Norse narratives. The Aeneid is an epic poem written in Latin by Virgil around 25BC, give or take. The Odyssey is an epic poem written in ancient or Homeric Greek by a single author around the 8th or 7th century BC. The Bible could not be more different, being an anthology of writings of many different forms and many different languages by many different authors composing across the span of nearly a millennia. > The Bible makes clear and explicit claims about its author Please provide two examples from the Bible of clear and explicit claims about it's "author"
    - sockpuppet_12 5y ago
      > Please provide two examples from the Bible of clear and explicit claims about it's "author" Not the op but here are some claims made by the Bible about its origin. 2 Tim 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness" 2 peter 1:20-21 "20 For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit." Exodus 34:27 "27 Jehovah went on to say to Moses: “You are to write down these words, because in accordance with these words, I am making a covenant with you and with Israel.” The Bible does mention that it's been written under divine inspiration at God's request. By the hand of men, but motivated and helped by holy spirit, as the scriptures say. If interested, have a look at some of the frequently asked questions about the Bible that the Bible answers itself. This website uses only the Bible itself to answer questions about the Bible, which is a refreshing take. jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/about-the-bible I'm sure you'll find it informative.
Maursault 5y ago
> The book forms a coherent whole I think when perhaps in isolation, some of the individual books may be coherent, but as a whole, there is no logical consistency, but instead there are a myriad of contradictions, such as those between the synoptic gospels and John. For example, on what day was Jesus crucified? John does not agree with the synoptic gospels regarding this. Or in the Old Testament, in Exodus, we have two entirely different sets of Ten Commandments, the first we find familiar, but were destroyed, and the second set that few would recognize that Exodus specifically refers to as the Ten Commandments, including a prohibition on boiling a young goat in it's mother's milk. Is God El, or Yahweh? Is God a perfect being, or subject to all too human emotions like jealousy? I am nearly certain the Bible was never intended to be coherent. It's authors span nearly a millennia, and it is doubtful they expected or intended their writings to be translated and compiled together by St. Jerome or the First Council of Nicaea. Joseph Campbell, a Jungian, stated "a mythic dream is a personal experience of that deep dark ground which is the support of our conscious lives, and the myth is the society's dream," that a dream is a private mythology, and mythology is the public dream, and as easy it is to understand what he means, not even that is coherent.
- prometheus76 5y ago
  Contradictions are sometimes the key to understanding deeper concepts and connections that are not immediately clear or "logical". Also, the Synoptic Gospels were written first, and intended to be used to catechize new Christians and teach them the basics of the life of Jesus Christ. The Gospel According to John was intended to be used to teach newly baptized Christians what it means to be a Christian and what it means to have a mystical relationship with Christ. To say "they don't agree so they're all wrong" is a very simplistic and dismissive take. John probably had the Gospels of Matthew and Luke when he wrote his own account of the Gospel, so if there are contradictions MAYBE they're intentional and are intended to teach you something. But if you are hung up on how much smarter you are than traditional people, you will never get over how apparently dumb they were for contradicting each other.
  - Maursault 5y ago
    > Contradictions are sometimes the key to understanding deeper concepts and connections that are not immediately clear or "logical". Fascinating. Can you provide one single example from the Bible where a contradiction is intentionally employed to unveil a deeper concept or connection that is not immediately clear? > Also, the Synoptic Gospels were written first, and intended to be used to catechize new Christians and teach them the basics of the life of Jesus Christ. The Gospel According to John was intended to be used to teach newly baptized Christians what it means to be a Christian and what it means to have a mystical relationship with Christ. The author of John's Gospel sourced from a "signs" gospel, possibly the Gospel of Thomas, and seems to have known about Gospels Mark and Luke, but not Matthew, as well as Jewish scripture and non-Jewish sources, such as Greek philosophy. The Johannine community were messianic Jews excommunicated from the Jewish community on account of their belief that Jesus was the Jewish messiah. > To say "they don't agree so they're all wrong" is a very simplistic and dismissive take. Unless such a claim was made, this is a straw man. I disagreed with OP's claim that the Bible is coherent, because it could not possibly be coherent, and I explained why. Is it necessary that the Bible be coherent? I'd like to know why, because it isn't, and it can not be, because it literally is not possible for it to have been intended to be coherent, mostly due to it being a collection of works from multiple ancient authors that lived in different centuries. > But if you are hung up on how much smarter you are than traditional people, you will never get over how apparently dumb they were for contradicting each other. Another straw man and an ad hominem. Your argument is twice fallacious.
perl4ever 5y ago
>The book forms a coherent whole In order to derive meaning from your statement, I think it's logically necessary to imagine a counterfactual where it doesn't form a coherent whole. If you think the Bible is coherent, can you explain what it would be like if it were incoherent? I'm putting it this way because I think it's probably useless to try to argue directly whether it's coherent.

darkwater 5y ago

So, you don't really think there is an invisible, almighty, sentient being that rules everything in the known universe, with a varying over time definition of "known"? And what would be the "naive view"? Assuming that the Bible is stating that such a being exists?

bencollier49 5y ago
The Bible is an account, written over thousands of years, of people's attempts to understand God. Parts of it are impenetrable unless you're on that journey yourself. What goes wrong is when people cherry-pick bits of it out of context: Shellfish, sexual mores, etc.
- RhysU 5y ago
  In a time without modern refrigeration, they may have been onto something with the shellfish.
  - whythre 5y ago
    Or the avoidance of pork- it’s distressingly easy to pick up parasites from consuming pork.
    - phonypc 5y ago
      Only if you feed the pigs carrion and under cook it. There was a big trichinosis issue in the mid-20th century, which is when some people speculated on its connection to religious pork taboos, but nobody really takes that idea seriously any more.
      - whythre 5y ago
        You act like that is the only possible infectious agent. In addition to Trichinosis, Taenia solium and Toxoplasma gondii are also spread in undercooked pork- and those are modern health concerns. The animal eats almost anything and is capable of spreading more diseases than worms. It is no wonder it would be considered ‘unclean’ given the rudimentary cleansing rituals of the Old Testament Jews.
nvahalik 5y ago
> with a varying over time definition of "known" This is called progressive revelation[0]. > what would be the "naive view" That the Bible is no different than, say, the Aeneid, or the Odyssey, or any other epic saga whose purpose is to provide a myth (in the literary sense) as an explanation for why things are, though are not tied to history explicitly. > Assuming that the Bible is stating that such a being exists? The Bible makes clear and explicit claims about its author, where creation came from, how and why humanity exists, as well as its ultimate end. People often criticize those who hold to a Biblical faith as people trust in some "invisible, almighty, sentient being" yet themselves don't actually have any real answers to any of the most basic questions of creation and human existence. [0]: https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_1203.cfm https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_...
- hn_version_0023 5y ago
- Maursault 5y ago
  > or any other epic saga whose purpose is to provide a myth (in the literary sense) Saga is an Old Norse word meaning "what is said," borrowed by English-speaking Old Norse scholars to refer to Old Norse narratives. The Aeneid is an epic poem written in Latin by Virgil around 25BC, give or take. The Odyssey is an epic poem written in ancient or Homeric Greek by a single author around the 8th or 7th century BC. The Bible could not be more different, being an anthology of writings of many different forms and many different languages by many different authors composing across the span of nearly a millennia. > The Bible makes clear and explicit claims about its author Please provide two examples from the Bible of clear and explicit claims about it's "author"
  - sockpuppet_12 5y ago
    > Please provide two examples from the Bible of clear and explicit claims about it's "author" Not the op but here are some claims made by the Bible about its origin. 2 Tim 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness" 2 peter 1:20-21 "20 For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit." Exodus 34:27 "27 Jehovah went on to say to Moses: “You are to write down these words, because in accordance with these words, I am making a covenant with you and with Israel.” The Bible does mention that it's been written under divine inspiration at God's request. By the hand of men, but motivated and helped by holy spirit, as the scriptures say. If interested, have a look at some of the frequently asked questions about the Bible that the Bible answers itself. This website uses only the Bible itself to answer questions about the Bible, which is a refreshing take. jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/about-the-bible I'm sure you'll find it informative.

Maursault 5y ago

> The book forms a coherent whole I think when perhaps in isolation, some of the individual books may be coherent, but as a whole, there is no logical consistency, but instead there are a myriad of contradictions, such as those between the synoptic gospels and John. For example, on what day was Jesus crucified? John does not agree with the synoptic gospels regarding this. Or in the Old Testament, in Exodus, we have two entirely different sets of Ten Commandments, the first we find familiar, but were destroyed, and the second set that few would recognize that Exodus specifically refers to as the Ten Commandments, including a prohibition on boiling a young goat in it's mother's milk. Is God El, or Yahweh? Is God a perfect being, or subject to all too human emotions like jealousy? I am nearly certain the Bible was never intended to be coherent. It's authors span nearly a millennia, and it is doubtful they expected or intended their writings to be translated and compiled together by St. Jerome or the First Council of Nicaea. Joseph Campbell, a Jungian, stated "a mythic dream is a personal experience of that deep dark ground which is the support of our conscious lives, and the myth is the society's dream," that a dream is a private mythology, and mythology is the public dream, and as easy it is to understand what he means, not even that is coherent.

prometheus76 5y ago
Contradictions are sometimes the key to understanding deeper concepts and connections that are not immediately clear or "logical". Also, the Synoptic Gospels were written first, and intended to be used to catechize new Christians and teach them the basics of the life of Jesus Christ. The Gospel According to John was intended to be used to teach newly baptized Christians what it means to be a Christian and what it means to have a mystical relationship with Christ. To say "they don't agree so they're all wrong" is a very simplistic and dismissive take. John probably had the Gospels of Matthew and Luke when he wrote his own account of the Gospel, so if there are contradictions MAYBE they're intentional and are intended to teach you something. But if you are hung up on how much smarter you are than traditional people, you will never get over how apparently dumb they were for contradicting each other.
- Maursault 5y ago
  > Contradictions are sometimes the key to understanding deeper concepts and connections that are not immediately clear or "logical". Fascinating. Can you provide one single example from the Bible where a contradiction is intentionally employed to unveil a deeper concept or connection that is not immediately clear? > Also, the Synoptic Gospels were written first, and intended to be used to catechize new Christians and teach them the basics of the life of Jesus Christ. The Gospel According to John was intended to be used to teach newly baptized Christians what it means to be a Christian and what it means to have a mystical relationship with Christ. The author of John's Gospel sourced from a "signs" gospel, possibly the Gospel of Thomas, and seems to have known about Gospels Mark and Luke, but not Matthew, as well as Jewish scripture and non-Jewish sources, such as Greek philosophy. The Johannine community were messianic Jews excommunicated from the Jewish community on account of their belief that Jesus was the Jewish messiah. > To say "they don't agree so they're all wrong" is a very simplistic and dismissive take. Unless such a claim was made, this is a straw man. I disagreed with OP's claim that the Bible is coherent, because it could not possibly be coherent, and I explained why. Is it necessary that the Bible be coherent? I'd like to know why, because it isn't, and it can not be, because it literally is not possible for it to have been intended to be coherent, mostly due to it being a collection of works from multiple ancient authors that lived in different centuries. > But if you are hung up on how much smarter you are than traditional people, you will never get over how apparently dumb they were for contradicting each other. Another straw man and an ad hominem. Your argument is twice fallacious.

perl4ever 5y ago

>The book forms a coherent whole In order to derive meaning from your statement, I think it's logically necessary to imagine a counterfactual where it doesn't form a coherent whole. If you think the Bible is coherent, can you explain what it would be like if it were incoherent? I'm putting it this way because I think it's probably useless to try to argue directly whether it's coherent.