4 ms·

Seems to me they're trying to refute it by asking OP their views for clarity.

by bavell 3y ago

thsksbd 3y ago
Pretty much. The OP could, with some charity, be considered crudely restating the teachings of second century Church Fathers [1]. Or it could be an ignorant [2] whole cloth rejection of the Bible as fantastical as if it were Narnia. What does OP consider misinformation? What, if not all, does the OP consider misinformation in the Bible? But that's the modus operandi today isn't it? Shout "misinformation" and have corporate power censor it. [1] that many passages of the Bible are clearly allegorical and should be interpreted as such. [2] ignorant as it ignores the extensive historical cross-references with non Judaic sources or archeological discoveries.
- sbuk 3y ago
  It is fantastical, and this is by design. I've visited many places described in the Bible; I know it's somewhat grounded in fact. But much like other historical literature, it isn't a completely reliable historical document, especially given that it has been doctored through the ages, such as the Synod of Hippo 'approving' the canon. But, as I said, I disagree with the notion that it, or any other religious work, is misinformation. It was the 'truth' at the time it was conceived. Other religions existed and continue to exist. Religious dogma isn't necessarily misinformation.
- danbruc 3y ago
  As I said in other comments, the term misinformation might not be the best fit, take unsubstantiated claims instead. Also my initial comment was to some extent meant jokingly and provocative. For what I mean, pick whatever supernatural thing you want - God's existence, how he made the universe and Adam and Eve, how he talked to people from a bush, how he flooded the world and killed everyone accept Noah and the other guys and animals on the boat, how he sacrificed his son, ... There are of course also historic facts in the Bible, I am obviously not saying it is all nonsense. We do not even have to argue about a historical Jesus, could be either way.

Seems to me they're trying to refute it by asking OP their views for clarity.

by bavell 3y ago

Seems to me they're trying to refute it by asking OP their views for clarity.

Pretty much. The OP could, with some charity, be considered crudely restating the teachings of second century Church Fathers [1]. Or it could be an ignorant [2] whole cloth rejection of the Bible as fantastical as if it were Narnia. What does OP consider misinformation? What, if not all, does the OP consider misinformation in the Bible? But that's the modus operandi today isn't it? Shout "misinformation" and have corporate power censor it. [1] that many passages of the Bible are clearly allegorical and should be interpreted as such. [2] ignorant as it ignores the extensive historical cross-references with non Judaic sources or archeological discoveries.

sbuk 3y ago
It is fantastical, and this is by design. I've visited many places described in the Bible; I know it's somewhat grounded in fact. But much like other historical literature, it isn't a completely reliable historical document, especially given that it has been doctored through the ages, such as the Synod of Hippo 'approving' the canon. But, as I said, I disagree with the notion that it, or any other religious work, is misinformation. It was the 'truth' at the time it was conceived. Other religions existed and continue to exist. Religious dogma isn't necessarily misinformation.
danbruc 3y ago
As I said in other comments, the term misinformation might not be the best fit, take unsubstantiated claims instead. Also my initial comment was to some extent meant jokingly and provocative. For what I mean, pick whatever supernatural thing you want - God's existence, how he made the universe and Adam and Eve, how he talked to people from a bush, how he flooded the world and killed everyone accept Noah and the other guys and animals on the boat, how he sacrificed his son, ... There are of course also historic facts in the Bible, I am obviously not saying it is all nonsense. We do not even have to argue about a historical Jesus, could be either way.