The Bible's Candid Nature as a Proof of Divine Inspiration (page 2)

Butters

That is probably very true Satanas... The violence was much worse then depicted I would have to imagine. Then again, the winner of wars always iggagerates HIStory.

CaptainSchmideo

I have been reading a great work of fiction by Joseph Heller (the guy who wrote "Catch-22").

The book is called "God Knows". It is the story of King David, told by David on his deathbed. It is irreverant, iconoclastic, and anachronistic, and very funny. Told from the point of view of an aged Jewish man who has his triumphs and regrets in his life.

Some of the better bits:

The intricacies of the relationship between Saul and David.

David's quest for the foreskins of 100 Philistines (how does one get a foreskin? Oh, wait, there's an easier way than delicate surgery...)

Michal (Saul's daughter) turns out to be the original Jewish American Princess. ("Wash your hands! Bathe and use deodorant before you approach me! Sex makes you unclean, and I don't like to be unclean, so once a month until I'm pregnant with the heir!")

That "love" between David and Jonathan: Well, Jonathan may have felt "that way" toward David, but David forever regrets that he phrased his poem the way he did, and the rumours that it started...

I have yet to finish it, it's very wordy, and dialogue heavy. But it's a lot more educational and interesting than any WT publication I have ever read on the subject. All the palace intrigues of the Court of King David read like "The Godfather".

PrimateDave

Logical fallacies: There is a God because the Bible tells us He inspired it. The Bible is true because it says that it is. The Bible is true because it tells bad things about some people, and nobody likes to have bad things told about them, so saying bad things about some people makes it true. Watchtower scholarship (and I use the term loosely) is simplistic and circular.

Dave

BluesBrother

Candour by itself would never prove anything, as posters have noted already. It just contrasts Scripture with some historic narratives made by Kings of other nations, and adds weight to other arguments

Many Biblical scholars now believe that much of the Torah was written after the Jewish civil war

OK but what about the scholars that dont? Are we cherry picking which scholar to believe? It is very hard for the layman to come to an informed conclusion .

truthsetsonefree

I had never thought about that. Those writerships cannot be proven.

jaguarbass

I've seen and heard too much to give the bible any credibility.

Narkissos

Actually this argument (and many others, e.g. "prophecies") vanishes as soon as you consider the real date and authorship of Bible texts. All the "villains" of the Bible (as well as the flaws of mostly "good" characters) are either highlighted or designed to reinforce the writers' ideology.

Take the example of the "bad kings" of Israel and Judah, who are so termed for not conforming to Josiah's version of centralistic Yahwism, although they reigned long before this religious-political doctrine was even invented. Reciprocally, see how the major "sins" of David and Salomon as mentioned in Samuel-Kings are toned down, or disappear altogether, in the later version of Chronicles -- because the Chronicler want them as good examples. See how the supreme apostate Manasseh of 2 Kings becomes repentant and forgiven in Chronicles -- just because the strict retribution theory of Chronicles could not figure how such a desperate sinner could have reigned so long...

The Bible's Candid Nature as a Proof of Divine Inspiration