The bible is bunk

by Zep 4 Replies latest jw friends

  • Zep
    Zep

    Simple as that!

    Good night!

  • Pathofthorns
    Pathofthorns

    ha ha Zep. Always loved your style.

    Path

  • Seven
    Seven

    ZEP!!! The prodigal poster has returned. It's good to see you.

    Seven

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    ZEP: Your assertion that the Bible is bunk is nothing more than that, an assertion. Perhaps you could demonstrate the evidence you have for this. - Amazing

    PS: I will offer an honest assertion of my own. The Bible is kind of like Swiss Cheese. It does have holes in it, but it also has solid parts that are very good.

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    Aw, come on Amazing.

    It's a fair point. 'The Bible is bunk' needs about as much validation and explaination as 'George W Bush is a toss-pot'.

    You liken it to a Swiss Cheese. Okay, if we are going to ignore the bubbles and concentrate on the 'solid' bits, let us first take away 'statements of the bleedin' obvious'.

    Almost every religion has them; the general 'be excellent unto one another' bits. To site these 'solid' bits of your Swiss Cheese as a reason why the Bible isn't bunk is to validate every holy book, philosophical school or 'Little Book of Calm' that expounds similar concepts. Paul (or was it Peter) came up with a classic piece of double-think when he said that 'if you come accross people being nice to each other it proves what I say is true', or words to that affect. Yeah, right.

    So, taking away the solid bits that are just conformities to a predictable moral code (predictable as it is hard to imagine any society not developing concepts of not killing or stealing from their 'tribe' so they are not killed or stolen from by reciprocal arrangement), what are we left with?

    Are you actually saying you have proof that a Biblical prophecy has come true? I think not.

    Are you saying that the religious philosophy expounded in the Bible (well, let's assume there is just one religious philosophy in the Bible, but that is obviously a BIG assumption) has distinct characteristics that are not 'statements of the bleedin' obvious'?

    Like what? If you have supernatural strength beware of haircuts? If god tells you to kill your son, go along with it as he'll tell you not to at the last moment and rustle up some sheep in a convenient thicket? If after having six plauges visited upon you you don't let a captive labour force go you are asking for trouble?

    The Bible is a collection of stories, some based in fact, but of little or no greater importance than any other holy book et.al.. For the most part it is one cultures take on the 'statements of the bleedin' obvious' that alomost every culture follows.

    In the later part of the accepted canon of the Bible a few great thinkers appear, most notably Jesus, but then there are other books of really cool statements. Maybe you prefer the Bible to 'Chicken Soup for the Soul', and you are entitled to, but to try and defend it as a whole is synthetic as the whole of the Bible is. It is not a whole, it's a happen-chance collection of books put together on the basis of what clashed least out of the available corpus of manuscripts.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit