Question:
The Bible is not a book of facts. Agree?
SPmc
2013-11-07 07:29:58 UTC
Or disagree? Take a look at one author's interpretation of the Bible:

"The Bible is not like a textbook, providing objective information. Rather, it is a means of joining us to the story of God’s people. It appeals to our imagination and feelings. We get caught up in the literature and experience it as God personally addressing us....The biblical text is not a book of information. Its purpose is not to communicate a doctrinal or moral message. Rather, the text itself is a gateway to God. Through the inspired Scripture, we meet the God who loves us and desires our response. This encounter with God is a communion that has many of the same personal characteristics as the communion of the Eucharist. The living word is a divine presence; God dwells within the inspired word."

Excerpt From: Stephen J. Binz. “Conversing with God in Scripture.”

This is the foundation for the ancient practice of Lectio Divina. I have tried it out once before and found it to be way superior to simply reading the Bible on its face. What do you think?
Eighteen answers:
2013-11-07 07:34:47 UTC
The primary purpose of the Bible is to bring us into contact with God, and for us to learn of him, but that does not mean that it is devoid of factual information.



The Bible contains history, but it is not primarily about history, or even morality. It is primarily about God.
ANDRE L
2013-11-07 15:46:36 UTC
“To be fair, much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries”

― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion



"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." Isaac Asimov



Which one of the following is immoral?

a) Raping someone

b) Treating women as objects

c) Picking up sticks on a Saturday

d) Genocide

e) Infanticide

f) Killing someone for having different views to you

g) Slavery



According to the Bible, only option c) is wrong. All of the others are either accepted as mainstream, or even encouraged, in the Bible.



However, you and I both know that all of the others are wrong and that c) is perfectly innocent. You do not get your morality from scripture and neither does anyone else.



Searching through religious scripture for morality is like searching through the sewers for small coins; sure, there is some in there, but is it really worth it?
Chances68
2013-11-07 15:57:53 UTC
The bible is a book of legend and mythology, with a little erotic poetry thrown in on the side. At the very best, the Bible is a polemic, intended to convince people to view the world through the prism of an Iron Age mythology. At worst, it's a poorly edited and badly translated mishmash of sheepherder stories and political and social statements of constipated men.
may_his_peace_be_with_you
2013-11-07 15:37:10 UTC
I both agree and disagree the Bible is not a book of facts but it contains factual information. Like any other Biography (in this case an autobiography) it also includes anecdotes (parables) and personal conversation and impressions on relationships. It uncommonly also includes accurate descriptions of future events (prophecy) and lts of worship/praise. Uniquely when mixed with faith it becomes another thing altogether a manual for living in fact a living book. Miraculously there is no other book that has truth with in it that will set a man free from death and sickness.
2013-11-07 15:52:42 UTC
Disagree. Have you actually read the Bible cover to cover yourself? Mr. Binz merely offered his "opinion" or interpretation. An opinion is not fact. The Bible is fact and very trustworthy. Here's some examples: Trustworthy History

Titles and terms. Accurate history is often revealed in the details—customs, etiquette, names and titles of officials, and so on. How do the books of Genesis and Exodus, the first two books of the Bible, measure up in this respect? Regarding the Genesis narrative about Joseph, a son of the patriarch Jacob, as well as the Bible book of Exodus, J. Garrow Duncan says in his book New Light on Hebrew Origins: “[The Bible writer] was thoroughly well acquainted with the Egyptian language, customs, beliefs, court life, and etiquette and officialdom.” He adds: “[The writer] employs the correct title in use and exactly as it was used at the period referred to. . . . In fact, nothing more convincingly proves the intimate knowledge of things Egyptian in the Old Testament, and the reliability of the writers, than the use of the word Pharaoh at different periods.” Duncan also states: “When [the writer] brings his characters into the presence of Pharaoh, he makes them observe the correct court etiquette and use the correct language.”

Brickmaking. During their period of slavery in Egypt, the Israelites made bricks out of clay mixed with straw, which served as a binding material. (Exodus 1:14; 5:6-18)* Some years ago, the book Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries stated: “In few places has [brickmaking] been practised more than in Egypt, where sun-dried bricks still are, as they always have been, the characteristic building material of the country.” The book also mentions “the Egyptian practice of using straw in making bricks,” thus corroborating that additional detail recorded in the Bible.

Shaving. Hebrew men of ancient times grew beards. Yet, the Bible tells us that Joseph shaved prior to appearing before Pharaoh. (Genesis 41:14) Why did he shave? To conform with Egyptian custom and etiquette, which considered facial hair to be a sign of uncleanness. “[The Egyptians] prided themselves on being clean-shaven,” says the book Everyday Life in Ancient Egypt. In fact, cosmetic sets consisting of razors, tweezers, and mirrors, along with their containers, have been found in tombs. Clearly, Moses was a meticulous chronicler. The same can be said of other Bible writers who documented events relating to ancient Egypt.

Business enterprises. Jeremiah, who wrote the two books of Kings, gave specific details regarding King Solomon’s trade in horses and chariots with the Egyptians and the Hittites. A chariot cost “six hundred silver pieces, and a horse . . . a hundred and fifty,” or one quarter the cost of a chariot, the Bible states.—1 Kings 10:29.

According to the book Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, the Greek historian Herodotus and archaeological findings both confirm that a lively trade in horses and chariots was carried on during the reign of Solomon. In fact, “a standard exchange rate of four . . . horses for one Egyptian chariot was established,” the book states, corroborating the figures given in the Bible.

Warfare. Jeremiah and Ezra also mention the invasion of Judah by Pharaoh Shishak, specifically stating that it occurred “in the fifth year of [Judean] King Rehoboam,” or 993 B.C.E. (1 Kings 14:25-28; 2 Chronicles 12:1-12) For a long time, the only record of that invasion was the one found in the Bible. Then there came to light a relief on the wall of an Egyptian temple at Karnak (ancient Thebes).

The relief depicts Shishak standing before the god Amon, Shishak’s arm raised in the act of smiting captives. Also recorded are the names of conquered Israelite towns, many of which have been identified with Biblical sites. Additionally, the document mentions “The Field of Abram”—the earliest reference to the Biblical patriarch Abraham in Egyptian records.—Genesis 25:7-10.

Clearly, the Bible writers did not pen fiction. Recognizing their accountability to God, they wrote truth, even when doing so was unflattering—as in the case of Shishak’s victories in Judah. Such candor contrasts sharply with the varnished, exaggerated chronicles of the ancient Egyptian scribes, who refused to record anything that might be uncomplimentary to their rulers or people.
Robert
2013-11-07 15:34:33 UTC
Bible s not a book. It is a mini library. It is a collection of 66 books written by various human authors over thousands of years.
Arantheal  
2013-11-07 15:34:49 UTC
Personally I don't think there's an ounce of divinity in that old collection of texts from a pre-scientific era but your way of viewing it is certainly a lot more moderate and reasonable than the fundies.
JD
2013-11-07 15:53:56 UTC
It is a book of spiritual facts. There is also historical facts in it, but that is not it's purpose. It is there so we can learn about and move closer to God.
?
2013-11-07 15:33:50 UTC
The Bible is the Word of God. How do we know? God said so. Where? In the Bible.



The napkin religion is the one true religion, because it says so right here on this napkin.
JSGeare
2013-11-07 15:51:05 UTC
The explanation seems reasonable, to me. The Bible may inform us - but it does not, and should not be expected to instruct us.
turtle30c
2013-11-07 15:34:50 UTC
Actually the Bible is inherent/inspired word of God with many writers who wrote down what God instructed them too. The Bible is old, It goes back to before the time of dead sea scrolls, before Moses lead the people even out of Egypt. It is about the history of a people and their relationship to God as group and as individuals. How God reigns over a people and how disobedience leads to disaster and exile from homeland. Then how prophesy of Savior was foretold.
the brick
2013-11-07 15:34:28 UTC
The Bible was written by men but inspired by God. Men were the tools God used to pen his words. The Bible is Gods love letter to us. It is spiritually discerned. If Gods spirit does not live in you, its like reading someone else's mail.
PaulCyp
2013-11-07 15:32:08 UTC
A very accurate description. But one that those caught up in a simplistic literalistic view of the Bible cannot possibly grasp.
Damien
2013-11-07 15:31:43 UTC
I agree, it is not fact but it is a learning tool rather to teach us moral questions. there is little scientific evidence to prove that some of what is said in the bible is true or not.
?
2013-11-07 15:43:40 UTC
I disagree.When it can be backed by historical evidence.It is true.To put it in human terms.We,at times,don't have the eyes to understand what is read.Humans try to bend the word.To their egos.If I do this or that.I can earn Gods love and salvation.He is th unchanging one.an his plans are not ours
RUKiddingtoo
2013-11-07 17:39:07 UTC
Of course.
2013-11-07 15:39:44 UTC
Agreed, it is just ancient superstition.
Lilith Reaping
2013-11-07 15:33:24 UTC
The moral message is to rape virgins, huh.



How do you read "rape the hell out of the virgins" in another way?


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...