If The Bible Is True, Why Are It's Books Referred To As "Stories" (Egyptian, America)

[ainulinale]

Originally Posted by Reads2MUCH

The Catholic Church existed before modern christianity.

Obviously.

Originally Posted by Reads2MUCH

And actually the commonly excepted version of the bible used today was assembled by King James.

King James didn't select which book would be canonized. The Bible translations today could care less about King James...they go back to the Autographa...like the NIV which is the most popular modern translation.

Originally Posted by Reads2MUCH

He rewrote a few things in order to make it ok for him to get a divorce. And contrary to what you may have read, no one man put together the Bible.

Contrary to what you may have read in my post, I never said one man put together the Bible. I said Athanasius was the first to produce the list of books that would be canonized. It's called Festal Letter 39 and it mentions all the books of the Bible in their current order--the influence of this order caught on in the early church.

[BudinAk]

Originally Posted by dorado0359

The "Story" of Adam and Eve, The "Story" of the Flood, The "Story" of David and Goiath, etc. For quite some time I have wondered why books in the Bible are referred to as "stories", especially since they are suppose to be true accounts of Gods creation and human history. Everyone from the layman to the Priest and Bishops refer to them as "stories". Also, if I recall correctly, I believe there was a movie made years ago called The Greatest "story" Ever Told. Seems a bit confusing if you ask me.

From your post, it appears that you might possibly define a "story" as something imaginary...something contrived in the mind...and non-existant. However, that is not the definition of a "story". A story can be either true or false....there is actually no "negative" connotation to the word "story"...it is in fact neutral.
For example, there is a story to the life of George W. Bush. Does that mean he therefore doesn't exist? No....of course not, we all know he actually does exist. (yeah I know: some of you would prefer he didn't...)
On the other hand, there is also a story of "Mickey Mouse" and "Donald Duck". Does this mean they actually exist? Well....yes and no....they don't really exist. But they did, in the mind of Walt Disney...
So...RE: The Greatest Story Ever Told....the story is: it turns out that this story is a true story...

Bud

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by dorado0359

The "Story" of Adam and Eve, The "Story" of the Flood, The "Story" of David and Goiath, etc. For quite some time I have wondered why books in the Bible are referred to as "stories", especially since they are suppose to be true accounts of Gods creation and human history. Everyone from the layman to the Priest and Bishops refer to them as "stories". Also, if I recall correctly, I believe there was a movie made years ago called The Greatest "story" Ever Told. Seems a bit confusing if you ask me.

A story can be a true or fictitious account, according to my dictionary.

[TKramar]

Originally Posted by dorado0359

The "Story" of Adam and Eve, The "Story" of the Flood, The "Story" of David and Goiath, etc. For quite some time I have wondered why books in the Bible are referred to as "stories", especially since they are suppose to be true accounts of Gods creation and human history. Everyone from the layman to the Priest and Bishops refer to them as "stories". Also, if I recall correctly, I believe there was a movie made years ago called The Greatest "story" Ever Told. Seems a bit confusing if you ask me.

"Stories" can either be fiction OR nonfiction.

[Tricky D]

Everything written on paper (or on a computer screen) that has a beginning, middle and an end can be called a story.

[RAZZEL]

A story is a narrative, either true or fictitious

[brianrees]

Originally Posted by coosjoaquin

plus many people realize that the message contained in the stories is just as valid regardless of whether the story is true or not. Pinocchio may never have existed but the tale still teaches us to follow our conscience.

Pinocchio never made it into biblical scripture, as far as I am aware. If he had, I do believe that a great number of people on the religious forums would insist he was entirely 'real' - just like every other biblical character, including the wonderful talking snake we find in Genesis... Pinocchio's expanding nose? - why, a MIRACLE of course...

To be included in this collection of ancient stories appears to be the only requirement they need for implicit belief in anything, no matter how far-fetched.

[brianrees]

Reads2MUCH
Halfway between madness and salvation!
befriend
Status: "Far beyond driven." (set 24 days ago)

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North Carolina
936 posts, read 164,236 times
Reputation: 364

"its Eve's fault we don't live in the garden" crap. Sounds like at some point in history some man wanted to put women on a lower level than men. Oh, and I am a married man, not a female.

I wouldn't go so far as to say this story was CRAP, Readstoomuch, I might call it BL**DY NONSENSE, but CRAP is far too offensive a word, at least here in England...

[JerZ]

Originally Posted by brianrees

Pinocchio never made it into biblical scripture, as far as I am aware. If he had, I do believe that a great number of people on the religious forums would insist he was entirely 'real' - just like every other biblical character, including the wonderful talking snake we find in Genesis... Pinocchio's expanding nose? - why, a MIRACLE of course...

To be included in this collection of ancient stories appears to be the only requirement they need for implicit belief in anything, no matter how far-fetched.

Don't laugh...but there are only half-joking "religions" out there (or I guess technically, population-wise, cults) that follow the "beliefs" of the Star Wars series and on the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Already people are turning that from joking, to "be one of our members," to "you know, there is such truth in these that maybe their basis, even if based on works of fiction, is ultimately true," and what's the next step? As time goes by, the actual "inventors" of these "joking" cults will become more and more obscured and who knows...in 200 years we may have literal Jedi or Sons of Lorien religions!

And in 500 more years? "Tolkein was a prophet. Look how closely he mirrored God's truth. It's uncanny. It can't be coincidence."

The funniest part is that the Jedi mythology and the various bits and pieces of belief systems you glimpse from the various races of the LOTR series do hold what seem to be eternal truths. Both series do touch upon very human and very spiritual "basic" truths and therefore...I'm sure they, like much literature, many movies and yes, many religions, contain truths simply because they're truths.

But how far a stretch is it to believe the oral traditions of the Bible went in exactly this way? (Without printing presses or actors' trailers, that is.)

I think all religions seek truth. But are the details of any truth? Why, and what would make the implausible details of any one religion more "real" than the implausible details of any other religion?

I have my own religion...earth-based, more or less...fully knowing that it's because my human mind needs symbolism in order to "understand" truths on the deepest level. I call God She but I don't literally think God has ovaries. It just strikes me on an emotional level to where I can open up.

All religions contain truth. Probably (though who am I to say), none contain the whole truth. Probably, all are filled with stories meant as symbols for basic truths...not literal realities. And most are, it would seem, peppered with very human senses of justice and injustice and are influenced by how caring or how barbaric we really are on our deepest level. When "God says" this or that in religious text, it's very possible it's more what the writer deep down is thinking or hoping; that the bad guys will get theirs; that good is rewarded; that X is against the law and Y isn't because the writer believes it to be so.

[brianrees]

Originally Posted by Reads2MUCH

The Catholic Church existed before modern christianity. And actually the commonly excepted version of the bible used today was assembled by King James. He rewrote a few things in order to make it ok for him to get a divorce. And contrary to what you may have read, no one man put together the Bible.

I beg to differ.

The commonly ACCEPTED version of the bible used today was COMMISSIONED by King James from the leading scholars of the day. He himself had no input whatsoever. I think you may be referring to James's predecessor, King Henry the Eighth, when you mention divorce. It was he, and not James, who caused the split from the Catholic church almost a century before, so that he could divorce his first wife, Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn.

I trust you know your bible better than your British History, Reads2Much, otherwise us ignorant unbelievers will have even more difficulty keeping up with this complicated debate and lose interest entirely.