Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think it's as simple as being fiction or non-fiction.
I do. At least the relevant parts. True there are some philosophical tidbits, but that parts that purport to present factual information is, IMHO, Fiction. There is no doubt in my mind. For example, Genesis is total fictions - no connections with reality whatsoever.
Last edited by Salty Water; 10-06-2021 at 10:48 PM..
I do. At least the relevant parts. True there are some philosophical tidbits, but that parts that purport to present factual information is, IMHO, Fiction. There is no doubt in my mind. For example, Genesis is total fictions - no connections with reality whatsoever.
To be honest I was speaking more about the NT, but even with the OT we can get a sense of what life was like at the time. For that purpose, I think the bible is helpful. As far as things like all the begats in the OT, and other supposedly historical facts that some christians cling to, I think that's mostly baloney.
The problem is that once you begin mixing fact and fiction in a book, it sorta becomes worthless in terms of factual information.
To be honest I was speaking more about the NT, but even with the OT we can get a sense of what life was like at the time. For that purpose, I think the bible is helpful. As far as things like all the begats in the OT, and other supposedly historical facts that some christians cling to, I think that's mostly baloney.
The problem is that once you begin mixing fact and fiction in a book, it sorta becomes worthless in terms of factual information.
That is what I meant when I said that they don't even bother to ask themselves what the placebo effect IS, CB. It is definitely real, not fake. They just refuse even to consider what it is.
I know you did.
If you mix and construct the cement walls of the cement theory, you can become very attached to it. It is YOUR cement theory, everything need to fit into that. That is confirmation bias cemented into your brain. It is reality, not a placebo.
To be honest I was speaking more about the NT, but even with the OT we can get a sense of what life was like at the time. For that purpose, I think the bible is helpful. As far as things like all the begats in the OT, and other supposedly historical facts that some christians cling to, I think that's mostly baloney.
The problem is that once you begin mixing fact and fiction in a book, it sorta becomes worthless in terms of factual information.
I have a question, what is it that the OT and NT have in common that warrants them to be joined in the bible.
As far as I can see, they seem to be two completely different works not connected to each other other than being stuffed together in the bible.
I have a question, what is it that the OT and NT have in common that warrants them to be joined in the bible.
As far as I can see, they seem to be two completely different works not connected to each other other than being stuffed together in the bible.
I think you ask a very good question. I have often wondered about that myself. Even as a child in the methodist church, I couldn't relate to the OT at all. For one reason, much of it sounded too far-fetched. But with the NT, whether I agreed (or agree) with it or not, I can relate to some of it, and even admire many parts of it.
I think that's why there was a time that I was very attracted to (at least) the effort Jefferson put into creating the "Jefferson Bible".
I think you ask a very good question. I have often wondered about that myself. Even as a child in the methodist church, I couldn't relate to the OT at all. For one reason, much of it sounded too far-fetched. But with the NT, whether I agreed (or agree) with it or not, I can relate to some of it, and even admire many parts of it.
I think that's why there was a time that I was very attracted to (at least) the effort Jefferson put into creating the "Jefferson Bible".
I have a question, what is it that the OT and NT have in common that warrants them to be joined in the bible.
As far as I can see, they seem to be two completely different works not connected to each other other than being stuffed together in the bible.
Paul says Jesus was not only speaking through revelation, but also through the prophets according to scripture. In other words, the OT scripture assigned to the various prophets was thought to be an angelic Jesus speaking through those prophets.
The Epistle to the Hebrews has God talking about Jesus, a divine being, in the same OT scripture.
The gospels are allegories, often being a rewrite of OT stories, and sold as historical to those outside the Jewish sect that would evolve into Christianity as we now know it.
The NT works were not thought of as an addition to the OT, but as an extension of it.
Paul says Jesus was not only speaking through revelation, but also through the prophets according to scripture. In other words, the OT scripture assigned to the various prophets was thought to be an angelic Jesus speaking through those prophets.
The Epistle to the Hebrews has God talking about Jesus, a divine being, in the same OT scripture.
The gospels are allegories, often being a rewrite of OT stories, and sold as historical to those outside the Jewish sect that would evolve into Christianity as we now know it.
The NT works were not thought of as an addition to the OT, but as an extension of it.
Paul says Jesus was not only speaking through revelation, but also through the prophets according to scripture. In other words, the OT scripture assigned to the various prophets was thought to be an angelic Jesus speaking through those prophets.
The Epistle to the Hebrews has God talking about Jesus, a divine being, in the same OT scripture.
The gospels are allegories, often being a rewrite of OT stories, and sold as historical to those outside the Jewish sect that would evolve into Christianity as we now know it.
The NT works were not thought of as an addition to the OT, but as an extension of it.
When was the OT written, and who wrote it, if you know?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
