Retirement isn't Biblical

[Sid Hoffman]

Yeah a ton of Christians agree that religion is not the answer.  One of the recent catchphrases is "NotReligion" which you'll see produces a not insignificant amount of Christian search results that speak against religion.  I even know of a book titled "The Atheistic Theist" that is built around the fact that for a Christian, God/Christ is the answer, not religion.

[forummm]

Yeah a ton of Christians agree that religion is not the answer.  One of the recent catchphrases is "NotReligion" which you'll see produces a not insignificant amount of Christian search results that speak against religion.  I even know of a book titled "The Atheistic Theist" that is built around the fact that for a Christian, God/Christ is the answer, not religion.

I think I only know one person who's a serious Christian but is also openly rational about how the Bible we have today in English isn't actually the original set of words written down verbatim from divine inspiration, that it has changed thousands of times in copying, that it wasn't actually written by the people who were supposed have written it, that the books in it were selected by people not alive when Jesus was around, and that there are many inconsistencies in it. I should talk to her more and learn about what she actually believes. But I was surprised to find that out about her. I always heard such misrepresentation about it in churches that did not ever acknowledge any of these facts, even though it is widely taught in seminary. I think real honesty about faith and why they hold a certain set of beliefs is seriously lacking from mainstream Christian churches.

[FrugalToque]

I would say the problem with his analogy is that Noah was 600 years old - so old he forgot to load all the dinosaurs on the ark.

This explains why the Ark's left blinker was on for 17 of the 40 days.

Toque.

[Sid Hoffman]

I think I only know one person who's a serious Christian but is also openly rational about how the Bible we have today in English isn't actually the original set of words written down verbatim from divine inspiration, that it has changed thousands of times in copying, that it wasn't actually written by the people who were supposed have written it, that the books in it were selected by people not alive when Jesus was around, and that there are many inconsistencies in it.

Actually the most important thing that came from the discovery of the dead sea scrolls is just how closely the translations at the time really did line up to the dead sea scrolls.  To have modern-day translations line up so well with 2000+ year old scrolls is itself a pretty strong testament to how dedicated the keepers of the word were to accurately preserving and transcribing the bible over the years.  As far as the new testament is concerned, there's manuscripts that are dated back to pretty close to when they would have been written, so again, we really do have really close to original copies to compare against.  It's a fun thing to read up on if you have the time.

On that topic of ancient works, do you similarly doubt that Homer ever existed or that the Illiad was ever really written?  That is purported to have been written in the 8th century BC yet the oldest manuscripts known to exist date to the 10th century AD - some 1700 years later!  I understand you want to dismiss the bible as make-believe, but there's 5000+ ancient texts of biblical content, many of which have been dated to extremely close to when they were originally written.  To dismiss them is to also throw away the notion that we can know when the Iliad was written, or that it is even real at all and not a 10th century work designed to look like a much older text.

[milesdividendmd]

I think I only know one person who's a serious Christian but is also openly rational about how the Bible we have today in English isn't actually the original set of words written down verbatim from divine inspiration, that it has changed thousands of times in copying, that it wasn't actually written by the people who were supposed have written it, that the books in it were selected by people not alive when Jesus was around, and that there are many inconsistencies in it.

Actually the most important thing that came from the discovery of the dead sea scrolls is just how closely the translations at the time really did line up to the dead sea scrolls.  To have modern-day translations line up so well with 2000+ year old scrolls is itself a pretty strong testament to how dedicated the keepers of the word were to accurately preserving and transcribing the bible over the years.  As far as the new testament is concerned, there's manuscripts that are dated back to pretty close to when they would have been written, so again, we really do have really close to original copies to compare against.  It's a fun thing to read up on if you have the time.

On that topic of ancient works, do you similarly doubt that Homer ever existed or that the Illiad was ever really written?  That is purported to have been written in the 8th century BC yet the oldest manuscripts known to exist date to the 10th century AD - some 1700 years later!  I understand you want to dismiss the bible as make-believe, but there's 5000+ ancient texts of biblical content, many of which have been dated to extremely close to when they were originally written.  To dismiss them is to also throw away the notion that we can know when the Iliad was written, or that it is even real at all and not a 10th century work designed to look like a much older text.

The difference of course is that the Iliad is merely a story.

I don't doubt that the Bible has value as an allegory or a story. I simply doubt that it is scientifically accurate or that it is the direct word of God.  That's the tricky part.

[MgoSam]

I think I only know one person who's a serious Christian but is also openly rational about how the Bible we have today in English isn't actually the original set of words written down verbatim from divine inspiration, that it has changed thousands of times in copying, that it wasn't actually written by the people who were supposed have written it, that the books in it were selected by people not alive when Jesus was around, and that there are many inconsistencies in it.

Actually the most important thing that came from the discovery of the dead sea scrolls is just how closely the translations at the time really did line up to the dead sea scrolls.  To have modern-day translations line up so well with 2000+ year old scrolls is itself a pretty strong testament to how dedicated the keepers of the word were to accurately preserving and transcribing the bible over the years.  As far as the new testament is concerned, there's manuscripts that are dated back to pretty close to when they would have been written, so again, we really do have really close to original copies to compare against.  It's a fun thing to read up on if you have the time.

On that topic of ancient works, do you similarly doubt that Homer ever existed or that the Illiad was ever really written?  That is purported to have been written in the 8th century BC yet the oldest manuscripts known to exist date to the 10th century AD - some 1700 years later!  I understand you want to dismiss the bible as make-believe, but there's 5000+ ancient texts of biblical content, many of which have been dated to extremely close to when they were originally written.  To dismiss them is to also throw away the notion that we can know when the Iliad was written, or that it is even real at all and not a 10th century work designed to look like a much older text.

The difference of course is that the Iliad is merely a story.

I don't doubt that the Bible has value as an allegory or a story. I simply doubt that it is scientifically accurate or that it is the direct word of God.  That's the tricky part.

I disagree that it is "merely a story." For centuries Troy was thought to be a myth until 1870 when an amateur archaeologist named Heinrich Schliemann uncovered the lost city in Turkey. He got a ship and a German-version of Iliad and used the landmarks it mentioned as his map to find it. Yeah, I don't believe the parts about direction interventions of the Gods, but to call it just a story does it a disservice.

Edit: There has been speculation by many historians that Schliemann's account is inaccurate and that another man tipped him off to a possible excavation site, so I may be off base.

[forummm]

I think I only know one person who's a serious Christian but is also openly rational about how the Bible we have today in English isn't actually the original set of words written down verbatim from divine inspiration, that it has changed thousands of times in copying, that it wasn't actually written by the people who were supposed have written it, that the books in it were selected by people not alive when Jesus was around, and that there are many inconsistencies in it.

Actually the most important thing that came from the discovery of the dead sea scrolls is just how closely the translations at the time really did line up to the dead sea scrolls.  To have modern-day translations line up so well with 2000+ year old scrolls is itself a pretty strong testament to how dedicated the keepers of the word were to accurately preserving and transcribing the bible over the years.  As far as the new testament is concerned, there's manuscripts that are dated back to pretty close to when they would have been written, so again, we really do have really close to original copies to compare against.  It's a fun thing to read up on if you have the time.

On that topic of ancient works, do you similarly doubt that Homer ever existed or that the Illiad was ever really written?  That is purported to have been written in the 8th century BC yet the oldest manuscripts known to exist date to the 10th century AD - some 1700 years later!  I understand you want to dismiss the bible as make-believe, but there's 5000+ ancient texts of biblical content, many of which have been dated to extremely close to when they were originally written.  To dismiss them is to also throw away the notion that we can know when the Iliad was written, or that it is even real at all and not a 10th century work designed to look like a much older text.

I am not dismissing the Bible as make-believe. Earlier in this thread I defended the possibility of truth in the flood account. I am encouraging others to realize that the version in their hands is almost certainly not the original version, and that it almost certainly wasn't written by who they (and I) was told in Sunday school. I have not looked into it, but I would be surprised if the situation wasn't similar for other ancient religious texts. Many people take the version of the Bible in their hands to be the literal word-for-word golden truth and I think that's not a wise decision for many reasons. One of which is that it's probably lost critical aspects through copying and translation.

Jesus Interrupted, Misquoting Jesus, and other books by Bart Ehrman are good reads for people interested in the subject as it pertains to the Bible.

I don't personally have any insight or concern as to who wrote the Illiad. No one goes around the world saying it's God's truth and insisting people live their life by the letter of its words. It's just a fun story, and I don't think any sane adult believes it's actually 100% true. Perhaps it's a blend of some historical truth (perhaps with some embellishment) and some myth, but no more.

[sky_northern]

I disagree that it is "merely a story." For centuries Troy was thought to be a myth until 1870 when an amateur archaeologist named Heinrich Schliemann uncovered the lost city in Turkey. He got a ship and a German-version of Iliad and used the landmarks it mentioned as his map to find it. Yeah, I don't believe the parts about direction interventions of the Gods, but to call it just a story does it a disservice.

Edit: There has been speculation by many historians that Schliemann's account is inaccurate and that another man tipped him off to a possible excavation site, so I may be off base.

I don't understand what you are getting at here. Ok, to Troy was a real place, cool, but a fictional story can be set in a real location.

[MgoSam]

I disagree that it is "merely a story." For centuries Troy was thought to be a myth until 1870 when an amateur archaeologist named Heinrich Schliemann uncovered the lost city in Turkey. He got a ship and a German-version of Iliad and used the landmarks it mentioned as his map to find it. Yeah, I don't believe the parts about direction interventions of the Gods, but to call it just a story does it a disservice.

Edit: There has been speculation by many historians that Schliemann's account is inaccurate and that another man tipped him off to a possible excavation site, so I may be off base.

I don't understand what you are getting at here. Ok, to Troy was a real place, cool, but a fictional story can be set in a real location.

That people dismissed The Illiad as being "merely a story," whereas there is important information that can be gleamed from it, namely identifiable landmarks that someone used to find the historic site.

So my point is, by dismissing something you can miss out on a bounty of information, or in the case of the Illiad, literal treasures.