Christian Monks as a concept rather postdate the Bible, Spikey.

But yes. The Bible was written not by God but by men. And then edited viciously sometime in the 8th century, IIRC. Soem would argue that these men were directly inspired by God (ie that they were in effect taking dictation), others that they were writing with God ultimately inspiring them (ie that they were doing God's work), and others that the Bible is in no sense a communication of divine thought and as usch should not be taken as such.

Mormons, conversely, believe that the Bible was written by God personally on golden plates, in a divine language, and subsequently transcribed.

As with any book - if it is taken literally it can seem very confusing, but if used as an ethical guide, a lesson in what can go wrong if we don't learn from mistakes, and if you are a Christian (as I am)it's a fascinating book about a fascinating person's life (an auotbiography of sorts) and the postulating about it's origin is left behind - then it's a great book.

There was a page missing at the front of the bible which is the standard disclaimer "any similaritys to people living or dead is purely coincidental........."

No offence meant to our christian members

[quote]by JtB
There was a page missing at the front of the bible which is the standard disclaimer "any similaritys to people living or dead is purely coincidental........."[quote]

thats on red dwarf! the second series ep Better than life if i remeber rightly?

(Edited by april__29 20/05/2002 19:39)

---

by Green_Amber
As with any book - if it is taken literally it can seem very confusing, but if used as an ethical guide, a lesson in what can go wrong if we don't learn from mistakes, and if you are a Christian (as I am)it's a fascinating book about a fascinating person's life (an auotbiography of sorts) and the postulating about it's origin is left behind - then it's a great book.

---

Totaly agree with you , I've sat down and read through the Bible and actualy found it very interesting

---

by april__29

thats on red dwarf! the second series ep Better than life if i remeber rightly?

---

Yep - "To my darling Candy..."

Personally, I'm an atheist and haven't touched a Bible since my school days.

I've read the bible too, I used to collect them strangely, and I'm not a practicing Christian either!

Anyway, I hear what you're saying, but I think the most interesting thing about the bible are the seeming contradictions that various groups have used as a stimulus for "holy wars" for years.

A fairly un-interesting work of fiction IMHO
{edit - oops, typo!}

(Edited by Stoo 20/05/2002 20:18)

I've never read the Bible, but I would quite like to. I've always been an atheist, and I used hate all things religious when I was younger. Then a few years back, I don't know why, I just opened my mind up a bit. I still don't believe in God, but I would be interested to see what it has to say.

Oh and it would also be cool to look up all those biblical quotes from films, books and Iron Maiden albums!

I take RS GCSE which is half Christianity and the other half Hinduism. Yet i'm not at all religious

I know what some of you are saying about it being interesting if it isn't taken literally. In there the opinions differ so greatly (because it isn't just one person) from one extreme to the other. Which means that whatever view you have in exam, there's always at least one biblical pasasage you can quote

I think this is why it is so difficult for modern Churches choose what views they will use, especially in more political and recent issues that aren't mentioned directly in the Bible (one that springs to mind that we do is euthanasia) which i think is why you've gotta have the vcaired chruches.

As for it not being God's opinion, i think there's two ways you can look at it. These people we're appointed by God to give his people guidance or that how can they ALL be Gods views since they contradict sooo much?


Now, Hinduism's Scriptures are a lot easier. You have the Shruti's and the Smriti's.
The Shruti's are directly from God and no one else's work
The Smriti's are ones written by holy men explaining the Shruti's.Personally, i think that it would be a lot easier if the Bible was like that.


I don't think it matters what's in the religion as long as it helps people and does good in their lives then there can't be nowt wrong with it if it makes people happy. But when it's used as an excuse to cause harm is another matter (won't go into that tho)
And i'm sorry foy boring you all (I've gotta make my GCSE's come in useful somehow )

---

by april__29

thats on red dwarf! the second series ep Better than life if i remeber rightly?

---

Cheers April I knew it was from somewhere but couldnt remember what

---

by Ferretgirl

Now, Hinduism's Scriptures are a lot easier. You have the Shruti's and the Smriti's.
The Shruti's are directly from God and no one else's work
The Smriti's are ones written by holy men explaining the Shruti's.Personally, i think that it would be a lot easier if the Bible was like that.

---

Of course if the bible was changed to be like that it would be part of "new christianity". this would involve the pope inviting pop stars and footballers to parties.........

---

by slayerfest2k
(quotes)

Of course if the bible was changed to be like that it would be part of "new christianity". this would involve the pope inviting pop stars and footballers to parties.........

---

Huh?

i think my brain has been fried today at school, but why would it lead to that if it had always been like this?? Hinduism hasn't.

Ferretgirl, I think it was meant as a satirical joke against New Labour, who started cosying up to popular figures such as footballers and pop stars to try and curry favour among younger voters.

Anyway, the Bible... a clever piece of writing which will always allow its believers and dissenters to find their own justifications... if you know it well enough, a useful tool to wield against annoying people who come to the door on Sundays trying to convert you... an interesting fairy tale, except all the "begatting" gets a bit wearing after a while.... a great moneyspinner if you're a printer. Past that, it doesn't hold water for me.

[quote]by Vix
Ferretgirl, I think it was meant as a satirical joke against New Labour, who started cosying up to popular figures such as footballers and pop stars to try and curry favour among younger voters.
quote]


Ahhh, i get it Sorry about the confusion - my brain been pretty mushed up recently due to exams

I'm not religious-I'm spiritual.

Going to a convent type school really put me off Christianity as a whole and I got interested in 'New Age' things which then lead onto Paganism.

I have read a lot of the Bible. My own opinion is that organised religion was to keep everyone in their place-If your good in this life and keep your place, you'll be royalty in the next life. The Bible is an interesting book, I just dpn't happen to believe in all its preachings.

ok, so people who beleive in the bible, do they belive the stories were real? i'm sure i've brought this up before but teh story of noahs ark? 2 of every single animal on 1 big boat for 40 days? what did they eat and surely the woodworm would have eaten all the wood and sunk it

I realize this died a little while ago, but I've been offline for a while and wanted to pick up on a few things.

Firstly, about monks writing the bible. The bible, as we know it did not exist until around C10 (I think, I can't remember exactly, but it was around then) when it was put together by a bunch of Welsh monks. It took a while to be accepted as the definitive Christian document, which it has become today.

The actually contents have differing sources. The Old Testament is the Dead Sea Scrolls, and as such is only one form of Judaism, there were many others at the time of writing. As for the New Testament, the gospels were (allegedly) written by the eponymous apostles, with some claiming there were two others written by Judas and Thomas, but these were rejected by the church at one of the early councils (Not sure, but I vaguely remember it being the Council of Nicea (sp?) around C2). Acts is a continuation of the Gospel of Luke, and therefore authorship is claimed by him. The various letters belong to Paul, with the exceptions of Hebrews (unknown), James (James), and the letters of Peter, John and Jude. Revelations is meant to be the words of John, but again the author is unknown.

Do I believe any of it? No. I'm an atheist (although I was a Christian, and a few other things, some years ago). Noah and his ark - if they'd gone on two by two we'd see genetic markers today. As well as having a world full of animals who were highly vulnerable to disease thanks to the lack of genetic variance. As for the flood, there is a possibility of a major flood from the Mediterranean, but it's never been proved, although it does appear in other religions of the region, although that could just be cultural cross-over, religions do tend to borrow stories from each other. There's good reason to believe the exodus never happened, and evolution gives us good reason to doubt the entirety of Genesis. Jesus may have existed, the evidence is blurry on that one.

But then I'm an atheist and as such I am without faith. The book isn't meant for me. Much of it I find tiresome and boring. A lot of it offensive (try reading Deuteronomy). Some of it interesting, or I wouldn't have read so much of it, or still keep a copy today.

One of the interesting things is what isn't in there. much of Christian mythology does not appear in the Bible. There is very little on the devil, the fall from heaven after the war with god, the nature of heaven and hell, demons and angels in general. Makes you wonder what the Vatican keeps from the public eye...