- Thread starter frank12
- Start date
Penn & Teller: The Bible
Ever try to find such a job in the DR? I don't recommend it, but I do recommend Penn and Teller.
I'm curious...what part of what Michael Shermer (the man with the PHD debating the religious professor) said was incorrect?
Frank
The thing is that there is a fundamental difference between Biblical study and other sorts of rational study and analysis.
Normally, we assume nothing is true without proof. We need proof that gravity exists, that the Earth is a somewhat imperfect sphere, that there is such a thing as air.
Bible scholars start with the assumption that the Bible is true, and that their task is to prove how it could possibly have been true: that there was this gate in Jerusalem, for example, called the "Eye of the Needle" and it was hard for a rich guy to make it through that gate with his money intact, see? And that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John saw events, each one from his from their own perspective, and so the fact that they describe things differently explains it all.
No one mentions the obvious: that if Jesus, presumably literate, since they call him "Rabbi", had the mission to explain the ways of God to Mankind, He (Jesus) would have written His own gospel, as opposed to relying on four guys writing it down 50 years after it happened.
Normally, we assume nothing is true without proof. We need proof that gravity exists, that the Earth is a somewhat imperfect sphere, that there is such a thing as air.
Bible scholars start with the assumption that the Bible is true, and that their task is to prove how it could possibly have been true: that there was this gate in Jerusalem, for example, called the "Eye of the Needle" and it was hard for a rich guy to make it through that gate with his money intact, see? And that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John saw events, each one from his from their own perspective, and so the fact that they describe things differently explains it all.
No one mentions the obvious: that if Jesus, presumably literate, since they call him "Rabbi", had the mission to explain the ways of God to Mankind, He (Jesus) would have written His own gospel, as opposed to relying on four guys writing it down 50 years after it happened.
There is a difference between Bible scholars and bible believers. If Jesus says that it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man into the kingdom of God, I don't need to search for a way how that could be true. It's obviously a style Jesus is using to show how difficult it is for a rich man to enter into heaven. A verse later He says: what's impossible for men is possible for God. It's impossible for men to enter into heaven, because of sin. For a rich man it's even more obvious it's impossible, because he mostly trusts in his richness. Only by the regeneration that comes from God a rich man would be able to have a change of heart and go to heaven, with or without being rich. His money won't be his God anymore.
I don't need to search for a way how the eye of the needle could be something literal.
Instead of incorrect I would use the word pointless. Starting with his first 'example' of the two versions of the creation account. Genesis 1 relates the whole account, from day 1 till day 6. Then Genesis 2 zooms in on the creation of mankind. Why? maybe because it was the most important part of creation?
Even when it says in Genesis one that God created mankind, man and woman. In chapter two he is forming the woman out of the man. the words used in hebrew (barah for create and I dont remember the word for form) have both a different meaning. Create is make something out of nothing where FORM is build something, like how you are building a house of bricks and mortar.
These kind of examples find a happy crowd among those that dont know anything about the bible so they can say: See, the Bible is nonsense, or those that don't want to believe in the bible, so they can say: see it's nonsense. You show this kind of things to a christian and he might give you a pityingly smile. "Is th?t what you're coming with??!!"
Many atheists of agnostics think christians are idiot sheep that don't dare or can think for themselves and just blindly believe what their pastor tells them. They couldn't be further from the truth. I think many self declared atheists much more blindly believe what they have been taught in school or university on for example evolution and the generation of one species from another, for which is no scientific proof either.
Not really. What's an non-smart reason? I believe God exists and I believe the gospel as presented in the Bible is true. I have a skeptical mind, it's hard for me to believe stuff, just because someone tells me it's true. There are too many proofs and signs though that make me believe the christian faith is true. That makes me do an extra effort to believe what the bible says. But not against everything. The christian faith is a reasonable faith.
While I realize that the camel passing through the eye of the needle is metaphorical, there are Bible Commentaries that nevertheless explain that there as this gate to Jerusalem that blahblahblah, and yadayadayada and this explanation is allegedly called "Biblical scholarship". There is another passage where the believer allegedly must hate his parents to be redeemed and that too is explained in a very convoluted manner in some Biblical commentaries. There are those, and perhaps you, Mauricio, are not one of them, who claim that not one bit of the Bible is metaphorical, that it is all entirely and fundamentally true.
And that is what I am saying: that Biblical "Scholarship" differs from other scholarship in an essential manner. It starts with a phrase in the Bible being necessarily accurate and then attempt to prove how something preposterous, outrageous or illogical can nonetheless be logically true. Other types of study never not start with a conclusion and walk backwards, in other words.
I have read the Bible entirely through twice, with the help of two commentaries, one my grandmother left me that is fundamentalist, and another by Isaac Asimov, which is not.
I would recommend a couple of fictional works that anyone who has a familiarity with the Bible might find interesting, because I enjoyed both of them.
Lamb, The Gospel according to Biff, Jesus' Boyhood Pal, by Christopher Moore
and The Gospel according to Jesus Christ, by Jos? Saramago.
The first is not as sacrilegious as it sounds, and is very amusing. it explains what Jesus and his pal Biff were up to during all those missing years. The second was written by a Portuguese Literary Nobel Prize winner who was thrown out of the Church for heresy and out of Portugal for annoying the military government. The latter book has been translated into English quite well, and into Spanish by the author's Spanish wife. Saramago has a unique style of writing and is entirely capable of writing a novel in which he does not give any names to his characters. No one writes like either Moore or Saramago.
Both books will give anyone a lot to think about.
The Bible, said to be the best-selling book of all time is currently ranked #8145 in Kindle downloads priced at a modest $1.69.
And that is what I am saying: that Biblical "Scholarship" differs from other scholarship in an essential manner. It starts with a phrase in the Bible being necessarily accurate and then attempt to prove how something preposterous, outrageous or illogical can nonetheless be logically true. Other types of study never not start with a conclusion and walk backwards, in other words.
I have read the Bible entirely through twice, with the help of two commentaries, one my grandmother left me that is fundamentalist, and another by Isaac Asimov, which is not.
I would recommend a couple of fictional works that anyone who has a familiarity with the Bible might find interesting, because I enjoyed both of them.
Lamb, The Gospel according to Biff, Jesus' Boyhood Pal, by Christopher Moore
and The Gospel according to Jesus Christ, by Jos? Saramago.
The first is not as sacrilegious as it sounds, and is very amusing. it explains what Jesus and his pal Biff were up to during all those missing years. The second was written by a Portuguese Literary Nobel Prize winner who was thrown out of the Church for heresy and out of Portugal for annoying the military government. The latter book has been translated into English quite well, and into Spanish by the author's Spanish wife. Saramago has a unique style of writing and is entirely capable of writing a novel in which he does not give any names to his characters. No one writes like either Moore or Saramago.
Both books will give anyone a lot to think about.
The Bible, said to be the best-selling book of all time is currently ranked #8145 in Kindle downloads priced at a modest $1.69.
I found some of the arguments misleading and intellectually dishonest. It is entirely possible that Elvis liked his fried chicken batter without paprika as an impoverished youth but changed his way of thinking in the Army.
It is easy to believe stuff that was drummed into you when you were small and inexperienced in reasoning skills.
There is one thing in favor of the Bible: it makes a lot more sense than the Koran. I have heard that the Koran, in its Arabic version, is written in verse and is therefore impossible to translate accurately.
Of course, the fact that something rhymes nicely does not make it more true, just easier to memorize.
One example of this is the classic "It you can't do the time, then don't do the crime." It is not possible for me to make this rhyme in Spanish, and I have never heard a Spanish equivalent of this saying.
I am thinking that those who claim that the Bible is the "Greatest Story Ever Told" have not read many stories.
There is one thing in favor of the Bible: it makes a lot more sense than the Koran. I have heard that the Koran, in its Arabic version, is written in verse and is therefore impossible to translate accurately.
Of course, the fact that something rhymes nicely does not make it more true, just easier to memorize.
One example of this is the classic "It you can't do the time, then don't do the crime." It is not possible for me to make this rhyme in Spanish, and I have never heard a Spanish equivalent of this saying.
I am thinking that those who claim that the Bible is the "Greatest Story Ever Told" have not read many stories.
It is true that paprika is not a common spice used in Tupalo. When Elvis was stationed in Frankfort, he was much closer to Hungary, where people cannot cook well without paprika.
I am responsible for introducing four Dominicanos to real pepper, the Butcher Block coarse ground variety packaged by Badia. Black pepper sold in Barahona is more like something picked out of floor sweepings. Now every time I say I am visiting, they ask me for "m?s pimiento negro". Perhaps someday I shall bring some curry, epazote or even fil? for fil? gumbo, or as one might say, fil? molondrones.
I am responsible for introducing four Dominicanos to real pepper, the Butcher Block coarse ground variety packaged by Badia. Black pepper sold in Barahona is more like something picked out of floor sweepings. Now every time I say I am visiting, they ask me for "m?s pimiento negro". Perhaps someday I shall bring some curry, epazote or even fil? for fil? gumbo, or as one might say, fil? molondrones.
I have often wondered why some people feel a need to tell us that Jesus is Coming soon (Cristo viene ya), while no one ever seems to have the urge to paint slogans like "The Earth is spherical", "Gravity exists", or "Water=H2O", and freezes at 0?C on walls all over the place.
Jesus is coming soon would seem to require at least a redefinition of the word "soon".
Jesus is coming soon would seem to require at least a redefinition of the word "soon".