Originally posted by PalynkaI can't think of any literature that doesn't seek to communicate except for deliberately aleatory works. Cicero's speeches, for example, belong to literature precisely because of their rhetorical merits.
Literature, to me, is defined by intent. If the purpose of the writing is mainly to be literary, then it is literature. If the purpose is mainly to communicate then it is not.
I don't think that the purpose of the writers of the bible was mainly literary.
Your definition does have the merit of simplifying matters, though--entire categories of literature can be dropped! Myths are intended to communicate, therefore they are not literature...You see my problem with your stance?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't write anything on this discussion for your sake, twhitehead.
Did you read the question or could you just not help yourself. People would be more likely to read you posts if you actually thought before posting.
None of it is intended for you.
Originally posted by EcstremeVenom++++++++++++++++++++++++
why read a book if you know you do not believe in it? a lot of atheists and agnostics know more about the bible than most christians in this forum; what is the point of that, i dont get it? and did you give it a chance, or did you read it with the mindset that it wasnt real and you wanted to make fun of it? were you laughing at how stupid you thought it was the whole time?
why read a book if you know you do not believe in it? a lot of atheists and agnostics know more about the bible than most christians in this forum;
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Give me some tag names of posters who you think know the Bible better than most Christians on this forum.
Why do you feel that way? Is it because they can come up with questions like "Who was Cain's wife?" and puzzles and little would be issues?
You can get plenty of trick questions like that from some book like "The Mistakes of Jesus". You don't have to read the Bible. You visit some skeptic's website and get all kinds of quotations to raise supposed biblical problems with.
Overwhelmingly in most cases I find that the people who try to show off thier knowledge with trick questions don't seem to know very much about the context of the verses they hold up for ridicule.
There are a couple of posters (maybe one and a half) who have some knowledge of the history of doctrine or church history. You also don't have to read the Bible too much to get that information.
If you doubt me, let some athiest, without peeking, tell me right now roughly what is the in following chapters of the Bible:
Chapter 15 of John
Chapter 28 of Genesis
Chapter 24 of Matthew
Chapter 12 of Revelation
Chapter 5 of Matthew
Let me see if any posting atheist or agnostic can respond within 5 minutes on the fly what these chapters basically cover in the Bible.
And anyone can test me in return and time me.
This is a ridiculous thread, in that it presupposes that only a confessional answer has any merit.
You read the Bible because, whatever you consider its truth value, you understand that the Bible has had more impact on the formation of western culture in the past 2000 years than any other book (or collections of books, or however you want to put it).
There's almost no escaping it, frankly, because of its cultural centrality for the modern era. So, you read it to help understand how your culture came to be what it is, and how that in turn has shaped the horizons of your own expectations.
Many, many people have ordered their lives, either collectively or individually, around some aspect or interpretation of the Biblical doctrine. Ignoring that is simply choosing not to understand history.
Put simply, you should read the Bible so as not to be ignorant of what it says. Then you can go on to look at its impact.
Originally posted by blakbuzzrdrec'd (dammit!)
This is a ridiculous thread, in that it presupposes that only a confessional answer has any merit.
You read the Bible because, whatever you consider its truth value, you understand that the Bible has had more impact on the formation of western culture in the past 2000 years than any other book (or collections of books, or however you want to put it). ...[text shortened]... d the Bible so as not to be ignorant of what it says. Then you can go on to look at its impact.
Why believe in the Bible? Ill tell you why. Have you ever read the book of Daniel? Especially chapter 2 which tells about the statue in the kings dream? If you can prove to me that the Bible has no meaning, Ill respect you. But I am a seventh-day adnventist and know my bible well. So dont say that there is no reason to read it.
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomIt's good to know your enemy!
why read a book if you know you do not believe in it? a lot of atheists and agnostics know more about the bible than most christians in this forum; what is the point of that, i dont get it? and did you give it a chance, or did you read it with the mindset that it wasnt real and you wanted to make fun of it? were you laughing at how stupid you thought it was the whole time?
Originally posted by marine bioWhat's your beef with the book of Daniel? Sure, it was written around 165 B.C. and is the product of Jewish apocalypticism, but other than that, what's the problem?
Why believe in the Bible? Ill tell you why. Have you ever read the book of Daniel? Especially chapter 2 which tells about the statue in the kings dream? If you can prove to me that the Bible has no meaning, Ill respect you. But I am a seventh-day adnventist and know my bible well. So dont say that there is no reason to read it.
Who's trying to say that the Bible has no meaning? Maybe I'm not reading closely enough, I haven't heard a single person make that absurd claim.
Originally posted by jaywillNotice the difference between what you say and what you are replying to:
Give me some tag names of posters who you think know the Bible better than most Christians on this forum.
know more about the bible
Now quickly:
1. Who wrote the Bible and when?
2. How accurate are its contents?
I personally haven't opened a printed Bible for at least 10 years and have certainly never read all of it so I don't claim to know its contents better than you.
I've studied the bible. For your chapter lists:
Chapter 15 of John
Big speech using metaphor of vine, climaxing at "My commandment is that you love one another as I have loved you". This is Jesus' reply to a question asked by Judas in the previous chapter. He then goes onto about how Christians will be persecuted. but that they shouldn't give up hope. Jesus too makes a kind of half-prediction that he'll be persecuted.
Chapter 28 of Genesis
I think this is Isaac telling Esau to go kill an animal and prepare it in Isaac's favourite style, because he's old. His wife (Rebecca spellt weirdly I think?) hears and tells Esau's brother to go and kill another animal so she can prepare some meat as well. She then gets the brother to go up to Isaac and pretend to be Esau. Isaac then blesses the brother.
Matthew 24:
OK I'm getting quite bored now. Jesus on mount of olives. Talks to deciples about God.
Revelation 12:
LSD influenced Chinese film. This is the chapter with the wonders. It has a woman with stars and the sun and the moon, then a red dragon with many heads and horns (10 and 7 I think?) And the dragon tries to eat the woman's baby, but the baby becomes a man and ascends to heaven. And Michael and the angels fight the dragon, and win, so the dragon is sent to earth to kill everything there instead. The woman whos baby it was grows wings and flies away though.
Matthew 5:
Jesus says which people are blessed. Then a bit about evangelism, using his candle under a pot analogy (that may be luke, but I'm reasonably sure it's copied here). Then he goes into sermon on the mount, which everyone knows anyway.
Did I pass? 🙂
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomatheists read the Bible for the soul purpose of coming up with arguments against
why read a book if you know you do not believe in it? a lot of atheists and agnostics know more about the bible than most christians in this forum; what is the point of that, i dont get it? and did you give it a chance, or did you read it with the mindset that it wasnt real and you wanted to make fun of it? were you laughing at how stupid you thought it was the whole time?