h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm sorry blickybadger, but please can you clarify your point. I don't see how Genesis is of relevance in relation to this conversation about the supposed ressurection of Jesus.
Please can you explain.

Thanks

blub-blub

Im saying that you can argue all you like.

You will never get anywhere.

Its a fiction. You may as well ask why there is no trace of the Greek gods ontop of mount Olympus or argue over the science of Star Trek.

Dilithium Crystals give out energy simply because the writer says they do.

Likewise Jesus did die on the cross and was ressurected it says so. No one can dispute the story in the bible as it appears in the bible.

What Im trying to get across is that no matter how facts from the real world contradict the story people will believe if they want to.

Oh, Gaggle Halgrunt, I don't know what to say! It seems to me that you wouldn't find any argument persuasive, and therefore I don't know what to say... I didn't put my unsupported opinion, I have googled extensively, and all the sources I can find say pretty much the same thing!

I don't think there was such a concept as 'brainstem dead' back then, how could the soldiers check for it?

No, I don't know if anything could ever persuade you, unless you were more open, and you're not, which is a great pity to me.

Nice discussion, anyway.

Blicky,
Thanks for your input. I generally agree with everything you say. However, I think that religious people find it too easy to dismiss atheists if those atheists just dismiss their religious texts out of hand as bunkum. What I have done is try to look at the Jesus story and find areas where there can be different interpretations, rather than just simply accepting the decreed viewpoint of Orthodox Christianity. In this respect, I have treated the Jesus story as if the objective events DID actually happen - I have no reason to suspect otherwise. As I mentioned in a similar vein to Della earlier, the reason I'm focussing on Jesus here rather than Greek gods (or Alexander the Great) is because that those stories don't demand a belief in them as true supernatural beings any longer, whereas Christianity still does.

Della, I'm afraid you've underestimated me. I would find any argument persuasive IF it were watertight, with indisputable evidence. The story of the Resurrection is not watertight.

You're right - there was no concept as brainstem-dead back then, therefore the soldiers couldn't check for it. That is exactly my point! Human definitions of "dead" may well have changed in 2000 years - human physiology probably hasn't. So yes, Jesus probably did appear lifeless - unconscious with no response to pain (from the lance in his side), almost imperceptible shallow breathing movements, a very weak pulse (if they even checked for that!) - and therefore would have appeared "dead" to the witnesses, but by modern medical standards, this is not enough.

I have also reflected on my statement about the conspiracy theory. I think the word "underhanded" was too strong for the actions of Joseph of Arimathea with Pilate. Joseph was of course acting with good intentions to preserve the (presumed dead) body of his friend(?) Jesus.
The conspiracy theory starts following the Orthodox Church's acceptance of Paul's ideas of Atonement etc, and then persecutes every other "heretical" Christian sect that have different ideas about the nature of the Resurrection.

Either I've missed the following point as I've only skimmed to catch up or you haven't come to it until now.

Has anybody thought that the 'resurrected' Jesus could have been one of his brothers? I think it's on record that he had 4 brothers isn't it? Perhaps there was a strong family resemblance and one of the brothers could have pretended to be the resurrected Jesus?

By the way, I've nothing against Jesus. In fact I'm really for him but not in an organized religion kind of way.

I dont reject religion out of hand Im a recovering christian myself!

I have looked at the bible and there is a lot of not only implausible stuff in there but also stuff like the passage about snakes which is quite plainly wrong.

Wrong enough that it leaves the whole book/s open to question. So given that some of it is quite clearly untrue I have to assk christers why they accept *any* of it as true when there is no supporting evidence.

Would they be as sure of a conviction in a court where there was a single source of evidence as they are as sure of their single source conviction that the bible is true? Especially when that single source contradicts itself in several places.

I ask anyone if you were on a jury faced with four witnesses who had differing accusations of torture and killing would you convict the accused on their testimony alone? Remember we have no physical evidence because the man who they claim was killed came back to life then ascended to heaven would you convict Pilate on evidence like that?

one love

Llaregub,
This point hasn't been mentioned before. Some people argue that it was Jesus' brother James who acted as the resurrected Christ.

One of the apocryphal gospels, "The Second Treatise of the Great Seth" describes Jesus laughing as Simon of Cyrene is crucified in his place. (Brilliantly parodied in "The Life of Brian", by the way). No wonder that gospel was thrown out by the orthodox Church!

However, these arguments don't exactly hold water. I think the apostles would have identified Jesus from his brothers. Also, St Thomas is said to have verified it was Jesus by touching his wounds (unless, of course, this story is a fabrication!).

The fact that the apostles didn't immediately recognise Jesus indicates that his appearance probably was radically altered from the torture he had endured.

I'm also going to play devil's advocate here (again). Follow this link to see a different account of the development of early Christianity:

http://hometown.aol.com/queen0fhades666/christ.html

(That's a zero before the f, not a capital O)

This is just to emphasise that, in spite of what Della maintains, there are alternative viewpoints on the web.

I have been blinded by the devil!

The serpent in Genesis is plainly a poetic metaphor. Much of the Bible is written in poetic metaphor. It takes a bit of deciphering at times. They had to write this way quite often in the olden says so that their enemies wouldn't cotton on to what you were saying - that you were talking about them etc.
Poets and scribes often didn't have free speech as we have today. In fact, come to think of, in many countries they don't even know what free speech is ... even today.

So what else is not literal in the bible? Is *any* of it what it appears to be? Who is reponsible for validating translations from poetry to prose are done so that the correct meaning and facts (if any) can be digested?

A very good question Blicky!
The Bible I have before me is the New International Version because I sense that it is at least making an honest and decent try, in biblical terms, to come to the biblical truth.
The preface states that the NIV is "a new translation by over 100 scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts". The NIV is a transdenominational enterprise involving Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethern, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and other churches - TO SAFEGUARD THE TRANSLATION FROM BIAS. In this enterprise one of the world's major churches is conspicuous by its absence.
The Committee on Bible Translation can be contacted at PO Box 62970, Colorado Springs, CO 80962-2970, USA from where the names of the translators and editors may be secured.
I also have a copy of the Koran and in it I have read in at least two places that the Israelites are perfectly entitled to live in the so-called Holy land. It's worth pondering why certain religious leaders always neglect to mention this. Perhaps Abu Hampster would like to comment?
Fiat Lux!

"Dilithium Crystals give out energy simply because the writer says they do."

Dilithium crystals do not give out energy - dilithium crystals mediate the matter/antimatter reaction, because they are, uniquely, porous to antimatter. Yeah.

LuckyLlareggub: the issue is not whether the translation is biased, indeed, the issue is not the individual translation at all. What is at issue is which bits of the Bible are supposed to be taken literally and which are not.

Consider: the objective observer (as mythical a being as your god, but let's not get into that) is presented, by a believer, with a Bible - any Bible, even your so-wonderful NIV.

Not unnaturally, he opens it at page 1 and begins to read. What he is presented with is an account of the creation of the world, humanity and all of the animals and plants. He is then, almost immediately, presented with another, different and contradictory account of the same events. As he reads on, he is told of talking snakes, worldwide floods, angels, demons, etc. etc.

He is then told by the believer that the book is not just true, but in fact True.

The objective observer - pardon the pun - objects. He points out that some parts of the book CANNOT be true, as they run directly counter not only to readily observable evidence and common sense, but also to other parts of the same book.

The believer airily responds that OBVIOUSLY those specific parts of the book are not meant to be taken literally, but are instead poetry and metaphor. Fiction, in other words, intended to convey a message - not fact.

However, when pressed, the believer cannot explain why it is obvious. They cannot explain where the line should be drawn, or why. They merely state and restate that some parts of the book are to be taken absolutely literally, and others, no less fantastic or counter to common sense and observable evidence, are obviously merely metaphors.

The objective observer is then left with a dilemma. The book is *demonstrably* not ALL true. The believer accepts that the book is not ALL true. However, the believer can offer no method for discerning truth from fiction. The objective observer should, therefore, logically proceed on the assumption that the book is ALL false, unless it can be proven otherwise. However, this approach brings only scorn from the believer, who obstinately continues to insist that it is obvious that the parts *they* say are true, are true. Or, indeed, True.

Faced with this approach, the objective observer cannot help but conclude not only that the book is a work of fiction, but further that the believer is a gullible fool.

What other conclusion is possible?

SoRB

Son of Roj, You may find all this a bit of a slog but I suspect you will appreciate the conclusion PART 2 comes to.
PART 1
The NIV is the most like the Independent and the King James Version is like the Telgraph and I suppose there are other versions with others slants on things ranging from the Mirror through to the Express and the Guardian. I'm not saying that everything, something or even nothing in the NIV is true; all I'm saying is that the NIV seems to be making a decent stab at translating the thing without prejudice creeping in unlike the competition.
The Bible is like the newspapers of the time, and we know you can't believe everything we read in the papers. The material translated is the nearest thing we're going to get to what actually went on between 4,500 BC and 300AD or so. We're never going to get eye-witnesses and so we have to accept historical records of the Hebrews, Romans, Greeks etc.
PART 2
I thought it would be an interesting exercise to be OO (the Objective Observer and see where it led me.
The >>objective observer<< beginning, as you say, at page 1 reads:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (OK so far - now comes an account of how this was done)
The earth was* (*or became) formless and empty
darkness was over the surface of the deep
and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters
[OO: I see, there was just darkness and water - no land]
God said 'Let there be light ...
[OO: I see, the darkness, thick clouds presumably, cleared and the sun came back]
God said 'Let there be an expanse between the waters ... and God called the expanse sky ...
[OO: That's good, now we can actually see the sky]
God said 'Let dry ground appear ...
[OO: Yup, now the clouds have gone the sea is receeding, land is appearing]
God said 'Let the land produce vegetation ...
[OO: Yes, all is going along nicely, thank you]
God said 'Let there be lights in the sky ... to serve as signs to mark seasons, days and years'
[OO: That's the new agriculture coming from that vegetation we just heard about. I expect they built stone circles and started observing the movements of stars and planets, the sun, the moon etc.]
God said 'Let the waters teem with living creatures ...let birds fly ...be fruitful...multiply'
[OO: My, how everything is growing, flourishing in the new climate!
There seem to be more fish in the river every year!]
God said 'Let the land produce living creatures ...'
[OO: Wow, more animals too! Great stuff!]
God said 'Let us make man in OUR image'
[OO: Ah yes, most important, let's educate our kids so that they know what to do when they become men! Let's tell them God did all this in 7 days so they will be good, fear God, and not make God angry. The last thing we want is for God to get angry and flood the land, blot out the sun, destroy the animals and plants with those dark poisonous clouds that completely covered the sky for all those generations ever again.

This is my personal OO interpretation of the first story in the Bible.
Each OO will have his own interpretation.

Q: How can the correct interpretation be known?

lucky you are not addressing the point, unfortunately.

Again, you are into the whole "this is what it MEANS when it says...".

My point is that believers apply that logic only to *some* selected parts of the bible, i.e. the bits they say are "obviously" metaphorical.

The problem you have is this: I think the WHOLE BIBLE is metaphorical. I don't see why you should take ANY of it literally. But if it's ALL metaphor, Jesus - if he even existed at all - was just some bloke. Mary was only metaphorically a virgin. He only *metaphorically* fed the five thousand. He only *metaphorically* healed people, or raised Lazarus from the dead. He only rose from the dead *metaphorically*. God only exists *metaphorically*. None of it is *real*, none of it ever was real and was never meant to be real.

Whatever version you choose to read, however unbiased the translation, you still have the insurmountable problem of explaining why certain bits of it need to be "interpreted" at all, and why other bits don't need any interpretation but should be accepted on faith as fact, even though they describe things which violate known laws of science.

The bias of the translation is not at issue. What is at issue is whether what is being translated is a poem, an entertaining fiction, or something with the pretence of fact - and, crucially, how you, or more importantly I, or any objective observer, is meant to tell the difference.

SoRB

An Anglican priest's take on this issue:

"Language is used univocally or analogically. Univocal means having one single 'voice' or meaning. Analogical is a meaning that is similar and related but not the same. For example 'an apple is healthy' or 'I am healthy'. All language is an approximation of reality; analogical language is by intent an approximation not a description."

"Becasue we do not see God, all 'God language', including biblical language, must be symbolic and analogical."
- From A699573

Especially note the latter paragraph. That solves the problem doesn't it?

Ste

Err....

I'm really sorry folks, but if this starts to turn into another unreasoning fight like that other thread, I'll probably have to unsubscribe here also.

I think that the thread is moving in a different direction and I shouldn't try to fight that, so on the "astrology is hypocritical" thing and how that relates to tolerance ... I will explain that if somebody wants to talk about it enough to start another thread. Otherwise, I think I should just say that either I don't see the hypocrasy or else it doesn't exist. This issue is (I think) related to an understanding of what evil is and whether it exists.
Nerd42

That's a brilliant Guide entry, Ste, thanks for the link...

My Father-in-Law wrote it. He's rad.

Ste

"all 'God language', including biblical language, must be symbolic and analogical"

But the problem there is that that implies that reports of Jesus performing miracles must by only symbolic and analogical, not intended to be interpreted literally.

Most Christians I've ever come across would reject that, insisting that Jesus really did, in fact, turn water into wine for example - that this story is NOT merely "symbolic and analogical", but rather an accurate report of an event in the real world. It would surely be a fairly weak kind of faith that admits that the Bible is, in its entirety, just a sort of metaphor for what a god would be like if it existed. Wouldn't it?

SoRB

Son of Roj, if 10 people read the same history book they will get 10 different ideas of what happened; 10 different 'accounts of what took place' will unfold in their brains. You know yourself when you read a novel a film plays itself out in your head and when you go to the flicks what you see there is never half as good as what you experienced when you read the novel. The Bible is no different. When I read it I visualize a sequence of events. When you read the same text you might visualize a completely different sequence of events. It's only words.

If there had been a television crew on site we'd see all the rioting the streets, the soldiers, the brutality etc., much as we do today but since there wasn't a television crew there we only have the historical documents that turn up from time to time to go off. But even if there was a television crew an even if the miracles were actual physical events there would still be a difference of opinion. People would say this is a David Copperfield, or this is a Yuri Geller, and so on.
The plain truth of the matter is that everybody has to decide the these things for himself based on his own life experiences and his own spiritual experiences.
There is in reality no such thing as your >>objective observer<<. In my posting above when I tried to play the role I couldn't come to it. It is impossible.