Troll thread

>>17923736
Srs question

I don't claim to be an expert, but 9 years of bible camp ever summer might have put some experience with Christianity under my belt

Also, bear in mind I've never full-on read the Bible

Buuut, nevertheless, I'll give my opinion on it

The Bible is full of parables. While that doesn't mean that none of whatever the Bible says happened didn't happen, I see it as every story in the book is to convey meaning through story as words can't really describe morals well.

Ancient writers didn't have the same conception of a separation between history and mythology that we do today. Herodotus' Histories are the first text we know of where the author even attempted to make a distinction between "made-up" stories and events that actually happened. From our modern perspective, the Bible is a jumble of history, mythology and poetry. Historians can and do use it as a historical source, but they have to read it very carefully and investigate other sources to separate "fact" from "fiction."

>>17923816
>Historians can and do use it as a historical source, but they have to read it very carefully and investigate other sources to separate "fact" from "fiction."

Like the Exodus, for example. There isn't a shred of evidence placing Hebrews in Egypt. In fact what's interesting is how little the writers of the Old Testament knew of Egypt.

>>17923731
As with any holy book, use it as toilet paper.

File: jesus_facepalm.jpg (67 KB, 850x480) Image search: [Google]

67 KB, 850x480

>>17923731
>Is the bible supposed to be taken literally, or is it supposed to be taken spiritually ( As is using it as a guide)?
Originally it was meant to be taken as literal history, but I think as culture and science has progressed most (intelligent) people take it more as a metaphorical and cultural piece of literature for moral purposes.

Not that it's very good at that, either.

>>17923835
It's even worse in adaptations of Exodus. The pyramids predate the claimed period of the Hebrews living there, and most big projects were done for the farmers to have something to do in the flood seasons.

>>17923731
It's supposed to be taken as many men's account of one man's account of supposedly god and let to rot if found to be hypocritical and inconsistent shit.

>>17923835
>>17924002
>tfw the Jews were never even oppressed

Fuck all these psyops.

Wrong board slowpokes
>>>/his/

>>17924002
>It's even worse in adaptations of Exodus.

Indeed. Good read:

Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, by D B Redford.

>>17924086

Fuck off back to /pol/! There's a good boy.

>>17923731
I won't read the thread, because the stupidity of /x/ always makes me kind of mad.

about your question: the bible is not a book, it is a library. and like every library, it is full of genres. some are more historical, some are fictional (and trying to make a point, like ijob's story). that's common theological knowledge.

It was largely an interpretive text before the reformation

>>17924151
not him but "back to /pol/" should be an autoban phrase, you faggots are even worse than poltards

>>17924743
but he is right.
and /pol/ i full of antisemitc retards.
thus, that poster is better of there, joining the circlejerk of wasted existences.

Exodus isn't real just like kings and Genesis isn't real.

There was a warring tribe called the hykos (Jew's) who attacked Egypt and got btfo and chased into the desert.
Tipkek if it had been Ramses he would have killed all of them. Especially if they killed his son.

>>17923731
The Bible shouldn't even be considered one, uniform book. It is composed of two collections of books, each written in a different context with different intentions in mind, but with one purpose: to show better how God acts and where God is in history. It is with these premises in mind that you should read the Bible. It is a guide to faith.

Yet, it is not history in the contemporary sense of the term. Some of its books have a historical base, but the facts told in them are fiction. For example, the Book of Joshua tells the story of how the Israelites entered and conquered the Promised Land because God was with them. Historically, that is a lie. The Israelites were only a unified people after they entered Canaan, and their entry was quite peaceful, not at all the epic military tales written in the Book of Joshua. What underlies the book, though, is what's truly important: saying God was with his people.

The books of the Bible that are closer to bearing accurate historical contents are the Books of Kings (they present a somewhat decent account of the monarchy after David's death, the Division of the Kingdom, the monarchy of Israel and the Monarchy of Judah until the death of King Josiah) and, in the New Testament, the Acts of the Apostles (it presents a somewhat accurate account of the work of the very first generation of Christians, mainly Peter and Paul). Also, in another sense, the juridical sections of the Pentateuch (Leviticus and Deuteronomy mainly, and in some degree Numbers and Exodus) allow the reader to sketch the sociocultural development of the people of Israel (from small migrant clans fleeing from Egypt to loosely connected groups in Canaan to allied tribes to a nation under a monarchy and so on).

>>17924765

Indeed. Containment is the best policy.

>>17923731
>the bible
>the
Implying there is only one. I'd say largely it's false due to the amount of adaptations made, and the fact that most of the books within were writen long long after the events. There is some fact in in though.

The Old Testament contains a lot of theological information, especially in relation to judeo-christian mysticism. Mystics have been keeping this occult knowledge hidden for centuries, only passing it on to those who find the passion and intelligence for mystic knowledge. For example, the book of Genesis is chock-full of occult information, but read literally, one might entirely miss the kabbalistic and spiritual meaning in favor of a more orthodox or literalist perspective (dumb as fuck in the modern era imo)

It's a mind control device used to lure male children into Satanism. Christianity and Catholicism as well as Islam and Judaism are all cults of the devil, built on child torture, rape, and invasive mind control. Do your research idiotzz

It's also why you have so many religious fanatics, yet the world is filled with divisive hatred and horrific death and oppression. That's how Satan likes it baby! Jesus is Satan!

All the worshipers world wide power Satan's mojo up. Cuz no matter what they think, they all worship the same master, Satan.

>>17923731
It teaches some pretty shitty lessons, either way like "It's perfectly okay to offer your daughters to be raped by a mob" and "Genocide is fine, those people you slaughtered to the smallest child were sinful."

>>17927129
>>17927134
>>17927143

>three shitposts in a row about satan

shut up samefag

>>17926071
>He doesn't realize that /x/ is a containment board as well

Hey fag balls. Post a picture of my dick in your mouth shit sucker. Your board is boring.

>>17923731
of course it isn't meant to be taken literally.
It has been re-translated who knows how many of dozens of times, so things get garbled and lost in translation, leading to verses that makes no sense.
It is a guide, and you have to be at least somewhat smart to use it correctly.

This is why we have fucking idiots like westbourough baptist church fuckers who take the bible literally and make themselves look even dumber.

Ive heard this phrase about the bible somewhere

"Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth"

hence "BIBLE"

>>17923731
>supposed to be
That's a contentious point of theological debate.
Short answer, we don't really know. People will tell you they do, but it's just that they have an opinion and have worked to find support for it. But that's reading into scripture, not reading out of.

Best advice I can offer, if you care enough to bother, read the thing and conclude for yourself. If you don't care enough to bother, then drop it.