Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Spectrum]

The Bible is full of contradictory notions however that make it very puzzling. The story of Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit and the notion of never returning to Egypt. The Bible literally plays with our minds and casts these images of concepts (i.e., "God," Creation, Law) that I question whether or not man would have had if the Bible didn't exist. So why did the Bible come into existence? Was it really to lead man to the promised land?

Note my thesis re What is the Purpose of the Bible?;

• 1. DNA wise ALL humans are born with the potential of an existential crisis which is active in the majority of humans.
  
  2. This active existential crisis oozes terrible existential angst at the unconscious and subconscious level. These are the fears and anxieties of eternal death to be burnt in a terrible Hell.
  
  3. The most effective solution to the existential angst is religion where irrational ideas and beliefs [of eternal life in Heaven by an all powerful God] are invented to soothe the mental pains arising from the existential crisis. Theists will shut out all irrationality and contradictions due to confirmation bias.
  
  4. The Bible is one of those invented things containing irrational and contradicting ideas whose purpose is to soothe the existential angst and it is very effective in its job.
  
  QED

[jerlands]

The Bible is full of contradictory notions however that make it very puzzling. The story of Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit and the notion of never returning to Egypt. The Bible literally plays with our minds and casts these images of concepts (i.e., "God," Creation, Law) that I question whether or not man would have had if the Bible didn't exist. So why did the Bible come into existence? Was it really to lead man to the promised land?

Note my thesis re What is the Purpose of the Bible?;

1. DNA wise ALL humans are born with the potential of an existential crisis which is active in the majority of humans.

This is how you perceive life, not joyous but ominously threatening. There may however be some truth in that.

2. This active existential crisis oozes terrible existential angst at the unconscious and subconscious level. These are the fears and anxieties of eternal death to be burnt in a terrible Hell.

The notion of hell, to suffer for wrong-doings, isn't confined to Christian thought but exists in many philosophies. We think of hell in this life as going to prison but the notion of hell in the after-life kinda makes sense in that it suggests man can permanently remove himself from salvation (a relationship with truth.)

3. The most effective solution to the existential angst is religion where irrational ideas and beliefs [of eternal life in Heaven by an all powerful God] are invented to soothe the mental pains arising from the existential crisis. Theists will shut out all irrationality and contradictions due to confirmation bias.

Religion is a teaching and algebra is a teaching therefore algebra arises from man's existential crisis.

4. The Bible is one of those invented things containing irrational and contradicting ideas whose purpose is to soothe the existential angst and it is very effective in its job.

QED

Everything is invented in that invention is man's associated usage of formed ideas. The question is the purpose, whether or not there is true validity in the teaching (value.)

[jerlands]

That's true and I apologize for the insult. My outrage is based on your seemingly naive perspective that man is unable to do harm or do good.

Assuming that 'man actually does', that is what man does, what he does.
Like electricity.
It is up to the vain judgmentalism of the observer to perceive 'good' and 'evil' ('out there', when there is no 'out there').
Again, such judgmentalism is the clueless constant nibbling of the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil', the single prohibited 'Tree' in the Garden!
Sin! Toxic! Warning!
You ask the point of the bible?
Well, that is one HUGE point, yet you ignore the warnings and you make excuses for it's blind and blithe consumption (feels soooo good, superior...).
Just like the 'Serpent'... *__-

Here's the problem in your logic. Peeing in a stream doesn't necessarily adversely affect the ecology of the stream but if other people follow your example and now you have two, three and eventually hundreds of thousands peeing in that one stream. With hundreds of thousands of people peeing in one stream the ecology of the stream no longer will be able to process the waste (pee,) the river becomes polluted (see definition below) and life in that stream no longer flourishes. That is an example of the ability to do harm. I'll also include the definition of harm so you will understand it.

Definition of pollute (courisy of Merriam Webster)
1 a : to make ceremonially or morally impure : defile

Definition of harm (courisy of Merriam Webster)
1 : physical or mental damage : injury

[Fooloso4]

I will repeat this since I do not know if it was ignored or missed:

Here is one of my favorite stories from the Bible:

And Jehovah God layeth a charge on the man, saying, `Of every tree of the garden eating thou dost eat; and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.' (Genesis 2:16-17)

And the woman saith unto the serpent, `Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we do eat,and of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden God hath said, Ye do not eat of it, nor touch it, lest ye die.' (3:2-3)

This story within a story within a story is a cautionary tale about storytelling. What we are not told is what Adam tells Eve about what God told him, but in this story about the first story told by man there is both a mistake and an embellishment.

We are told:

and Jehovah God causeth to sprout from the ground every tree desirable for appearance, and good for food, and the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (Young’s Literal Translation 1:9)

The tree in the midst of the garden is the tree of life which, significantly, was not forbidden. Nothing was said about not touching it any of the trees.

Compounding this problem for us, is that some translations, such as the New International Version, ignore the distinctions and put the tree of knowledge in the middle along with the tree of life.

If the first person who is told the story gets it wrong how much more do we get wrong? The shift from an oral to a written transmission does not solve the problem but rather compounds it through variations and translation. How much drift is there through interpretive embellishment?

The proliferation of various conflicting commentaries and interpretations attests to the problem. The claim that the Hebrew Bible is the “old testament” superseded by a new and improved “new testament” attests to the problem. The idea that the Hebrew Bible is a ‘testament’ or covenant rather than it containing covenants attests to the problem. The idea that a book of books forms a single coherent book attests to the problem.

What is often overlooked or not understood is just how foreign the Hebrew Bible was to western, that is, Greek, or more granularly Greek and Roman, culture. Christianity did not make it any less foreign through its stories of a Jewish man who was transformed from a messianic figure, a son of God, to the Son of God, God, and the Trinity.

What is often swept under the rug is that Paul’s promise of what was at hand, what was to occur during his lifetime did not occur. The writings that developed from that time, some of which were eventually declared to be canonical and the rest suppressed or destroyed, had as their intended purpose making broken promises part of the plan of a single promise that will eventually be fulfilled. The supposed Messiah died on the cross, but rather than that being the end it became the beginning of the end, the problem of which did not end with Paul as was promised, or with the next generation that promised itself it was the last, or with any generation since then.

[jerlands]

I will repeat this since I do not know if it was ignored or missed:

Here is one of my favorite stories from the Bible:

And Jehovah God layeth a charge on the man, saying, `Of every tree of the garden eating thou dost eat; and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.' (Genesis 2:16-17)

And the woman saith unto the serpent, `Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we do eat,and of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden God hath said, Ye do not eat of it, nor touch it, lest ye die.' (3:2-3)

This story within a story within a story is a cautionary tale about storytelling. What we are not told is what Adam tells Eve about what God told him, but in this story about the first story told by man there is both a mistake and an embellishment.

We are told:

and Jehovah God causeth to sprout from the ground every tree desirable for appearance, and good for food, and the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (Young’s Literal Translation 1:9)

Translation is important and the fact is no translation will convey the same as the original. Maybe the best way to understand if you don't read Hebrew is to listen to a Rabbi speak to the lesson. We can question the accuracy of the Torah used today but that's a lengthy discussion.

The tree in the midst of the garden is the tree of life which, significantly, was not forbidden. Nothing was said about not touching it any of the trees.

Compounding this problem for us, is that some translations, such as the New International Version, ignore the distinctions and put the tree of knowledge in the middle along with the tree of life.

If the first person who is told the story gets it wrong how much more do we get wrong? The shift from an oral to a written transmission does not solve the problem but rather compounds it through variations and translation. How much drift is there through interpretive embellishment?

If you listen to different Jewish teachers discuss specifically Genesis 2 you probably will get a very different impression of the story of Adam and Eve. If you go further and listen to Kabbalah then the insights change. The story of Adam and Eve isn't one that can be removed from context. The reason is that meaning isn't easily conveyed in any form of expression known to man. If you consider God created man in his image then man basically has a like purpose. The statement God created man in his likeness comes before the story of Adam and Eve and therefore a pretext is established.

The proliferation of various conflicting commentaries and interpretations attests to the problem. The claim that the Hebrew Bible is the “old testament” superseded by a new and improved “new testament” attests to the problem. The idea that the Hebrew Bible is a ‘testament’ or covenant rather than it containing covenants attests to the problem. The idea that a book of books forms a single coherent book attests to the problem.

I frankly don't see the problem. First, I don't fully understand the Bible. I see it merely as a roadmap. To fully comprehend man's migration out of Africa to populate the world and find meaning and purpose or possibly fulfillment or for whatever reason is a huge study. I see that the Bible has a very profound relationship to Egypt and a relationship that requires we have knowledge of Egypt to appreciate what the Bible offers.

What is often overlooked or not understood is just how foreign the Hebrew Bible was to western, that is, Greek, or more granularly Greek and Roman, culture. Christianity did not make it any less foreign through its stories of a Jewish man who was transformed from a messianic figure, a son of God, to the Son of God, God, and the Trinity.

Greek script arose from Phoenician as did all semitic writing. The Phoenician script arose from Egyptian Hieratic. The Phoenicians read from right to left. The Greeks read from left to right. Basically the Greeks mirrored the Phoenician alphabet as you would if written on glass and viewed from the other side. Greek knowledge is not Greek. It has its roots in Egypt as does most all sources of western thought. You want to question mysticism without the basis.

What is often swept under the rug is that Paul’s promise of what was at hand, what was to occur during his lifetime did not occur. The writings that developed from that time, some of which were eventually declared to be canonical and the rest suppressed or destroyed, had as their intended purpose making broken promises part of the plan of a single promise that will eventually be fulfilled. The supposed Messiah died on the cross, but rather than that being the end it became the beginning of the end, the problem of which did not end with Paul as was promised, or with the next generation that promised itself it was the last, or with any generation since then.

It really doesn't make a beans worth of difference to me in this lifetime is in fact there was a historical Jesus or if this is merely a teaching. It just doesn't matter to me. There is what's known as the symbol and symbolic and those are things used in ancient thought and expression. If you'd be more specific about "Paul" I might be able to offer my opinion.

[Fooloso4]

Jerlands:

Maybe the best way to understand if you don't read Hebrew is to listen to a Rabbi speak to the lesson.

I have, in fact, done both, although it has been many years since I learned to read classical Hebrew and I have forgotten much of it. I still have my Brown, Driver, Briggs lexicon and can use it. I have read rabbinical commentaries. I have also read, talked, and thought a good deal about interpretation or hermeneutics.

We can question the accuracy of the Torah used today but that's a lengthy discussion.

The point of the story was that the question of accuracy was there from the beginning, from God to Adam to Eve. It was Robert Sack’s commentary on Genesis “The Lion and the Ass” that first brought this to my attention.

If you listen to different Jewish teachers discuss specifically Genesis 2 you probably will get a very different impression of the story of Adam and Eve.

I would say you get very different impressions from one to the next and the same can be said about any text that is sufficiently complex.

If you go further and listen to Kabbalah then the insights change.

Been there, done that.

The story of Adam and Eve isn't one that can be removed from context. The reason is that meaning isn't easily conveyed in any form of expression known to man. If you consider God created man in his image then man basically has a like purpose. The statement God created man in his likeness comes before the story of Adam and Eve and therefore a pretext is established.

In my opinion, the context of the story of Adam and Eve was originally separate from the context of what Genesis 1. Two different and in some ways diametrically opposed stories. The first a story of a world that came to be out of the separation of the waters, the second, a world that came to be out of a dry world in which nothing could happen or grow until the rains. Genesis 2 says nothing about being made in God’s image. Man was made from the dust of the earth and given the breath of life. Eve come from Adam. Genesis 1 plays on the singularity and duality of both men and gods, both male and female. In Genesis 2 man’s original wholeness is destroyed and man and woman strive to attain unity or wholeness together. Like Adam and Eve the two opposite stories of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 together form a unity. Both motion and rest, change and stasis, are necessary for life.

I frankly don't see the problem.

There is the old joke that Jews love to tell: ask two Jews get three different opinions. The problem is you will find many different and often conflicting opinions. What you will not find is the purpose as if it were a single agreed upon thing.

Greek knowledge is not Greek. It has its roots in Egypt as does most all sources of western thought.

As with any culture that is not isolated there is influence. Whatever the Greeks may have learned from elsewhere it is the works of Plato and Aristotle that are most important for the development of the west.

You want to question mysticism without the basis.

It was not called messianic age for nothing. The coming of a messiah was a widespread belief, not something the average person learned from mystical experience or hermeticism or introduction in cult mysticism. Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus has been described by some as a mystical experience, but it is what he told his followers and how they understood and believed what he said that formed Christianity.

It really doesn't make a beans worth of difference to me in this lifetime is in fact there was a historical Jesus or if this is merely a teaching. It just doesn't matter to me.

The teaching attributed to and about Christ cannot be separated from the figure of Jesus, whether that figure was historical or mythical. Central to that teaching is the notion of the messiah. What Paul taught about the messiah seems to have had some unique elements, although it is possible that what he taught did not originate with him. I am, however, not aware of any evidence of this. What is clear is that within a few generations what the Christians taught differed significantly from what Paul taught.

There is what's known as the symbol and symbolic and those are things used in ancient thought and expression.

This type of esotericism, secret knowledge, and initiation into the mysteries, just doesn’t matter to me. It did hold some interest for me a long ago when I was a teenager but after a while none of it rang true.

[jerlands]

The story of Adam and Eve isn't one that can be removed from context. The reason is that meaning isn't easily conveyed in any form of expression known to man. If you consider God created man in his image then man basically has a like purpose. The statement God created man in his likeness comes before the story of Adam and Eve and therefore a pretext is established.

In my opinion, the context of the story of Adam and Eve was originally separate from the context of what Genesis 1. Two different and in some ways diametrically opposed stories. The first a story of a world that came to be out of the separation of the waters, the second, a world that came to be out of a dry world in which nothing could happen or grow until the rains. Genesis 2 says nothing about being made in God’s image. Man was made from the dust of the earth and given the breath of life. Eve come from Adam. Genesis 1 plays on the singularity and duality of both men and gods, both male and female. In Genesis 2 man’s original wholeness is destroyed and man and woman strive to attain unity or wholeness together. Like Adam and Eve the two opposite stories of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 together form a unity. Both motion and rest, change and stasis, are necessary for life.

The Bible itself is a compilation from varied sources and undoubtedly different authors contributed. We know that man does the writing. We see this in historical evidence. The question is inspiration. Yes, there are many interpretations of the two stories of creation and reasons for. Was man created before the animals or after? From what is gathered through Genesis 1 there were already a population of humans at the time of Adam and Eve. So possibly it was these people who arose from the others? When you think of creation how does it begin?

I frankly don't see the problem.

There is the old joke that Jews love to tell: ask two Jews get three different opinions. The problem is you will find many different and often conflicting opinions. What you will not find is the purpose as if it were a single agreed upon thing.

No, you're wrong. I was stating my opinion.

Greek knowledge is not Greek. It has its roots in Egypt as does most all sources of western thought.

As with any culture that is not isolated there is influence. Whatever the Greeks may have learned from elsewhere it is the works of Plato and Aristotle that are most important for the development of the west.

Really? How 'bout Pythagoras? I actually think you've left out quite a few. Greeks in Egypt

You want to question mysticism without the basis.

It was not called messianic age for nothing. The coming of a messiah was a widespread belief, not something the average person learned from mystical experience or hermeticism or introduction in cult mysticism. Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus has been described by some as a mystical experience, but it is what he told his followers and how they understood and believed what he said that formed Christianity.

The Essenes had a lot of influence it appears in Christian philosophy. If I were to dissect this from that and give some meaning to the brain without consideration for the heart I doubt I would understand the brain very well. It's very well said Paul played an important role in Christianity.

It really doesn't make a beans worth of difference to me in this lifetime is in fact there was a historical Jesus or if this is merely a teaching. It just doesn't matter to me.

The teaching attributed to and about Christ cannot be separated from the figure of Jesus, whether that figure was historical or mythical. Central to that teaching is the notion of the messiah. What Paul taught about the messiah seems to have had some unique elements, although it is possible that what he taught did not originate with him. I am, however, not aware of any evidence of this. What is clear is that within a few generations what the Christians taught differed significantly from what Paul taught.

Paul was unique in that he was the persecutor. He had different perspective in his conversion and a different relationship as each of the disciples seem to have had.

There is what's known as the symbol and symbolic and those are things used in ancient thought and expression.

This type of esotericism, secret knowledge, and initiation into the mysteries, just doesn’t matter to me. It did hold some interest for me a long ago when I was a teenager but after a while none of it rang true.

Many will hear but few will listen. I guess you grew out of trying.

[Fooloso4]

jerlands:

The question is inspiration.

A question is: what is inspiration? Is it, as the early Christians believed, the indwelling spirit of Christ? Is man the mouthpiece of the gods? My opinion is that inspiration is the work of the imagination. Some mystics believe that the imagination is the guide to a higher reality, but I think that too is just the work of the imagination. We can imagine transcendence, some read about mysticism and imagine that they have experienced transcendence because they are told about the existence of transcendent experience. They frequent sites such as this one and expend a great deal of time and energy trying to convince others of what they they know nothing except what they are told.

Was man created before the animals or after?

Do you think these stories are about history or science? Questions about what is first or last can be about rank of importance. Both first and last can represent what is of greatest importance.

Really? How 'bout Pythagoras? I actually think you've left out quite a few.

Of course I did. I did not intend to give a history of Greek thought in a single sentence. The Christian notion of the soul seems to have been influenced by Plato, even if the influence was not direct. (One faction within early Christianity had to do with bodily resurrection, which Plato rejected. See, for example, the gnostic Christians). Augustine was deeply influenced by Plato. Nietzsche called Christianity Platonism for the masses. Until the advent of modern science and philosophy Aristotle was known as “the philosopher”. Aquinas was deeply influenced by Aristotle.

Many will hear but few will listen. I guess you grew out of trying.

When finally I listened I heard how false it all sounded to me. You apparently believe that if only if you listen carefully and long enough to the Bible something will be revealed or perhaps you believe it has been revealed to you according to its purpose. A spin on “seek and ye shall find”. Is it there to be found or is seeking really just putting something there to be found?

[jerlands]

jerlands:

The question is inspiration.

A question is: what is inspiration? Is it, as the early Christians believed, the indwelling spirit of Christ? Is man the mouthpiece of the gods? My opinion is that inspiration is the work of the imagination. Some mystics believe that the imagination is the guide to a higher reality, but I think that too is just the work of the imagination. We can imagine transcendence, some read about mysticism and imagine that they have experienced transcendence because they are told about the existence of transcendent experience. They frequent sites such as this one and expend a great deal of time and energy trying to convince others of what they they know nothing except what they are told.

When I think of creation I think of light. I know it's told first there was darkness but I see light. Light represents vision, the ability to see. Creation for me is purposeful. Did man ever have vision and if so how great was that vision?

Was man created before the animals or after?

Do you think these stories are about history or science? Questions about what is first or last can be about rank of importance. Both first and last can represent what is of greatest importance.

The stories are about man's purpose. There first was chaos and God gave order to the chaos. Life is the opposition to this universal entropic force of chaos. The Egyptians believed that revealing the lie was to restore order.

Really? How 'bout Pythagoras? I actually think you've left out quite a few.

Of course I did. I did not intend to give a history of Greek thought in a single sentence. The Christian notion of the soul seems to have been influenced by Plato, even if the influence was not direct. (One faction within early Christianity had to do with bodily resurrection, which Plato rejected. See, for example, the gnostic Christians). Augustine was deeply influenced by Plato. Nietzsche called Christianity Platonism for the masses. Until the advent of modern science and philosophy Aristotle was known as “the philosopher”. Aquinas was deeply influenced by Aristotle.

And who came up with Hades?

Many will hear but few will listen. I guess you grew out of trying.

When finally I listened I heard how false it all sounded to me. You apparently believe that if only if you listen carefully and long enough to the Bible something will be revealed or perhaps you believe it has been revealed to you according to its purpose. A spin on “seek and ye shall find”. Is it there to be found or is seeking really just putting something there to be found?

Good question. can we really pollute our waters? I image there is truth and the fact remains men continue to search for it.

[Namelesss]

Assuming that 'man actually does', that is what man does, what he does.
Like electricity.
It is up to the vain judgmentalism of the observer to perceive 'good' and 'evil' ('out there', when there is no 'out there').
Again, such judgmentalism is the clueless constant nibbling of the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil', the single prohibited 'Tree' in the Garden!
Sin! Toxic! Warning!
You ask the point of the bible?
Well, that is one HUGE point, yet you ignore the warnings and you make excuses for it's blind and blithe consumption (feels soooo good, superior...).
Just like the 'Serpent'... *__-

This is all gibberish, gobbledygook. As long as you're not a threat to yourself or others... but then I perceive the later.

I'm only a threat to your ego/vanity/Pride!
That's fine.
"Things of the spirit are seen as gibberish" - bible
Perhaps the day will come that you are in a better position to understand and assimilate these words. They aren't going away.

Until then, this is nameless, unsubscribing. *__-

[jerlands]

This is all gibberish, gobbledygook. As long as you're not a threat to yourself or others... but then I perceive the later.

I'm only a threat to your ego/vanity/Pride!
That's fine.
"Things of the spirit are seen as gibberish" - bible
Perhaps the day will come that you are in a better position to understand and assimilate these words. They aren't going away.

Until then, this is nameless, unsubscribing. *__-

Well, since you don't believe in right or wrong maybe you should just man up.

[Spectrum]

Note my thesis re What is the Purpose of the Bible?;

1. DNA wise ALL humans are born with the potential of an existential crisis which is active in the majority of humans.

This is how you perceive life, not joyous but ominously threatening. There may however be some truth in that.

William James the famous philosopher and psychologist was more realistic in stating;
ALL humans are born like an apple with a worm inside which starts eating from the inside right at birth.

2. This active existential crisis oozes terrible existential angst at the unconscious and subconscious level. These are the fears and anxieties of eternal death to be burnt in a terrible Hell.

The notion of hell, to suffer for wrong-doings, isn't confined to Christian thought but exists in many philosophies. We think of hell in this life as going to prison but the notion of hell in the after-life kinda makes sense in that it suggests man can permanently remove himself from salvation (a relationship with truth.)

I agree.

3. The most effective solution to the existential angst is religion where irrational ideas and beliefs [of eternal life in Heaven by an all powerful God] are invented to soothe the mental pains arising from the existential crisis. Theists will shut out all irrationality and contradictions due to confirmation bias.

Religion is a teaching and algebra is a teaching therefore algebra arises from man's existential crisis.

Yes.
Humans has been using algebra with other knowledge to avoid premature death [existential crisis].
Humanity will also rely on algebra to destroy any potential comets and are coming towards Earth and will need algebra to go into outer space to colonize other planets. These are all related to an existential crisis.
But algebra is a distant link to the existential crisis where religions are of a higher degree and closer link to the existential crisis.

4. The Bible is one of those invented things containing irrational and contradicting ideas whose purpose is to soothe the existential angst and it is very effective in its job.
QED

Everything is invented in that invention is man's associated usage of formed ideas. The question is the purpose, whether or not there is true validity in the teaching (value.)

Yes, what is critical is the purpose, the Bible was invented to deal with an existential crisis, i.e. an illusion of being saved in heaven which give psychological comfort to theists.

[Sy Borg]

What we need to appreciate is that the Bible is not actually special, just that it caught on. There was the Koran, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, Tao Te Ching, the Vedas, the Egyptian and Tibetan Books of the Dead, Buddhist sutras, Shinto texts, Dead Sea Scrolls, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Origin of Species, Relativity: The Special and General Theory - so much guidance provided by brilliant ancestors gifted to future generations. What is the purpose of any of these? Handing knowledge down to descendants so it's not lost, so people don't have to keep on "reinventing the wheel".

It seems a shame to focus on one such as the Bible, especially being such an old book whose contents are used to wrongfully deny the truth of subsequent great works that contradict it.

A little parable: a craftsman invents a wheel and records his findings so that others don't need to design it, just use his design. As time goes on, the flaws in the original design become obvious and some upstarts suggest that the original model can be improved upon. "Oh no!" cry the elders, the original information was sacred and the old ways must be retained, and the situation stayed the same - until they taken over by another society that allowed their old information to be updated.

[jerlands]

What we need to appreciate is that the Bible is not actually special, just that it caught on.

You may wish to believe this but I see a much more timely arrival of the Bible in the history of man than mere happenstance would afford.

There was the Koran, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, Tao Te Ching, the Vedas, the Egyptian and Tibetan Books of the Dead, Buddhist sutras, Shinto texts, Dead Sea Scrolls, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Origin of Species, Relativity: The Special and General Theory - so much guidance provided by brilliant ancestors gifted to future generations. What is the purpose of any of these? Handing knowledge down to descendants so it's not lost, so people don't have to keep on "reinventing the wheel".

It seems a shame to focus on one such as the Bible, especially being such an old book whose contents are used to wrongfully deny the truth of subsequent great works that contradict it.

Yes, let's not try and understand the past 2000 years of Western Civilization and simply call it the way it was.

A little parable: a craftsman invents a wheel and records his findings so that others don't need to design it, just use his design. As time goes on, the flaws in the original design become obvious and some upstarts suggest that the original model can be improved upon. "Oh no!" cry the elders, the original information was sacred and the old ways must be retained, and the situation stayed the same - until they taken over by another society that allowed their old information to be updated.

This is the examination of a dynamic work of art that has hung over the heads of countless lives and influenced the course of development for millennium.

[jerlands]

Everything is invented in that invention is man's associated usage of formed ideas. The question is the purpose, whether or not there is true validity in the teaching (value.)

Yes, what is critical is the purpose, the Bible was invented to deal with an existential crisis, i.e. an illusion of being saved in heaven which give psychological comfort to theists.

Heaven and Hell. In your mind what is it that might bring about either of these two states?

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem