In these debates so many people say "why follow some book written 2000 years ago". I dont understand this as the basis for why something is automatically irrelevant. The fact that the bible was written 2000 years ago(though orally passed on since the beginning) and is still inspiring people today should actually be a sign that this is not some ordinary book. Even the constitution which we hold sacred has had to be altered and changed since it was written (here comes the people with the translation conspiracies). If somebody wrote 4+4 = 8 thousands of years ago, does it automatically make it powerless because of the passage of time.
2006-07-14 17:06:51 · 15 answers · asked by h nitrogen 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The Bible was written in 400 AD, actually.... :/
Jesus died 40 A.D., sorry to burst your bubble.
- 16 yo Pagan
2006-07-14 17:09:36 · answer #1 · answered by Lady Myrkr 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are correct in your point in that the age of something does not imply it is powerless.
However, your response ignores the context of the original complaint. Most times, complaints about the Bible's age come from when the Bible is used as a science book. This has been done throughout history, and continues today. Some examples include the following:
Around 1515, Magellan was about to set sail on the first voage to circumnavigate the globe. The church thought, based on quotes from the Bible, that the Earth was flat. (This comes from quotes like the "dome in the sky seperating the waters" (Gen) and "...the earth on foundations, it can never be moved" (Ps 104:5), etc.... Magellan is quoted as saying "The Church says that the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in the shadow than in the Church."
A century later, Galileo and his buddy, Giodarno Bruno were talking about some consequences of Copernican theory. They said the Earth goes around Sun, not vice versa. The Church, again basing their beliefs on the Bible, was convinced that we humans were at the center of the universe. (The whole story about Joshua making the sun stand still...) Anyway, they condemned Bruno as a heretic, drove a spike through his tongue, hung him upside-down naked in a Roman market square, and burned him to death. Nice. They condemned Galileo too, put him under house arrest, and made him recant his defense of heliocentric theory. Luckily he was friends with the Pope, so he didn't meet the same fate as Bruno.
Nowadays the Church is convinced, yet again, that it has the upperhand on science when it comes to evolution. Why? Same reason as always -- Holy Scripture. They're trying to get it banned from schools, not because the science is wrong, but simply because it offends religious beliefs. "What? We're not the center of [the universe, oh...I mean...] Creation?!!! Blasphemy!"
It's like Galileo part 2. Fortunately there is a (minor) separation between church and state, otherwise I'm sure it would be a crime to teach the "heresy" of Darwin.
Therefore, within this context, I think the original criticism does apply:
Why follow some book written 2000 years ago, when it makes proclamations about the world that are demonstrably false?
2006-07-15 00:49:12 · answer #2 · answered by Michael 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are somehow comparing a mathematical equation, 4+4=8, an unequivical fact, with the christian mythology of the bible. It doesn't work. I think people take issue with the bible not just because it was written so long ago but also because by reading it it is obvious that it is a work of fiction and total non-relevant today.
2006-07-15 00:12:49 · answer #3 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The question is not why disregard something which was written 2000 years ago. The larger question is why disregard books or beliefs which were written or followed before a book written 2000 years ago ?
2006-07-15 00:11:19 · answer #4 · answered by The Guru 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
why don't people examine the manuscripts of the Bible and they will see that the earliest ones were written around 200-250 AD. These have been proven authentic and accurate and reference to the times of Jesus.
But I guess this isn't good enough for some...
2006-07-15 00:20:39 · answer #5 · answered by n9wff 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The best truths - the ones worth living and dying for - are truths that do not change over time, even after 2000+ years. You, my friend, have an excellent point.
2006-07-15 00:10:19 · answer #6 · answered by jimbob 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
check you history the king james version of the bible was not written 2000 years ago it was first printed around 1100 or later
2006-07-15 00:11:06 · answer #7 · answered by PETE A 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
how do we know it was written 2000 years ago? wheres the proof...also...how do we know it wasnt just some guy who got bored five hundred years ago and wrote a story?
2006-07-15 00:11:16 · answer #8 · answered by Ryan H 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hey I totally agree with you!
My bf thinks the bible was a fairy tale!
I hate it when people say "times have changed", well RULES ARE RULES!
2006-07-15 00:10:36 · answer #9 · answered by DEEDEE Y 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because people believe that if writen old , to believe history.
but catholics believe the bible because it was "writen in gods hand" but actualy it is just made by under paid folks who tell people about prayers.
2006-07-15 00:12:52 · answer #10 · answered by chahiro i 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋