Is the bible reliable?

"Lets Duke it Out" The Bible
Howdy Neo,
What's happening Bro?
Well, Neo I am a man of peace and my duking out days are over, but I will wrestle a round or two with you about the Bible. Give me a issue.

More Than Conqueror

0 Replies

How can the Bible be considered reliable when major theologians cannot even agree on major issues such as the existence of Hell or the divinity of Jesus or the concept of Trinity. Then there are the more subtle issues such as original sin, predetermination etc. What is to be taken literally, what is allegory, the unanswered questions that go towards its usefulness are endless.

My take is that it is reliable to support nearly whatever convoluted concept God that may suit the believer. After all when belief is the operative word then the Bible's words take on the meaning of that the believer wants.

0 Replies

Ron L. Hubbard's scientology would be a fitting sequel to Revelation, a great science fiction book.

0 Replies

come now, Hubbard was a 3rd rate hack. Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke is a much better alternative.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Let me at 'im . . . let me at 'im . . .

Yaaay!

dyslexia wrote:

how do you spell "martini"?

Shaken; not stirred.

hephzibah wrote:

I'm just making an appearance to acknowledge I've seen this and will be back with some input later. LOL becoming featured kills a topic huh? And I can't believe you called Setanta a chicken neo! Personally speaking, I am one to pick my battles carefully. I doubt I'm the only one who does that. Talk to ya'll later!

Actually, I value Setanta's astute observations very much and was afraid I might lose his participation. Hence the affected disrespect.

Terry wrote:

neologist wrote:
My take on this is the entire bible is a verifiably integrated whole. The OT agrees with the NT and letters of Paul agree with the Gospels.

Are you serious? If you had read the entire Bible (not just carefully selected bit and pieces) you would know that it has serious flaws when it comes to continuity. The Old Testament is a hodgepodge of myths, history, outmoded laws, wisdom, pseudoscience, tedious genealogies of God'sa Chosen People (even though they are no longer his favorites), details for building temples and sacrificing animals to God's exact specifications (including what to wear), violence, intolerance, immorality, philosophy, dreams, poetry, priestly rants, pleadings and praise - but it is clearly not an integrated text that reflects the Word of God.

The NT rejects most of the Laws that God gave to Moses and the Israelites, as well as the supposedly perpetual covenant God had made with them. New concepts are introduced (such as eternal life) and God no longer finds uncircumcised pork-eaters who violate the Sabbath and worship someone besides him to be an abomination. God gets a makeover from a vengeful egomaniac who kills peole for the slightest infraction of his Laws and children for the sins of their parents, into a loving deity who will welcome anyone who professes a belief in his Son into heaven. Paul, who never actually met Jesus, contradicted some of the things Jesus taught, such as the necessity for observing the Laws of Moses. I personally suspect that Paul made up a lot of stuff to achieve his own goals, but you've got to give him credit - without him, Jesus' message would most likely have faded away.

There are not many on this board who have put more effort into bible study than I have; and I would certainly match myself against any preacher in christendom when it comes to basic bible understanding.

I feel that, when talking about the bible, it is well to let the bible speak for itself. You have posted many objections. Allow me to take what appears to be your principle one - that of the 'rejection' of the laws given to Moses. Have you read this?

"Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but God is only one. 21 Is the Law, therefore, against the promises of God? May that never happen! For if a law had been given that was able to give life, righteousness would actually have been by means of law. 22 But the Scripture delivered up all things together to the custody of sin, that the promise resulting from faith toward Jesus Christ might be given to those exercising faith. 23 However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being delivered up together into custody, looking to the faith that was destined to be revealed. 24 Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith. 25 But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor." (Galatians 3:19-25) Do you see how the Mosaic Law is referred to in this case?

It explains Jesus' contention in Matthew 5: 17,18. "Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill; 18 for truly I say to YOU that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place"

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

Ron L. Hubbard's scientology would be a fitting sequel to Revelation, a great science fiction book.

yitwail wrote:

come now, Hubbard was a 3rd rate hack. Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke is a much better alternative.

Fancy footwork, there - very fancy. Y' gonna try to land a punch?

Y' c'n keep dancin' if ya want.

0 Replies

The Tao According to Pooh is a much better read. But then, so is Destination Void by Frank Herbert.

0 Replies

I think it's reliable in one sense -- I think people will nearly always find something in the bible to support their own views. No matter what those views may be.

0 Replies

You dancers could learn something about mixing it up by reading Terry's post.

C'mon give it a go!

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I think it's reliable in one sense -- I think people will nearly always find something in the bible to support their own views. No matter what those views may be.

Of course, that would be an argument for unreliability - were specifics mentioned.

My chin is out. Go ahead.

0 Replies

It's an argument for unreliability.

The bible contradicts itself.

It's all things to all people.

It's a collection of a lot of different stories with a lot of different morals written by a lot of different people and as such, it has a lot of good stuff in it, a lot of bad stuff in it, and a lot of mediocre stuff in it, but reliable? No.

It's a document than rather than giving a clear picture of god, his motivations, or his wishes, leaves those who believe it saying things like, "God works in mysterious ways..."

0 Replies

(In other words, see Terry's post.)

0 Replies

Are you going to leave it up to me to think of your objections, post them and then discuss them?

Surely you can't be afraid to launch a few missiles of your own.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

(In other words, see Terry's post.)

That's it?

Terry's straw man is the sum total of all your thoughts?

I'm disappointed.

I have to go out for a while. Meantimes think of something, willya?

0 Replies

Straw man?

0 Replies

While you're thinking of how to defend calling Terry's post a strawman, this was the first result of a Google search for "inconsistencies in the bible" -- looks interesting:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_ball/bible.html

0 Replies

Second result, also interesting:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

Excerpt (it's LONG!):

Quote:

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)

GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)

0 Replies

Is the bible reliable?
What a question. In what sense?
Clearly the content of the stories aren't congruent with known reality. I've never seen a burning bush or a snake talk, nor have I seen anyone with buoyant enough feet to provide him with floatation. Neither has anyone alive.
So I'd have to say the content probably isn't very reliable. Historical accuracy? There is some evidence of historical accuracy throughout the bible, but also there is evidence of fiction.
Ever read any Louis L'amour? Famous and well respected novelist that was famous for maintaining historical acuracy as a backdrop to his novels. It is a most convincing style.
Does that mean the Sacket brothers really roamed the old west? I'd have to say no.
Regardless of any of this, I don't feel the burden to discredit the bible. There is no real reason to take it seriously. (as more than a work of fiction, and all sociological effects of religion aside)

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Second result, also interesting:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

Excerpt (it's LONG!):

Quote:
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)

GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)

It is obvious here your research of the bible has been limited to the websites you have come across. This isn't a fair argument because you aren't even willing to take the time to look it up yourself. If you are going to post something like this you ought to at least have an argument to support it, don't you think?

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

neologist wrote:
My take on this is the entire bible is a verifiably integrated whole. The OT agrees with the NT and letters of Paul agree with the Gospels.

Are you serious? If you had read the entire Bible (not just carefully selected bit and pieces) you would know that it has serious flaws when it comes to continuity. The Old Testament is a hodgepodge of myths, history, outmoded laws, wisdom, pseudoscience, tedious genealogies of God's Chosen People (even though they are no longer his favorites), details for building temples and sacrificing animals to God's exact specifications (including what to wear), violence, intolerance, immorality, philosophy, dreams, poetry, priestly rants, pleadings and praise - but it is clearly not an integrated text that reflects the Word of God.

The NT rejects most of the Laws that God gave to Moses and the Israelites, as well as the supposedly perpetual covenant God had made with them. New concepts are introduced (such as eternal life) and God no longer finds uncircumcised pork-eaters who violate the Sabbath and worship someone besides him to be an abomination. God gets a makeover from a vengeful egomaniac who kills peole for the slightest infraction of his Laws and children for the sins of their parents, into a loving deity who will welcome anyone who professes a belief in his Son into heaven. Paul, who never actually met Jesus, contradicted some of the things Jesus taught, such as the necessity for observing the Laws of Moses. I personally suspect that Paul made up a lot of stuff to achieve his own goals, but you've got to give him credit - without him, Jesus' message would most likely have faded away.

Quite the statement you've put out there Terry. Now where's the proof to support it?

0 Replies

Is the bible reliable?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know