Is the bible reliable?

mesquite wrote:

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.

I disagree. I believe there are definite principles and ideals in the bible that people who claim to believe should live by. And I mean LIVE by. Not just talk about. Not wave in other peoples faces, or shove it down their throats. The problem is people want to be comfortable so they manipulate the bible to fit their cause, whatever they feel that is.

You know, I've been thinking a lot lately about this kind of stuff... It's interesting really. I personally believe that a lot of people lean towards science because it offers solid proof of physical facts that make them indisputable. But with the bible, with God, with christians, there is very little indisputable proof of anything except that very few can agree on much. Not to mention it leaves the realm of the physical, which in a lot of peoples minds is reason enough to dispute it.

But really what constitutes actual proof? I believe proof goes beyond the physical. Were any of us alive when the bible was written? How are we to know that the books we read that support the ideal that that bible is just myths and stories are any more reliable than the bible itself? Is it because it is someone's opinion we value? Really what is the deciding factor here for any of us?

0 Replies

The religionists make the claims so they need to provide the proofs. A used car salesman only extolls the fine feature of the car never mind that underneath the fresh paint there is rust everywhere.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Straw man?

sozobe wrote:

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

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.)

Y'know I gave a response to Terry's post. You have conveniently ignored it. Why not try cutting it up instead of adding new straw men?

For example, the word omniscience. It doesn't appear in the bible. It implies that God is under necessity to know all things in advance - sort of like the world famous chef who is unable to stop himself from cooking.

Bon appetit

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

The religionists make the claims so they need to provide the proofs. A used car salesman only extolls the fine feature of the car never mind that underneath the fresh paint there is rust everywhere.

More dancing. Try throwing a punch. At least sozobe gave it that much.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

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.

The fact that 'major theologians' cannot agree is not relevant. The bible was not written for 'major theologians', it was written for you and me.

0 Replies

Could you clarify your question, neo?

Are you asking if the bible is a verifiable integrated whole?
or
Are you asking if the bible can be trusted to be a reliable source of God's word?
or
Are you asking if the bible is reliable historically?
or
something else...

The question is quite vague. It is open to intepretation. Can't really answer a question if I don't understand what it is.

0 Replies

You are the one who is dancing, Neo--you are attempting to define your terms petitio principii, which is to say, you are begging the question--a fallacy which occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. You have written:

Quote:

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.

That's all well and good, but you advance a series of fallacious accusations against those here who don't agree with you when you say they are dancing because they won't accept that statement a priori. Basically, you are saying the bible is reliable, and that to disprove it, one may only use the bible as evidence. Futhermore, when someone does point out contradictions to you, you respond as you did to Soz, when you wrote:

Quote:

Y'know I gave a response to Terry's post. You have conveniently ignored it. Why not try cutting it up instead of adding new straw men?

You have insisted on begging the question by making the bible the only reliable source for refuting the reliability of the bible. When someone attempts to do so, you dance away, alleging that the argument consists of straw men, but you fail by your own standards, because you do not demonstrate in what the strawmen consist.

You're not doing well, here, Bubba. Have a cup of coffee and think about it.

(Milk? Sugar?)

0 Replies

Answer #1

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.

Gen 1:3-5
3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

Gen 1:14-19
14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

I fail to see how this can be considered a contradiction. The bible clearly distinguishes between the two things. No where in the first scripture does it imply that God created the sun on the first day. It just says He created "light". There is a difference between light and the sun. Yes the sun is a source of light, but it is by no means the only source of light in this world.

0 Replies

Oh good grief.

It even says "Day", as opposed to "Night". What light differentiates day from night?

0 Replies

flushd wrote:

Could you clarify your question, neo?

Are you asking if the bible is a verifiable integrated whole?
or
Are you asking if the bible can be trusted to be a reliable source of God's word?
or
Are you asking if the bible is reliable historically?
or
something else...

The question is quite vague. It is open to intepretation. Can't really answer a question if I don't understand what it is.

All of the above. So far, only Terry has offered specific arguments against any of those propositions. She made statements about the internal harmony of the bible which I attempted to answer. No one has yet seen fit to critique my reply.

So, to restate my topic:

If any folks have specific arguments against the bible. I invite you to post them.

I believe they can be answered.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Oh good grief.

It even says "Day", as opposed to "Night". What light differentiates day from night?

Perhaps Moses, who penned the text, understood that the luminaries were not discernable at the earlier time because of heavy water vapor in the expanse.

0 Replies

Restating and seriously revising your topic, there, Bubba . . .

0 Replies

Quote:

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

Gen 1:11-12
11 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:26-27
26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Gen 2:4-9
4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

8 The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. 9 And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Answer me this:

If God created man before the tree's how was He then able to PLANT a garden for them to live in?

Quote:

4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

This is a statement refereing to the history of the earth and heavens when they were created:

Gen 1:1-3
1 Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

The work was already finished and it was merely being summarized what had happened in the process of creation. Nowhere does it state that man was created before the trees.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Oh good grief.

It even says "Day", as opposed to "Night". What light differentiates day from night?

But it was not stated that there was a separation of day and night until the sun was created. Therefore implying a difference between the light that came when God said let "there be light" and the sun to separate the night from the day.

0 Replies

All of which is evidence that the bible is unreliable, since we know that the "sun" is a star which "shines" constantly, and whether or not we are able to perceive that depends upon which side of the planet we find ourselves on as it rotates.

You only get to make your point at such time as you can conclusively prove that your imaginary friend created the cosmos.

0 Replies

come on now setanta... give me a break... sheesh... Explain please how your statement disproves anything I've said this far.

It has been stated that there are contradictions in the bible, which is what makes it "unreliable". Exactly how is anyone suppose to prove anything if no one is willing to look at these alleged contradictions to see if they are true?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You are the one who is dancing, Neo--you are attempting to define your terms petitio principii, which is to say, you are begging the question--a fallacy which occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. You have written:

Quote:
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.

That's all well and good, but you advance a series of fallacious accusations against those here who don't agree with you when you say they are dancing because they won't accept that statement a priori. Basically, you are saying the bible is reliable, and that to disprove it, one may only use the bible as evidence. Futhermore, when someone does point out contradictions to you, you respond as you did to Soz, when you wrote:

Quote:
Y'know I gave a response to Terry's post. You have conveniently ignored it. Why not try cutting it up instead of adding new straw men?

You have insisted on begging the question by making the bible the only reliable source for refuting the reliability of the bible. When someone attempts to do so, you dance away, alleging that the argument consists of straw men, but you fail by your own standards, because you do not demonstrate in what the strawmen consist.

You're not doing well, here, Bubba. Have a cup of coffee and think about it.

(Milk? Sugar?)

Black, thank you. I brought scones. Would you like one?

Actually, I am asking for specific arguments, not generalized bloviations such as this one: "Ron L. Hubbard's scientology would be a fitting sequel to Revelation, a great science fiction book."

And, rather than directing me to off site links or trips to the bookstore, I would hope some folks would simply state objections in their own words. So far Terry and Soz are the only ones to have posted anything substantive. I believe my answer to Terry was satisfactory at least in part. But since no one has bothered to slice and dice it, what can I say?

As for Soz, that appears to be currently under discussion.

There is a veritable avalanche of reasonable objections to the bible which I believe can be answered. I'll bet Frank, in his heyday, would have loved to get in on this.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Restating and seriously revising your topic, there, Bubba . . .

Sorry if my original topic was too vague. I was hoping my lack of specificity would give license to a broad range of argument.

Haven't had coffee yet. Is it still hot?

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

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)

Sorry, Dok. There was so much going on, I overlooked your remark.
Are you saying your main objection to the bible is the implausibility of miracles? Would you say they would not be possible given any definition of God or that they are not possible given your definition of God?

Note: Adding Dok to the list of reasonable objectors.

0 Replies

Quote:

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

Gen 1:20-21
20 Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens." 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:26-27
26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Gen 2:7, 19

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.

This is malarky! Come on now. This really can't be used as evidence of contradiction when it's a partial statement! Look at this scripture in context:

18 And the LORD God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him." 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.

This is NOT stating that God formed these creatures at this moment. It is stating where they were created from. Creation was already finished remember? He brought what was already created to Adam to see if there was a helper comparable to him.

In order to further this point lets look at the original hebrew word used for "make" in this scripture:

6213 `asah aw-saw' a primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application (as follows):--accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready) dress(-ed), (put in) execute(-ion), exercise, fashion, + feast, (fight-)ing man, + finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfill, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, + hinder, hold ((a feast)), X indeed, + be industrious, + journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, + officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, pracise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, X sacrifice, serve, set, shew, X sin, spend, X surely, take, X thoroughly, trim, X very, + vex, be (warr-)ior, work(-man), yield, use.

The meaning here goes far beyond just "making" or "creating" something. So one then must look at the context of what is being said to discern what this words intended use was.

0 Replies

Is the bible reliable?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know