Is the Bible 100% truth?

[pstarr]

Yes, they are! And miracles still happen...

 

[KOROHO]

Yes, they do!
I know people who were blind and now are not. The DRs cant explain it.
I know people who were dead and now are not. One walked out of the morgue and still has his death certificate as a souvenier.
One woman from our church moved away about 10 years ago. The Dr told her she will be dead in 3 months or less. She came back home to make arrangements for someone to take care of her kids. She got prayer in church and the cancer left her body.
Another girl with an inoperable brain tumor decided to not wast time and money on the doctors and trust in God instead. Today she sings on the Praise Team with no sign of ever having a tumor.

Doctors can, and some times do, do good things. But when it gets right down to it, they know very little and understand less. God is the only healer. He alone can restore broken lives and he alone can bring eternal life.

 

[KOROHO]

Many of the idealogies presented in the Bible are also evidient in the Tora(spelling?) and the Koran. They contain basic ethical teachings necessary for civilization to continue to exist and so that anarchy and chaos do not prevail.

Did you know it's the same God??? The God spoke of by Jews, Christians, and Muslims is the same guy.

Some what correct. The Tora is part of the Bible.

And yes, these three religions sort of have the same God.
The God of the Old Testament, Jehovah, Yahweh, etc was and is still the God of the Jews and the muslims call him allah. But the muslims have thier own set of beliefs about him and turned away from him, for this they are cut off and cursed.

In the New Testament, we see that God was manifest in the flesh (Yeshua the Messiah, who so many call Jesus"). But many Jews refused to accept him and killed him.

Today Christians still have 1 God and accept that he played different roles (Father in Creation, Son in Redemption and Holy Spirit in re-generation).

muslims call "Jesus" a prophet and refuse to accept his divinity.

There are Messianic Jews who have come to accept Yeshua as the Messiah. And there are those "Christians" who accept the "trinity doctrine" which in essence gives them 3 gods.

So all though we are looking at 3 different religions with the same god, that one God does not look at the 3 religions the same way.

God is not interested in religion. And Christianity is not a religion - it is a faith and a personal relationship with God and an acceptance of his sacrifice on the cross coupled with a commitment to live and wlak with him, obeying his commandments. You can pray all you want, light all the candles, read the Tora, the Bible, the Koran, hang crosses all over the place, do the rosary, say "hail mary", etc all you want. You're still lost without Jesus and Baptism in his name and being "born again".

Look at the example of the great flood. Do you really think Noah was the only "religious man" in the world? Or the only man in the world who believed in God or even prayed? He most certainly was not. But there were still an awful lot of "God believers", and "religious people" who died in the water

 

[pstarr]

I'm with you, Koroho...but we're probably going to get jumped on here pretty quick. Get your armor on-

 

[heretic888]

I'll ignore your personal attacks, Ray, as they are a such an abundantly common tactic on your posts ("What would Jesus do? Poison the well, I guess."), and address the meat n' potatoes of the post. . .

In the post that you are responding to there is not one line that says (nor implies) the "circular reasoning" that you are ascribing to it.

Yes, it is circular reasoning. Claiming otherwise does not change this, just as claiming there are no geographical and cultural errors in the Synoptics does not change the fact that they're there.

Circular reasoning is precisely axiomatic reasoning, it is when a truth claim is held to be "self-evident" in and of itself, without any logic or evidence whatsoever needed to justify it. These are the "just-so" assertions that I routinly criticize on threads such as this (probably because they are the number one tool of apologists).

This is the case of the aforementioned post, when the claim that the Bible is the "Word of God" and, as such, "cannot be wrong on anything", is made. No evidence or reason is presented. In fact, "evidence" is called into question altogether, because the unshakable axiom of the claim is held to supercede any and all evidence whatsoever.

The logic behind these claims is precisely what Mr. Colbert parodies on his show: the Bible is the Word of God because it says its the Word of God. Simple enough.

Sorry, but I call's 'em as I see's 'em.

 

[heretic888]

Jesus:

1. Liar
2. Lunatic
3. LORD

You decide!

Well, I'll take door number four. . .

4. Mythical-allegorical composite.

 

[heretic888]

The question is "Is the BIBLE 100% truth?" not "are the teachings of Jesus Christ 100% truth?".

I haven't seen anyone (unless I missed a post somewhere) bashing the teaching of Jesus Christ. Interestingly enough, no 'writings' of Jesus are actually contained in the current accepted version of the "bible." I've never heard anyone quote Jesus 3:16 before.

Pretty much.

Many of the idealogies presented in the Bible are also evidient in the Tora(spelling?) and the Koran. They contain basic ethical teachings necessary for civilization to continue to exist and so that anarchy and chaos do not prevail.

Perhaps, but you don't need to appeal to any religious authority or document to have such ethical teachings. The many secular democratic nations in the world today are evidence of that.

Also, there are also a number of ideologies presented in such religious texts that are, quite frankly, archaic and parochial bigotries that all rational adults should reject off hand. The injunction in the pseudo-Pauline Pastoral Letters that women should not speak in church immediately comes to mind, as does the passive acceptance of human slavery.

I should point out that the vast majority of Christians do reject these parochialisms. The problem is that, via cognitive dissonance, these Christians simply ignore the parts of their own religious literature they do not accept (a common practice across all cultures), as opposed to accepting these elements are there and openly admitting they are archaic to today's believers.

Did you know it's the same God??? The God spoke of by Jews, Christians, and Muslims is the same guy. WHAT!?!?! It's true. History proves it.

Y'know, unless one wants to fall into the error of "intelligent design", I'm pretty skeptical of any historical evidence of "God". . .

As for the "same God" thing, try asking Jews or Muslims about the Holy Trinity. To the Christian mindset, Jesus Christ is God (see John 1).

That's my point. Man's influenced the teachings and writings of all these "religions" for centuries. Certain individuals have altered, ommitted, and edited the bible (and other religious text) for their own political gains. Do you honestly think or believe the bible exists today as it did in its original form??

There is no "original form" of the Bible. It is a living document that has been edited and redacted numerous times over the centuries.

I should also point out that not all Christians accept every book of the Bible as "canon", such as the Apocrypha or Revelation.

Laterz.

 

[Ray]

I'll ignore your personal attacks, Ray, as they are a such an abundantly common tactic on your posts ("What would Jesus do? Poison the well, I guess."), and address the meat n' potatoes of the post.

It wasn't an attack. It was an observation. You belittled the poster's belief...

Yes, it is circular reasoning. Claiming otherwise does not change this, just as claiming there are no geographical and cultural errors in the Synoptics does not change the fact that they're there.

Just show where the poster that you charged with circular reason was guilty of circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning is precisely axiomatic reasoning, it is when a truth claim is held to be "self-evident" in and of itself, without any logic or evidence whatsoever needed to justify it.

Wow, thanks for the definition. Now I truely know the definition of circular reasoning in addtion to what a circular saw is. Now, just address the part where the poster that you made fun of used circular reasoning.

These are the "just-so" assertions that I routinly criticize on threads such as this (probably because they are the number one tool of apologists).

Straw man, straw man.

Sorry, but I call's 'em as I see's 'em.

See an eye doc.

 

[heretic888]

I'm not going to get into the whole mistranslation thing here-been there, done that-the "Bible" is full of errors, especially most of the English versions, most especially the totally excrable King James' Version.

I'm gonna quote Pilate, and ask, What is truth?

Then I'm going to point out the difference between a "fact" and "truth"
with this post way back in the beginning of all this.

The Bible is full of beauty and truth; it isn't entirely factual at all-in fact, there are large portions of it that were probably never meant to be taken as such.....

Well said. :asian:

 

[heretic888]

The Bible, as the word of God, is 100% truth.
The problems come from man's misunderstanding, mis-translating and in many cases outright manipulation of it.

The problem here is that many of the books that make up the Bible are outright distortions and manipulations. The pseudo-Pauline Pastoral Letters, for example, were largely written to "correct" the authentic Paulines such as Galatians, mostly as a late 2nd century rebuttal to Marcionism.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

I Sometimes people try to read things into it that aren't there. Some folks have a tough time with the concept of miracles.

I think the problem is that certain individuals appeal to "miracles" whenever something currently unexplained happens. It's almost like a knee-jerk reaction to some people.

Of course, history has shown us that most of the phenomena previously attributed to "miracles" or "supernatural" agencies have later been explained with more parsimonius and rational explanations. Weather and physical illness both being perfect examples. What reason is there to believe that today's "miracles" won't be tomorrow's Weather Channel??

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Yes, they do!
I know people who were blind and now are not. The DRs cant explain it.
I know people who were dead and now are not. One walked out of the morgue and still has his death certificate as a souvenier.
One woman from our church moved away about 10 years ago. The Dr told her she will be dead in 3 months or less. She came back home to make arrangements for someone to take care of her kids. She got prayer in church and the cancer left her body.
Another girl with an inoperable brain tumor decided to not wast time and money on the doctors and trust in God instead. Today she sings on the Praise Team with no sign of ever having a tumor.

Doctors can, and some times do, do good things. But when it gets right down to it, they know very little and understand less. God is the only healer. He alone can restore broken lives and he alone can bring eternal life.

Personally, I don't buy into fatalism myself.

By the way, "prayer healings" have been demonstrated in studies with members of various religions and even demonstrated by atheist participants. Whatever's going on there, it ain't God. Or, if it is God, he certainly doesn't seem to give a flying you-know-what about whether your believe in him or not.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Some what correct. The Tora is part of the Bible.

If you are talking about the Christian Bible, then a more accurate description would be that a Greek mistranslation of the Torah is part of the Bible.

And yes, these three religions sort of have the same God.

And, yet, only Christians talk about trinities. . .

But the muslims have thier own set of beliefs about him and turned away from him, for this they are cut off and cursed.

Ah, the joys of ethnocentrism.

In the New Testament, we see that God was manifest in the flesh (Yeshua the Messiah, who so many call Jesus"). But many Jews refused to accept him and killed him.

Anti-Semitic nonsense. The description of the Sanhedrin trial and Pilate's inquisition are completely non-historical in nature.

There are Messianic Jews who have come to accept Yeshua as the Messiah.

In other words, they're Christians just pretending to be Jews.

And there are those "Christians" who accept the "trinity doctrine" which in essence gives them 3 gods.

How is that any different than the "on God with different roles" description you gave before??

I also like the putting the word Christians in quotation marks, thinly veiling your own sense of sectarian elitism.

So all though we are looking at 3 different religions with the same god, that one God does not look at the 3 religions the same way.

A more correct statement would be that your religion says that God does not look at the all three religions in the same way, as no human being could possibly know the mind of God.

God is not interested in religion. And Christianity is not a religion - it is a faith and a personal relationship with God and an acceptance of his sacrifice on the cross coupled with a commitment to live and wlak with him, obeying his commandments.

In other words, you operationally redefine the word "religion" to give your own cult special status. More sectarian elitism.

Look at the example of the great flood. Do you really think Noah was the only "religious man" in the world? Or the only man in the world who believed in God or even prayed? He most certainly was not. But there were still an awful lot of "God believers", and "religious people" who died in the water

The "great flood" never happened. It comes from the Epic of Gilgamesh, a Babylonian mythical work.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

It wasn't an attack. It was an observation.

To quote Judge Judy:

"Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining."

An attack is an attack, no matter how you try to rationalize it as impartial "observation" or other such nonsense.

You belittled the poster's belief...

If by "belittled" you mean I pointed out that his belief (and probably yours as well) rests on circular reasoning and axiomatic assumptions, then sure.

Just show where the poster that you charged with circular reason was guilty of circular reasoning.

That would be the paragraph of my post that you conveniently "forgot" to quote:

This is the case of the aforementioned post, when the claim that the Bible is the "Word of God" and, as such, "cannot be wrong on anything", is made. No evidence or reason is presented. In fact, "evidence" is called into question altogether, because the unshakable axiom of the claim is held to supercede any and all evidence whatsoever.

The logic behind these claims is precisely what Mr. Colbert parodies on his show: the Bible is the Word of God because it says its the Word of God. Simple enough."

Wow, thanks for the definition. Now I truely know the definition of circular reasoning in addtion to what a circular saw is. Now, just address the part where the poster that you made fun of used circular reasoning.

See above.

Straw man, straw man.

What did Dr. Robertson used to say. . .

Kettle? Pot? Black?

See an eye doc.

Ah, another personal attack. Delightful.

Y'know, Ray, you guys sure aren't doing a whole lot to change my opinion of apologists. Circular logic, axioms, appeals to authority, and attacks on the intelligence/morality of one's opponents seem to be the name of the game here.

I should point out that every single apologist on this thread, without exception, has used such tactics. I'm sensing a trend.

Thanks but no thanks.

 

[elder999]

The "great flood" never happened. It comes from the Epic of Gilgamesh, a Babylonian mythical work.

Laterz.

Trying my best to stay out of this, but it's likely that the great flood did happen on the Caspian and Black sea during the late Paleoithic age....about 5600 B.C. ('course, the "young earth" folks might have a hard time with this, as it's far too early for an earth that's only been around since 5494 B.C. )

See here.

Carry on .

 

[Ray]

To quote Judge Judy:

"Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining."

This has no application to the subject at hand.

An attack is an attack, no matter how you try to rationalize it as impartial "observation" or other such nonsense.

In the post that you are responding to there is not one line that says (nor implies) the "circular reasoning" that you are ascribing to it.

Maybe for once, you could really use those logic skills that you claim to have: read, think and ponder what a person says before making responses that insult and belittle anyone who believes differently than you

Certainly the first sentance is not an attack, unless you suggest that I must automatically "get in line" with your POV.

The second line says that you insulted him. If those words were directed at me, I would be insulted. If I tell you that you insulted me, would that be an attack?

If by "belittled" you mean I pointed out that his belief (and probably yours as well) rests on circular reasoning and axiomatic assumptions, then sure.

My beliefs are not circular - however I do hold some axiomatic beliefs (such as axioms including but not limited to Euclid's geometry).

Ah, the joys of circular logic.

One is reminded of the words of Stephen Colbert:

"Y'see, the thing is that the Bible is the Word of God and can't be wrong. How do we know the Bible is the Word of God?? Because the Bible says it's the Word of God. I mean, what part of my wheel of logic are you not getting on here??"

Lo and behold, friends. Lo and behold.

No, that's not belittling by any means.

That would be the paragraph of my post that you conveniently "forgot" to quote:

This is the case of the aforementioned post, when the claim that the Bible is the "Word of God" and, as such, "cannot be wrong on anything", is made. No evidence or reason is presented. In fact, "evidence" is called into question altogether, because the unshakable axiom of the claim is held to supercede any and all evidence whatsoever.

The logic behind these claims is precisely what Mr. Colbert parodies on his show: the Bible is the Word of God because it says its the Word of God. Simple enough."

Kenpsy7][/B]
Yes the Bible is 100% true. What most scoffers and unbelievers tend to overlook in their observations is that God is God. He is soverign, regardless of how we feel about it. He has providentially written and preserved the Bible. It is Gods providence that has kept the bible intact today, despite all of the attacks on it and subtle attempts to undermine its authority as Gods authoratative word.

That's the quote you referenced in your "humorous escapade." He says: God is God. God kept the Bible intact. He doesn't say it's the word of god because god says it is. He says he believes in a God without saying he believes because of the bible...you are saying the reverse.

What did Dr. Robertson used to say. . .

Kettle? Pot? Black?

Ah, another personal attack. Delightful.

Is that another appeal to authority? Or a subtle attempt at humor?

Y'know, Ray, you guys sure aren't doing a whole lot to change my opinion of apologists. Circular logic, axioms, appeals to authority, and attacks on the intelligence/morality of one's opponents seem to be the name of the game here.

I'm not interested in changing your opinions. Your opinions are amusing to me. You're the one making appeals to authority and throwing out straw men.

Finally, you have no idea what my beliefs on the bible are. You are assuming and assuming incorrectly. All I did was point out that yourinsulted and belittled someone for their belief.

 

[heretic888]

Trying my best to stay out of this, but it's likely that the great flood did happen on the Caspian and Black sea during the late Paleoithic age....about 5600 B.C. ('course, the "young earth" folks might have a hard time with this, as it's far too early for an earth that's only been around since 5494 B.C. )

See here.

Carry on .

Well, there's a difference between a regional flood and a flood that literally encompassed the whole world (requiring some guy to trot the planet gathering two of every species so they wouldn't get wiped out by God's wrath).

In any event, many of the specific details of the Noah story appear to be derived from the Gilgamesh epic. Not surprising, as much of the Genesis myths are simply Semitic recastings of Sumerian-Babylonian folklore.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

This has no application to the subject at hand.

When you're right you're right. I see no reason to carry this conversation any further.

Have a good one.

Laterz.

 

[elder999]

Well, there's a difference between a regional flood and a flood that literally encompassed the whole world (requiring some guy to trot the planet gathering two of every species so they wouldn't get wiped out by God's wrath).

In any event, many of the specific details of the Noah story appear to be derived from the Gilgamesh epic. Not surprising, as much of the Genesis myths are simply Semitic recastings of Sumerian-Babylonian folklore.

Laterz.

Agreed about the details of the stories, but I should point out that in the age in question the "whole world" wasn't really too much more than a man could walk in three days for most people....yet another problem with taking the stories themselves too literally.

 

[KOROHO]

the "whole world" wasn't really too much more than a man could walk in three days.

Not quite true, although this is likely what many believed.

King David understood how vast the world was - he also understood that it was round. Apparently, God revealed much to him about the world and I am sure there were others with this knowledge.

Certainly Jesus, being the Creator of the world, knew this.