Is the Bible 100% truth?

[elder999]

There is no absolute "truth".

There are many absolute "truths":

Water is wet,and you can't step on the same piece of it twice.Women have secrets. Stuff like that...:lol:

 

[Freestyler777]

I'm not advocating blind faith, but this isn't burger king, you can't have it your way ! I think you should either believe wholeheartedly, or disbelieve wholeheartedly, or at the very least, be an open-minded agnostic. Trying to rationalize or explain away some of the supernatural phenomena in the bible is not as beneficial to oneself as being faithful. I once heard a quote, "No one is great without religiousity." I hope that clears that up, because all this writing is making me confused.

 

[Andrew Green]

I think you should either believe wholeheartedly, or disbelieve wholeheartedly,

The problem I see is that that, is impossible.

Religion is always interpretted. There are many branches using the same texts as the basis of there beliefs, and they wholeheartedly believe different things. You cannot accept everything in the bible as is IMO, too much of it was cultural and society of the time it was written. Stoning for example, rather popular in the bible as a punishment, not so much nowadays. If it is a all or nothing thing do believers have to accept stoning as suitable punishment for adultery?

 

[Freestyler777]

I'm not saying you should enforce the commandments of the bible as they are written, it is agreed that much is outdated, suitable for that time but not for ours. For example, in the five books of moses, there are laws about hygiene, agriculture, sacrificing animals, building the tabernacle, so on and so forth.

So maybe literal interpretation is not called for. All I am saying is, don't try to give a scientific explanation to the miracles that were chroniciled in the old and new testament. Everything from the flood that only Noah and his sons survived to the many healings jesus performed should be believed as history, in my opinion.

 

[cstanley]

There are many absolute "truths":

Water is wet,and you can't step on the same piece of it twice.Women have secrets. Stuff like that...:lol:

I notice you put truth in quotes. I think the closest we get to absolute truths (outside of revealed religion, which is its own category viz. Immanuel Kant) is a priori truths as in mathematics. In a presumably finite universe (have they changed that again yet?), can we really speak of absolutes? Maybe the universal absolute is some singularity somewhere. There are theoretical absolutes, like absolute zero, but those are constructs that are hardly demonstrable other than in some derivative way. Geez, why are we doing this?

 

[SageGhost83]

Besides, when's the last time a bush caught on fire and started talking to you?

Uh...When I got totally ripped out of my head while I was at my girlfriend's house and I decided to play with matches in her front yard. Did you know that bushes talk just like curly from the three stooges? They also make lewd comments and try to hit on your significant other.

 

[Adept]

Everything from the flood that only Noah and his sons survived to the many healings jesus performed should be believed as history, in my opinion.

Why?

 

[Boomer]

One must keep in mind that the bible is in fact, a library. It is a collection of many books from many authors.
That said....some authors are better than others.
So that leaves room for error, as many people will often disagree on subjects of such great importance.
Even though God may be infallable....his authors weren't.

 

[aplonis]

The bible contradicts itself quite notably even on its single most important topic, the ressurection. Whosoever thinks it does not is welcome to rebut the outline of just those ressurrection-related discrepancies listed in the link below.

http://monotheism.us/the_risen_jesus.html

Read that, compare it to your own bible, and then try to claim it is not so.

 

[thardey]

The bible contradicts itself quite notably even on its single most important topic, the ressurection. Whosoever thinks it does not is welcome to rebut the outline of just those ressurrection-related discrepancies listed in the link below.

http://monotheism.us/the_risen_jesus.html

Read that, compare it to your own bible, and then try to claim it is not so.

I wasn't going to get involved in this one, since I believe that the OP question is inherently un-answerable, as it is written (while I do believe that there are no stupid questions, I also believe that some questions do not have answers.) But I checked out the above link, and I really feel that I have to respond to it.

This guy really seems to be attacking "Christian Dogma", while instituting a healthy dose of his own, so that his summaries reveal a very strong bias, as well as a basic unfamiliarity with the rest of the Gospels.

To begin with:

Know that all four gospels were written by men entirely absent from the events they attempt to record. Greeks, they were...students of the Apostle Paul. Nor was Paul a witness either. Paul claims to have been converted by an angelic aparition well after the death of Christ.


So not one of these for books was written by actual witnesses. Nor was Paul who told them of it himself a witness. It is hearsay, twice removed. Christian scholars know this well attributing all four works to divine inspiration. But if that be the case had they not ought to agree...at least in the more important details? Yet they differ, markedly so, as we shall read.

Does he have a source for this? How does he know? There are many people who have reason to believe that the book of John was written by the disciple John (A Jew who spoke Greek), who was recorded to have been the only disciple who was present at the crucifixion. Matthew refers to the tax collector who became Jesus' disciple (A Jew who spoke Greek). Others believe that Mark was the disciple of Peter, not Paul. If he is going to simply claim that All of the gospels were written by Greeks under Paul's influence, he needs to provide some form of source for these claims.

Summary: John says one, Matthew two, Mark three. Luke is too vague to bother quoting.

No, John includes one, Mathew two, Mark three. None claim that "only" their listed members came to the tomb. A differing account, yes, but contradictory? Hardly.

Matthew says two Marys saw an angel roll away the stone after an earthquake. Mark says both Marys and also Salome found it already rolled away. John says that just a single Mary found it already rolled away. Neither Mark, nor Luke nor John say a world about an angel moving the stone nor even an earthquake.

From the New American Standard Version: "And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. " (emphasis mine)

Matthew does not prove that the two Marys saw the angel roll away the stone, only that the angel "answered" them when they saw him.

Summary: Matthew and Mark report a solitary angel. Luke and John claim a matched pair. Luke says his two angels were standing. Matthew, Mark and John all have theirs sitting some place or other, each in a uniques locale.

"Report" being the key word. Matthew and Mark did not claim "only" one angel. Also, the word "angel" means primarily "messenger" - not the glowing, winged, haloed figures of children's stories. Since only one of the "angels" was recorded as speaking, perhaps only one was truly a messenger, the other a witness. Often, angels were recorded as being taken for regular people.

Summary: Matthew claims Jesus greeted two Marys, saying, “Hail.” and some futher dialog in the next verse. John has Jesus saying entirely different things to his lone Mary. Luke utterly fails to report Jesus having met any Marys, or even a Solome, at all. Jesus spoke nothing to Mark’s own solitary Mary, but cast out devils instead.

From the NASB: "And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him. Then Jesus said* to them, “Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me.”

Sounds to me like Jesus appeared after they reported it to his disciples. In which case it was all of them that saw Jesus. The parallel passage is here: (Luke 24:36-43)

While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst. 37But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. 38And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39“See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. 41While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; 43and He took it and ate it before them.

Jesus spoke nothing to Mark’s own solitary Mary, but cast out devils instead.

Are you kidding me? Mary had the demons cast out back in Luke 8:2!
"and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and sicknesses: Mary who was called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out"

Seriously, he thinks the demons were cast out after the resurrection? A little background check here, please!

Summary: Luke says one disciple. John says three disciples. But who’s count? Parts of this read like a Homer Simpson narrative. Can’t you just hear the uncertain pauses: “Peter went forth, and ...er...um... that other disciple ...whats-his-name... came to the sepulchre...”

John says three disciples?????? Where? The only way I can figure is that he doesn't realize that "Simon Peter" is "Peter". (Jesus added the name "Peter" to Simon's name, after which he mostly went by "Peter".) That's basic Sunday school stuff.

And as to the "Homer Simpson" explanation, he obviously doesn't know that the "other disciple" was John himself, who was telling the story. He didn't "forget" his own name, but politely referred to himself as "the other disciple". He refers to himself that way consistently throughout the book of John.

Summary: Matthew, Mark and John say Jesus met eleven in Galilee. But Luke says he met ten just outside Jerusalem. Galilee and Jerusalem are quite far apart, especially for men afoot. A furlong being one eighth of a mile, that makes Emmaus 7.5 miles outside Jerusalem while the nearest mountains in Galilee are at Nazareth, sixty plus miles further yet. Judas, already dead by his own hand, was not invited. So the absense of Thomas Didymus makes ten disciples, not eleven.

I don't even know how to politely respond to this one. All he has to do is to read two more verses than the one he quoted:

"After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came*, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.”

Just a little research into the very chapters quoted (and half an open mind) reveals three meetings: One in Jerusalem on the day of the resurrection, at which some doubted, because "they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit." (Luke 24:37), corroborated by Matthew 28:17: "1When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful."

One in Galilee at which 10 of the 11 disciples were present, which allayed the doubts of those 10, and another, 8 days later, at which Thomas finally accepted.

And as for his "concluding arguments" about the discrepancies of the ending of the text, he missed the obvious part about each book choosing to end the story in a different place. John's ends in Galilee, soon after the resurrection, Luke sets up his story to be followed by the book of Acts, so it doesn't have a gap (and only a little overlap), Matthew ends the focus on the "Great Commision", and Mark simply ends the report at the time that Jesus left earth. That's a contradiction? What proof is that?

I'm not trying to prove that the Gospels are divine here, or that they are "The Truth." But please, do some of us the favor of realizing that this guy is not the first in 2,000 years to notice this stuff, and that I'm not saying anything new, either. (Okay, I"ll admit, there are a couple of arguments that I haven't seen before, but that's because they're utter nonsense, like the idea that Jesus cast demons out of Mary after the resurrection, or that three disciples visited the tomb -- Peter, "the other disciple" and "Simon Peter".)

If you're looking for something to shake someone's faith in the Gospels, there are far, far, better ways to do it than these arguments. This guy would be an embarrassment to most of the scholars of the Jesus Seminar, or "higher criticism."

 

[Ray]

If he is going to simply claim that All of the gospels were written by Greeks under Paul's influence, he needs to provide some form of source for these claims.

What is the basis for the claim (or assumption) that Paul (then Saul) witnessed nothing of Jesus's life, sermons or any of the other events? Is there evidence of where Saul was during this time?

 

[Makalakumu]

What is the basis for the claim (or assumption) that Paul (then Saul) witnessed nothing of Jesus's life, sermons or any of the other events? Is there evidence of where Saul was during this time?

Does it really matter? Look at what people are arguing in the face of what science has revealed about the history of the earth. There was no genesis, there was no eden, nor adam or eve, nor ark or noah, nor even the silly burning bushes , 10 commandments, or golden calfs...

Thus, when we come to jesus, we come to a long string of falsehoods that becomes so rediculous to beleive in, its a stretch that such a mind could even find a shred of rationality in it.

For a far closer examination of the jesus and this myth's absolutely miniscule existance on this OLD earth, see this video.

 

[Ray]

Does it really matter? Look at what people are arguing in the face of what science has revealed about the history of the earth. There was no genesis, there was no eden, nor adam or eve, nor ark or noah, nor even the silly burning bushes , 10 commandments, or golden calfs...

Whether evolution or creation there were two first human beings. They lived somewhere.

The bible didn't say there was a burning bush, it said there was a bush which did not burn.

For a far closer examination of the jesus and this myth's absolutely miniscule existance on this OLD earth, see this video.

The bible says nothing about the age of the earth, nor the material is was made from.

 

[fightingfat]

What is the basis for the claim (or assumption) that Paul (then Saul) witnessed nothing of Jesus's life, sermons or any of the other events? Is there evidence of where Saul was during this time?

Acts 22:6-11

While on the road to Damascus (c. A.D. 36) to annihilate the Christian community there, Saul was reportedly blinded by a brilliant light and heard the voice of Christ saying, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?...And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid, but they heard not the voice...."


However Paul claims to have seen Jesus in 1 Corinthians 9-11

 

[fightingfat]

BTW some really wise posts on this. The Bible is not like the Qur'an-- it's not the literal dictation of God. It is a library (as someone wisely said) a collection of literature that reflects an oral tradition.

This is important I think. God creates the world through his word. He is revealed to us through this word made flesh. The Logos made Sarx. The Bible contains the information about God-- his Revelation to us, everything he wants us to know is there, but the authors were human and what they put in there is there as well. With a little study and a lot of common sense we can begin to grow from this Revelation instead of using it to beat each other up.

 

[Monadnock]

BTW some really wise posts on this. The Bible is not like the Qur'an-- it's not the literal dictation of God. It is a library (as someone wisely said) a collection of literature that reflects an oral tradition.

This is important I think. God creates the world through his word. He is revealed to us through this word made flesh. The Logos made Sarx. The Bible contains the information about God-- his Revelation to us, everything he wants us to know is there, but the authors were human and what they put in there is there as well. With a little study and a lot of common sense we can begin to grow from this Revelation instead of using it to beat each other up.

Yes, but it is much easier to be ignorant and carry on with the intolerance and insults. (I'm kidding of course)

 

[shesulsa]

With a little study and a lot of common sense we can begin to grow from this Revelation instead of using it to beat each other up.

Yes, but it is much easier to be ignorant and carry on with the intolerance and insults. (I'm kidding of course)

I might make this my signature. Perhaps we could put it as part of the frame text on the board here.

Just wanted to point out I liked this.

 

[thardey]

What is the basis for the claim (or assumption) that Paul (then Saul) witnessed nothing of Jesus's life, sermons or any of the other events? Is there evidence of where Saul was during this time?

It's widely believed that Paul was familiar with the life of Jesus, and his ministry -- that's why he hated it so much at first.

They guy's point (The author's name is unknown), is that none of the writers were witnesses to anything they wrote about:

Know that all four gospels were written by men entirely absent from the events they attempt to record. Greeks, they were...students of the Apostle Paul.

How should we know it? There are claims from letters written about 150 AD that Matthew and John were eyewitnesses, and that Luke and Mark got their information from Peter, and the other disciples.

I would just like to see some evidence, other than "Know that". If he's claiming ghost writers, then say it, and present the arguments. He could do a lot better than "Know that". There isn't one single source listed on the entire page.

 

[Lynne]

An additional problem is interpretation. Interpretation of the Bible can be used for evil. A perfect example of this is the "Hamidic Hypothesis" that Bob Jones University used to bar blacks from admission They still use the Hamidic Hypothesis to disallow interracial dating. Bob Jones did lose their government funding due to their uncharitable attitude.

Dr. King and other civil rights leaders fought against the Hamidic Hypothesis during the 1960's.

You probably were not taught about the Hamidic Hypothesis in high school nor college; I wasn't. Noah had three sons from which all tribes of the earth came from. Noah's son, Ham, came upon Noah drunk and naked, which was a disgrace. Noah cursed Ham, saying that his descendents would be cursed/enslaved. His descendents are, supposedly, blacks and orientals. I suppose this is how our forefathers of this country (USA)justified slavery up until 120 years ago.

I do not believe the Bible is the literal Word of God. Paul of Tarsus, in my opinion, was still the Pharisee of the Pharisees after he converted to Christianity. The covering of women's heads and women being quiet in church was Jewish tradition. I am not a feminist, but we can see that these traditions do not apply to Christian women today. In some Eastern Orthodox churches, women still cover their heads to show submission to their husbands. In the Jewish tradition today, there are female rabbis and many Jewish women do not cover their heads, especially in the Reformed Synagogues. You could rant and say this is disobedience to God. But is it? Times change. We can say that God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. But I see a huge divide between the God of the old covenant and the new covenant. Under the old covenant, God swallowed whole tribes of people with earth and smote them from every direction. Under the new covenant, the lesson is forgiveness. I cannot reconcile the two, despite the fact that there are two different covenants. I understand the mission of Jesus Christ and I also believe that Paul and Jesus' teachings are at odds at times.

I have never read the Revised Standard Version of the bible. Supposedly, this is the direct translation of the Greek. That could be interesting. The New King James Version has an error in the Book of Revelation; the NIV version has a misleading word in the New Testament (sorry I cannot remember the errors/misleading translation).

What about Genesis? Most fundamentalist Christian pastors teach "one day to equal a thousand years." What does the Pentateuch say? Does one day in that context mean a span of time or does it mean a literal 1000-year period?

What about eschatology, the doctrine of the end times? Dispensationalists believe in a rapture of the church and the fulfillment of the Book of Revelation. Many other Protestant denominations, as well as the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches believe differently, that the Book of Revelation was fulfilled in 70 AD when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed.

What about soteriology, the doctrine of salvation? Some believe in predestination; others do not. Some believe in free will; some do not. Some believe once saved, always saved; some do not.

 

[Ray]

Acts 22:6-11

While on the road to Damascus (c. A.D. 36) to annihilate the Christian community there, Saul was reportedly blinded by a brilliant light and heard the voice of Christ saying, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?...And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid, but they heard not the voice...."


However Paul claims to have seen Jesus in 1 Corinthians 9-11

Amazing. Utterly amazing. Paul in 1 Cor 9-11 doesn't say whether he saw the Savior on the road to Damascus or on another occaison. It is wholly consistent with the office and calling of an apostle to have a testimony of Christ; and I don't know of a rule book that says they only get one chance at having a vision or a non-visionary visit by Jesus, or any other heavenly being.