Is the Bible 100% truth?

[tellner]

An excellent post as usual thardey. You remind me a lot of another passionate, intelligent Christian, Todd Erven, who isn't afraid to look reality in the face.

 

[thardey]

An excellent post as usual thardey. You remind me a lot of another passionate, intelligent Christian, Todd Erven, who isn't afraid to look reality in the face.

Looks like a fun blog- the kind of guy I would like to meet. Someday when in Portland, you and I'll have to meet face-to-face and get a drink somewhere.

 

[tellner]

Works for me even though Todd E ("No, the other Todd E") lives in Seattle

 

[Bodhisattva]

We've all heard that saying ... "Either it all applies or none of it applies."

What say you?

Study religion and you come to find many of the stories in the Bible are just retold version of stories and concepts that exist in other, previously existing religions.

There is much in the bible in coded format referring to the enlightenment process/experience and the personal changes and understandings that occur as a result of it.

But most of this is mis-interpreted by religious figures that want to maintain their positions in society.

And much of the rest of it is mere superstition.

--

If the bible is 100% truth, and we lived by it, it would be horrible to be a woman.

 

[SageGhost83]

Study religion and you come to find many of the stories in the Bible are just retold version of stories and concepts that exist in other, previously existing religions.

There is much in the bible in coded format referring to the enlightenment process/experience and the personal changes and understandings that occur as a result of it.

But most of this is mis-interpreted by religious figures that want to maintain their positions in society.

And much of the rest of it is mere superstition.

--

If the bible is 100% truth, and we lived by it, it would be horrible to be a woman.

Amen!

 

[Xue Sheng]

Study religion and you come to find many of the stories in the Bible are just retold version of stories and concepts that exist in other, previously existing religions.

There is much in the bible in coded format referring to the enlightenment process/experience and the personal changes and understandings that occur as a result of it.

But most of this is mis-interpreted by religious figures that want to maintain their positions in society.

And much of the rest of it is mere superstition.

--

If the bible is 100% truth, and we lived by it, it would be horrible to be a woman.

Don't have to study much just read The Epic of Gilgamesh (from sometime around 2150-2000 BC) and you will see that

 

[thardey]

Study religion and you come to find many of the stories in the Bible are just retold version of stories and concepts that exist in other, previously existing religions.

There is much in the bible in coded format referring to the enlightenment process/experience and the personal changes and understandings that occur as a result of it.

But most of this is mis-interpreted by religious figures that want to maintain their positions in society.

And much of the rest of it is mere superstition.

--

If the bible is 100% truth, and we lived by it, it would be horrible to be a woman.

At first reading, I was about to dismiss/ignore this, but on a second look, I really have to agree with the middle two paragraphs.

There's a lot of "Christianity" out there that isn't based on the Bible, or at least, it's based on the surface reading of it, without regard for the "enlightenment process" as you put it. In fact, the whole story is a picture of enlightenment from the beginning to the end. In the beginning, you have people "worshiping" God because of much of the same reasons that other people worshiped God. The stories that were important to them, and their understanding of God wasn't much different than the cultures around them. God was just another God, generally considered a god of the Desert, then later, a god of the Mountains.

Eventually, (with the influence of King David, and his Psalms) God is introduced to be a God of the heart, but even that is not understood. Later, Jesus introduces God as a God of attitudes, not actions. Next Paul understand him as a God of the soul. The Bible itself is a journey of enlightenment. It goes from an Impersonal God of action, to a personal God of inner "completeness."

That's why Christians today don't follow the commands of Moses - they're not appropriate anymore. In fact, the more you begin to understand Paul's writing, the less rules there are, until there is only one left - Love God as he loves you, and love others in the way that God does. How that love is shown isn't a system of "Flow-chart" Religion, but an "enlightened" person will be able to learn how to do that. In that way, the entire law is "fulfilled."

But, of course, you can't "Sell" that, it has to be a personal journey. Which is bad for many "Professional" Religious leaders. They want to teach you a version of Christianity that doesn't empower, but rather causes fear. This keep the professional in a position of power. That's why religion and politics work so "well" (in a horribly destructive way) together. Create fear, then offer protection, and you have a following!

As for being a woman in the Bible, a lot of it is in the bias of the translators, and the society in which the translation is made. There are actually some interesting debates about what the Greek actually said, and how that is to be interpreted. They just don't reach the public eye very often.

Gotta go, I'll talk more later.

 

[Ray]

Don't have to study much just read The Epic of Gilgamesh (from sometime around 2150-2000 BC) and you will see that

I don't the story of Gilgamesh to be all that similar to Noah as some have suggested (although I have to read both in English because I don't know the original languages). I also don't accept the deluge stories of accounts of the Annanuki (sp?) who live on the planet that orbits close to the sun and then back into the Ort Cloud.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Gilgamesh is the oldest existing piece of literature we have at the moment. It includes a "flood story" just like the bible.

However, there are many more "religious" writings that have "flood stories" that were written before the bible.....WWAAAAYYYYY before the bible.

It's important to understand, and feel free to ask your English Lit professor about this, that prior to written stories everything was passed by word of mouth. Traders, etc would exchange stories passed down through the generations with others they met in their travels.

So....when scribes actually started to write more things down it's only natural that they would incorporate all the "stories" they had been told.

This is actually also believed to be the case with Gilgamesh. That work is thought to be a compilation of tales passed down over the generations...

...so that begs the quesion....just HOW old do you think the flood story is?

It also begs the question, If the bible is 100% truth why wasn't it written prior to all the other religious writings? Did "man" forget about the Garden of Eden (also correlates to another part of Gilgamesh by the way) and had to be reminded centuries later when the Old Testement was written?

Something to ponder.

 

[thardey]

Gilgamesh is the oldest existing piece of literature we have at the moment. It includes a "flood story" just like the bible.

However, there are many more "religious" writings that have "flood stories" that were written before the bible.....WWAAAAYYYYY before the bible.

It's important to understand, and feel free to ask your English Lit professor about this, that prior to written stories everything was passed by word of mouth. Traders, etc would exchange stories passed down through the generations with others they met in their travels.

So....when scribes actually started to write more things down it's only natural that they would incorporate all the "stories" they had been told.

This is actually also believed to be the case with Gilgamesh. That work is thought to be a compilation of tales passed down over the generations...

...so that begs the quesion....just HOW old do you think the flood story is?

At least as old as the Flood, itself? :ultracool

It also begs the question, If the bible is 100% truth why wasn't it written prior to all the other religious writings? Did "man" forget about the Garden of Eden (also correlates to another part of Gilgamesh by the way) and had to be reminded centuries later when the Old Testement was written?

Something to ponder.

Most Bible Scholars (not the Higher-Criticism types, like the JEPD scholars, but the Pastor/Priest types.) Believe that Genesis is a compilation by Moses of the Oral histories passed down through the generations, similar to Gilgamesh. As far as the book of Genesis goes, no one (who's educated, anyway) thinks that Moses simply came up with all the stories in Genesis while out communing with God, but rather compiled many of the stories into one written record. Some even think that he may have begun the compilation process while still living as Pharaoh's Daughter's son, when he had access to the royal libraries, but there's no way to really know, aside from conjecture.

So, to answer your question (just an aside, "begging the question" means "begging off a question" so as to avoid answering it - not "begging for a question.") no one forgot about it, it just was passed down orally, just like you suggested above.

Since Abraham's (the father of the Israelites) homeland was in the same area of Babylon (Ur, the land of which Gilgamesh was king), it's very possible/probable that the "Flood Story" has a common origin, one branch got recorded in the Epic, and one was recorded in the Tanackh (A.k.a "Old Testament"). One took over a year, and one took two weeks. In one, Noah is "favored by God" and in the other, Utnapishtim is made immortal. The stories about the birds released (The Bible includes a dove and a raven, the Epic adds a swallow) definitely indicate some sort of common origin.

• Gilgamesh ruled Ur about 2,600 BCE. Abraham left Ur somewhere around 2,000 BCE. After a couple of generations, the Israelites ended up as slaves in Egypt.
• The Epic was first started around 2,000 BCE (The incomplete Sumerian Version), with the oldest complete version (the "standard" Akkadian Version.) completed about 1,300 BCE.
• Moses would have compiled the book of Genesis sometime between 1,300 BCE and 1,200 BCE.

However, "First" does not automatically mean "most reliable." There are many other factors involved, such as the message behind the stories. In these areas, the Epic, and the Bible are drastically different.

---------------------------

If, on the other hand, you are one from the JEPD crowd, then the flood story was added to the Bible during the Babylonian captivity almost 1,000 years after Moses, when the Jews came in contact with the Epic of Gilgamesh, and adapted it for their own, new "rediscovered" history. In that case, the flood story wasn't forgotten at all, because the Jews never would have known about it in the first place. Of course, in that theory, the entire Tanackh is a hoax.

 

[GBlues]

This is my take on it.

First and Foremost I would like to address the whole god created the earth in 6 days bit. Alot of people misinterpret the bible on this, IT IS NOT, a literal day. Not a 24 hour period on earth. Later in the bible if your read, ( and don't ask for the passage been along time since I've read it, but it is in the old testament, I'm pretty sure, and I know it's there read it with my own two eyes), furthere in to the bible, it states, 'that a 1,000 years to man is as one day to god, and one day to god is as a thousand years to man'. So that being said it would have actually taken god six-thousand years to create the earth. Ok, still a monumental task to a human to even fathom, but if your an almighty god, maybe not.

Second if you believe the bible to be true, then you would have to believe the bible when it says, " That god can not lie'. So if we go on that premise, that god can not lie, then when he says that the bible is his ' inspired word, as written by man' then you would have to believe that god would not allow his words to be changed. Now in my mind that doesn't mean that it can't be changed, it just means that the message won't be changed. How could he allow that? If he can not lie, then he wouldn't, because otherwise you could say, "Well, over here you say this, but now you say this, therefore you have lied, and should let me into the kingdom of heaven." So, I mean it can get pretty complicated.

Do I believe in the bible. Yes, I believe it to be a factual document, personally, that is my belief. I believe, however, that man made religion not god. I believe that the christian faith was getting very big and drawing a large following and the romans decided that it would be easier if they made one singel christian religion while interjecting some of there own beliefs, so as to keep some of there faith alive, and they saw this as a much easier way to control the christian people, than to just slaughter them all. In other words they used this as a way to control the masses.

As an example I watched on the history channel, how the idea of hell, came about, and basically during the midle ages, the church was losing alot of paritioners and had to find a way to keep the money rolling in so they invented the idea of hell. They made a pretty compelling argument that I personally found to be very valid.

And as far as not following moses' teachings, you must remember that Jesus said, on several occasions, " if you wish to get into the kingdom of heaven follow the commandments", this meaning the ten commandments. That's how important he thought they were.

ANyways, not wanting to turn this into a preaching session, I think that pretty much stamps my belief. The bible for me, is 100% true. Thank you for reading and everybody have a wonderful day.

 

[Ray]

And as far as not following moses' teachings, you must remember that Jesus said, on several occasions, " if you wish to get into the kingdom of heaven follow the commandments", this meaning the ten commandments. That's how important he thought they were.

could you cite the reference? I believe that there were about 613 commandment...the 10 are pretty famous though...

 

[Kacey]

could you cite the reference? I believe that there were about 613 commandment...the 10 are pretty famous though...

There are 613 mitzvot (lit. "good deeds") of God for behavior in Judaism (equivalent to the number of bones and significant organs in the body) - but about 1/3 cannot be kept any more, as they refer to events that can only occur in the long-destroyed Temple in Jerusalem, and some are gender-specific (men only). These are mitzvot for behavior, and most non-Jews do not follow them. A complete list can be found on Wikipedia.

 

[Ray]

There are 613 mitzvot (lit. "good deeds") of God for behavior in Judaism (equivalent to the number of bones and significant organs in the body) - but about 1/3 cannot be kept any more, as they refer to events that can only occur in the long-destroyed Temple in Jerusalem, and some are gender-specific (men only). These are mitzvot for behavior, and most non-Jews do not follow them. A complete list can be found on Wikipedia.

What is the reference that Christ said it was not necessary to follow them?

 

[Kacey]

What is the reference that Christ said it was not necessary to follow them?

I don't know... I'm Jewish, and haven't read the New Testament in particular detail. Perhaps someone else knows.

 

[lemon_meringue]

Ok, I feel a little weird jumping in at page 25- I don't want to get into a whole big debate, I just want to share something I found recently.

I know very little about Judaism, but I have studied aspects of the New Testament and I seem to remember doing an essay about Jesus and Jewish law. The following is an extract of some of the notes I made while researching- I can't find the bibliography and can't remember where it came from, so I apologise for not quoting my sources:

Jewish law is the focus of many passages in the Gospels. According to one set, especially prominent in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7), Jesus advised against his followers observing the law unwaveringly (Matthew 5:17–48). According to another set, he did not adhere strictly to the law himself and even transgressed current opinions about some aspects of it, especially the Sabbath (e.g., Mark 3:1–5). It is conceivable that both were true, that he was extremely strict about marriage and divorce (Matthew 5:31–32; Mark 10:2–12) but less stringent about the Sabbath.

The study of Jesus and the law is, like any other study of law, highly technical. In general, the legal disputes in the Gospels fall within the parameters of those of 1st-century Judaism. Some opposed minor healing on the Sabbath (such as Jesus is depicted as performing), but others permitted it. Similarly, the Sadducees regarded the Pharisees' observance of the Sabbath as too lax. There also were many disagreements in 1st-century Judaism about purity. While some Jews washed their hands before eating (Mark 7:5), others did not. It is worth noting that Jesus did not oppose the purity laws. On the contrary, according to Mark 1:40–44, he accepted the Mosaic laws on the purification of lepers (Leviticus 14).

In one statement in the Gospels, however, Jesus apparently opposed Jewish law as universally understood. Jews agreed not to eat carnivores, rodents, insects, and weasels, as well as pork and shellfish (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14), and the last two prohibitions set them apart from other people. According to Mark 7:19, Jesus “declared all foods clean.” If he did so, Jesus directly opposed the law of God as given to Moses. This seems to be only Mark’s inference, however, and is not in the parallel passage in Matthew 15. More importantly, Peter seems to have first learned of this after Jesus’ death, by means of a heavenly revelation (Acts 10:9–16). Perhaps Jesus did not, then, directly oppose any aspect of the sacred law.

He probably did, however, have legal disputes in which he defended himself by quoting scriptural precedent, which implies that he did not set himself against the law (Mark 2:23–28). His willingness to make his own decisions regarding the law was probably viewed with suspicion. Jesus was autonomous; he interpreted the law according to his own rules and decided how to defend himself when criticised. He was by no means the only person in ancient Judaism who struck out on his own, acting in accord with his own perception of God’s will, and so he was not uniquely troubling in this respect, but such behaviour might be suspicious nonetheless.

Sorry if this is irrelevant.....just my 2 cents

 

[GBlues]

could you cite the reference? I believe that there were about 613 commandment...the 10 are pretty famous though...

Well I found one passage in the bible for you it's Mark 10:17-22. It reads as such. I'll be typing verbatim from the bible I have on me at the moment. It reads, " 17 Now as He was going out on the road, one came runnint, knelt before Him, and , asked Him, 'Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?' 18 So Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. 19 You know the commandments:' Do not commit adultery,Do not murder, Do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother'. 20 And he answered and said to Him, 'Teacher, all of these things I have kept from my youth.' 21 Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, ' One thing you lack: go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and tou will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.' 22 But he was sad at this word, and went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions."

I hope that was helpful if I have to look up anymore scriptures it will be a task, haven't read it in awhile. You get rusty like anything else.

 

[Ray]

Well I found one passage in the bible for you it's Mark 10:17-22. It reads as such. I'll be typing verbatim from the bible I have on me at the moment. It reads, " 17 Now as He was going out on the road, one came runnint, knelt before Him, and , asked Him, 'Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?' 18 So Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. 19 You know the commandments:' Do not commit adultery,Do not murder, Do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother'. 20 And he answered and said to Him, 'Teacher, all of these things I have kept from my youth.' 21 Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, ' One thing you lack: go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and tou will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.' 22 But he was sad at this word, and went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions."

I hope that was helpful if I have to look up anymore scriptures it will be a task, haven't read it in awhile. You get rusty like anything else.

It is very helpful. The 10 commandments are a good start to being able to do (or give up) anything and everything that God asks of us--to love him and our neighbors. Otherwise the great possessions would have been the young ruler's to keep to obtain eternal life.

I heard him referred to as the "13th dicsiple." Almost the guy who forsook all else to follow the savior.

 

[YinYang]

The bible is whatever you want it to be, its by faith anyway. If it contains truth or lies, then it does.

Much peace,
Andrew

 

[GBlues]

Here is something else to remember about the bible. And it is very important. That being that if you read the old testament as if it were a history book. Which is the way most religions view it, in reality. Moses parted the red sea, (reed sea actually, the history channel did a great doc. on this one), noah and the flood, etc, etc,etc....You get the point?

So if your reading a history book, you don't interepret what happened, you read the facts. For some reason though we get to the new testament, and we have to interpret everything. The reality is there isn't much to interpret. As an example, Jesus, spoke in parrabels. I forget the scripture but one of the apostles asked him bluntly, " Teacher why do you speak in parrabells?" and his reply was, " So that those who are not of my flock will not understand until they have seen these things come to pass." In other words Jesus was a carpenter. Basically he was a working class individual. So that if even in todays time, if I said something like, " When you are painting your house, you don't leave the floor uncovered, for if you did the paint would stain the carpet. So to when you renovate your heavenly fathers house do not forget to do the same for it as you would your own house." Ok, so most of us would understand that when we paint the walls of our house we need to lay down a drop cloth, or cover the floors with plastic because we don't want to get overspray, or roller drops on the carpet. Pretty simple to understand then that hey, " When you take a shower don't forget to wash the bottoms of your feet, because your body is considered to be a temple to god, which therefore would be his house, and we should keep it clean, yeah? See where I'm going with this? But to a priest who has never done anything but preach and has never done any kind of hard labor he probably won't get what I'm saying without a little difficulty. That was the reason for the parrabels. Not to be interpretted but, more to be understood, by those that wanted to listen and learn, for heartfelt reasons.

So then you get to Revelations, and this is really where my point is going. You read the whole bible, and really it's meant to be literal, but then we get to the final book of the bible, and all of a sudden we say, "Well, it's got to be symbolical." WHy? If the rest of the bible was meant to be read literally, and it was. This happened, this happened, so and so forth, but then we aren't to believe that there may one day really be bugs with long hair, and faces of men, with arms and torso of man, but the lower body, a horse and tail of a scorpion, and they have wings to fly. Now somebody, says, " Well, he's talking about an Apache Helicopter." WHa???? Really???? How do you come to that conclusion? "Well, JOhn was seeing the future and didn't know what he was seeing and described it the only way he knew how." Really?? Cause that doesn't sound like a man made machine to me??? Especially not when it says, " And they would have the power to harm man for six months, and they would pray and beg for death but it would not come." Uhm....that sounds like a poisonous sting to me?! Doesn't it to you?

So this is my point if you believe in the bible, then read it like a book. A book of how to live your life, because that really is what it was meant for. Which is what the new testament is really all about. A way to live your life in accordance with god's commands. If you choose to worship the god of the bible. The final chapter is only a warning of the things to come that we might be prepared, and when you see these things coming, you know that your deliverance is near. God never created religion, man did. God gave us guidelines to live our life in accordance with the way he wants to live. So that none may perish. :asian: