Is the Bible 100% truth?

[Yoshiyahu]

The Question should be do you live your life by the Bible?

If the Answer is No then we know you don't believe it?

But if you do live your life by the bible than obviously you feel it is something worth studing and modeling!

 

[zeeberex]

The Question should be do you live your life by the Bible?

If the Answer is No then we know you don't believe it?

But if you do live your life by the bible than obviously you feel it is something worth studing and modeling!

Actually there is potential "Abrahamic" overlap, there are bits of the torah in the old testament, and gospels and other things biblical in the Quran, it represents a long tradition and at least three religions....

 

[GBlues]

The Question should be do you live your life by the Bible?

If the Answer is No then we know you don't believe it?

But if you do live your life by the bible than obviously you feel it is something worth studing and modeling!

I do my best to live my life by those principles in the bible. I fall far short disgracefully so, but do make an attempt. It's hard to live by those values. The spirit is strong but the flesh is weak. We all have our own trials and tribulations. Please don't think any less of me for my honest answer.

 

[theEXxman]

From my studies I have come to believe as far as the Old Testament is concerned that is a heavily edited document based and a mishmash of the egyptian, canaanite, and mesopatamian religions that may have been combined with zoroastrianism during the times of the captivity that reflect the proto-Jewish and Jewish beliefs in Mono-theism. Basically the study of what they believe is a study on how religion evolves and can evolve over a period of time. The text's that Abraham probably used where most likely the Enuma Elish which was the Sumerian Creation tablets and then you get to the time of Moses which he would have studied the egyptian religion as well as the canaanite gods(land of median),then when the Jews were taken to the land of persia, they mingled with the various indiginous religions including zorastrianism. Then you get to the New Testament. The big thing to remember is the Council of Nicea which basically said this is what is acceptible scripture and this is what isn't. So the claptrap that you get from sunday school is not as clear-cut as they would like you to believe. But I will say that I'm not an Indiana Jones and don't have a Phd and am not on official expert, but I've come to this conclusion through various sources to numerous to mention and spending to much time in various libraries. Basically I'm a geek

 

[theEXxman]

And I don't agree with Sitchin's idea of the Annunaki being aliens. I just basically believe that religion evolves as man evolves.

 

[kaizasosei]

Then who created the annunaki?? Kindof downplaying the simple wonder of life with exotic ideas of some kind of superior yet frightfully discomforting theories of something possibly irrelevant, never mind reeking of fraudulence.


IGNORABIMUS

There are limits to our knowledge but at least we can trust our instincts.

Sitchin is great if you are into babylonian mythology or sci-fi paradigm mindwarp. However, i without being religious, i find it insulting to downplay the worth of life and mankind that already has it's mind in the gutter enough.

j

 

[Ray]

And I don't agree with Sitchin's idea of the Annunaki being aliens. I just basically believe that religion evolves as man evolves.

As I understnad it, his translation of ancient texts has been found to be lacking in correctness.

 

[kaizasosei]

If the bible is 100% true, nowadays, you'd be looking at a lot of time.

j

 

[TigerCraneGuy]

I do my best to live my life by those principles in the bible. I fall far short disgracefully so, but do make an attempt. It's hard to live by those values. The spirit is strong but the flesh is weak. We all have our own trials and tribulations. Please don't think any less of me for my honest answer.

Less of you?

Never happen, my friend.

To believe in the God of the Bible is to strive for moral and spiritual excellence; not doing so to 'earn' salvation, for that is the false gospel of works, but doing so out of love and gratitude for the gift we have already recieved.

All fall short, myself included. Realizing this and repenting and continuing to run the race, to fight the good fight; that... is what matters.

Keep on striving!

In Christ,
TCG

 

[astrobiologist]

Talking snakes? I missed that on the Discovery Channel...

Water turning into wine? We definitely don't teach that in organic chemistry...


I don't want to hate on anyone for their religion. You're are free to believe what you want to believe. If the christian bible gives you hope or helps you to be a better person, then I have no direct qualms. But to say that the bible is 100% truth is to blind yourself to reason and rationality.

Some may say that Santa Clause is 100% truth, but do you believe that?
How about the zodiac? Or visits from extraterrestrial beings who, for some reason, only like to anal probe people from a few select countries?

This is one of those topics that always draws a lot of heat... Like I said, I'm not trying to directly attack any of you who are christians. I just don't think you can really accept the christian bible as 100% truth in today's society.

 

[elder999]

Talking snakes? I missed that on the Discovery Channel...

That's 'cause it's allegorical.

Water turning into wine? We definitely don't teach that in organic chemistry...

There are several ways to perform that trick today, but archaeologists have found these, made of clay on Egyptian digs-so the trick is at least 4,000 years old, and would certainly have been known to someone educated in Egypt and the "east" as the historical Jesus must have been......
......and,hey-it was a party, right? :lol:

 

[astrobiologist]

Back in college, if I could have turned water into Coors Light I would have been everyone's favorite guy I guess...

 

[astrobiologist]

That's 'cause it's allegorical.

That's my point, though. Allegory is, inherently, not 100% truth. It's a representation, a metaphor, a symbolic or figurative way to demonstrate some other (usually more important) issue.

I actually haven't read the bible in a long time, but I recall the story of Jonah and the whale... that was allegory, yet there are many people who seriously believe that Jonah survived in the stomache of a whale.

Likewise, there are those who honestly believe that everything in the bible is meant to be the literal truth, 100%. I guess that just kind of floors me...

 

[elder999]

I actually haven't read the bible in a long time, but I recall the story of Jonah and the whale... that was allegory, yet there are many people who seriously believe that Jonah survived in the stomache of a whale.

Actually, it says "great fish," and it might have be physically possible, but, yeah, it's allegory as well......

 

[thardey]

That's my point, though. Allegory is, inherently, not 100% truth. It's a representation, a metaphor, a symbolic or figurative way to demonstrate some other (usually more important) issue.

I actually haven't read the bible in a long time, but I recall the story of Jonah and the whale... that was allegory, yet there are many people who seriously believe that Jonah survived in the stomache of a whale.

Likewise, there are those who honestly believe that everything in the bible is meant to be the literal truth, 100%. I guess that just kind of floors me...

Jonah is nothing. Crucify a guy, and have him spontaneously come back to life 3 days later, then have him levitate himself into the sky. (That's what the Jonah story is "allegory" for, BTW)

If you can't accept that miracle, then the whole New Testament is nothing. Water into wine, Feeding the 4,000, and the 5,000, and the rest are nothing compared to that.

And that's the point, it's a miracle. God intervening in normal, established, cause and effect, for a specific purpose. If you can't accept miracles, then the whole New Testament has to be thrown out -- because that means the gospels would have to be written after events that were prophesied (another miracle), which means they would be revisionist history to back up Paul's letters, which would have to be nothing more than a scam which turned out very badly for Paul (Saul).

The whole belief of Christianity starts with the biggest miracle of all. If you accept that, then the other stuff is kid's play.

If you can't accept miracles, then no amount of allegory is going to help.

There are a lot of allegories in the Bible: parables, prophecies, poetry, etc. But they're obviously intended to be allegories. The story of Easter is clearly written to be interpreted as history. To call it allegory is patronizing. Either call it a lie, call it a mistake, or call it history.

At least let's be honest.

 

[elder999]

Jonah is nothing. Crucify a guy, and have him spontaneously come back to life 3 days later, then have him levitate himself into the sky. (That's what the Jonah story is "allegory" for, BTW)

If you can't accept that miracle, then the whole New Testament is nothing. Water into wine, Feeding the 4,000, and the 5,000, and the rest are nothing compared to that..

Well, what if he wasn't "dead," but in a coma, or a very low metabolic state-or he was "dead," but started breathing again after he was buried? These are all commonly accepted medical occurences today, but would have been "miraculous" back then, especially after all that he'd so publicly suffered.

Additionally, while tradition has it that he "levitated himself into the sky," Biblical verse isn't so exact at all:

Luke 24:50-51
50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

It almost implies that-tradition notwithstanding-the Ascension wasn't even witnessed, never mind how it took place physically, or whether it took place "physically" at all......I'm not even going to get into how it reads in Greek...

 

[thardey]

Well, what if he wasn't "dead," but in a coma, or a very low metabolic state-or he was "dead," but started breathing again after he was buried? These are all commonly accepted medical occurences today, but would have been "miraculous" back then, especially after all that he'd so publicly suffered.

Ah, but then the whole teaching about suffering for our sins (by death), and being raised from the dead through "the power of an indestructable life (Heb. 7 16). To wash us in his blood, and to re-open the path to a relationship with God is all useless.

If he didn't die, then the whole thing is a mistake. If he did die (a goal at which the Romans were fairly skilled), but didn't raise to life, then the whole thing is a hoax. Either way, nothing I'd want to base my life on. (Now or eternal.)

If he did die, for most of three days, and came back to life, then the other miracles are easy to believe.

Additionally, while tradition has it that he "levitated himself into the sky," Biblical verse isn't so exact at all:



It almost implies that-tradition notwithstanding-the Ascension wasn't even witnessed, never mind how it took place physically, or whether it took place "physically" at all......I'm not even going to get into how it reads in Greek...

It's a bit clearer in Acts 1:

9After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. 10They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."

Levitated, or vanished into the sky, either one is quite a feat. But apparently there were witnesses. A miracle was claimed.

Whether you believe it or not, or whether you explain it away, you still are only given the options that the disciples were either mistaken, deceived, deceivers, or accurate. The idea that the above verses were meant to be read as allegory is quite a stretch.

Compare the reading to some of the Gnostic Gospels, like Thomas, Mary, and Judas. The reading there is obviously written to be read as allegory, to be explained by a teacher who knew the secret meanings.

Luke tries to be as plain as day.

And it was read that way. Josephus talks about the early Christian church, who claimed that Jesus had died, and risen on the third day, and done many other "miraculous things."

 

[Ken Morgan]

Honestly boys and girls? Believe what you want to believe. Just don’t shove it down the throats of others.

I have a core group of friends who are Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Hindu and many Atheists. We all get along fine. Do your own thing and don’t preach to others.

 

[elder999]

And it was read that way. Josephus talks about the early Christian church, who claimed that Jesus had died, and risen on the third day, and done many other "miraculous things."

Don't have enough time now, but-

References to Jesus in Josephus have been pretty much discredited as later additions.

References to Jesus's ascension have been shown from the earliest extant manuscripts to also be later additions, especially those in Mark and Luke. Interstingly, the one in Acts predates the ones in the Gospels-which is, of course, chronologically unlikely, unless......

As for both possible scenarios for the resurrection, well-the first case of not being "quite dead" could be seen as "miraculous" today, even if medically and physically feasible. (Definition of a "miracle": occurrence lacking scientific explanation. Medical definition of a "miracle": see misdiagnosis. :lol: ) One can only imagine the reaction to such a scenario 2,000 years ago. Not saying that either one is what happened-and recognize your "belief in the resurrection" as "faith," but the topic here isn't the nature of faith, it's whether the Bible is 100% accurate-as I posted earlier, the Bible is full of beauty and truth-but often short on historical facts, and thus not 100% accurate.

We can't even be sure that the resurrection wasn't meant as allegory-men decided what the "real story" was some 300-odd years after the "facts"-such as they were at that point in time-and those same men started eradicating any other version of the story from that point onward.

 

[thardey]

Don't have enough time now, but-

References to Jesus in Josephus have been pretty much discredited as later additions.

That's too bad -- I haven't seen anything concrete on that, and I would really like to.

References to Jesus's ascension have been shown from the earliest extant manuscripts to also be later additions, especially those in Mark and Luke. Interstingly, the one in Acts predates the ones in the Gospels-which is, of course, chronologically unlikely, unless......

As for both possible scenarios for the resurrection, well-the first case of not being "quite dead" could be seen as "miraculous" today, even if medically and physically feasible. (Definition of a "miracle": occurrence lacking scientific explanation. Medical definition of a "miracle": see misdiagnosis. :lol: ) One can only imagine the reaction to such a scenario 2,000 years ago. Not saying that either one is what happened-and recognize your "belief in the resurrection" as "faith," but the topic here isn't the nature of faith, it's whether the Bible is 100% accurate-as I posted earlier, the Bible is full of beauty and truth-but often short on historical facts, and thus not 100% accurate.

We can't even be sure that the resurrection wasn't meant as allegory-men decided what the "real story" was some 300-odd years after the "facts"-such as they were at that point in time-and those same men started eradicating any other version of the story from that point onward.

I don't disagree with that at all. And you're quite clearly stating a non-supernatural interpretation of the miracles. Thank you. Believe what you'll believe, and be honest about it. You've studied enought that I respect your position, and I know that you haven't come to it through ignorance.

It's the "everybody is right -- all religions are the same, I can't disagree with anyone's personal belief system" idea that, when applied to what we now have as Christianity, which is in reality pretty exclusive, shows ignorance.

There are a few religions out there that embrace all religions as "correct" and that's fine, I'm curious to know more about how they actually work. (How do they reconcile disagreements?) Christianity is not one of them. When you (not you, Elder) simply allegorize anything that doensn't fit into your worldview, then the message of the New Testament becomes worthless.

Even if it is left as something to disagree about, it still has merit, because it will stimulate personal growth. If it's allegorized beyond recognition, then it's not saying anything, and there's nothing to disagree with, or agree with. It would be like arguing over the Sunday comics -- who cares?

It becomes "fluffy bunny" philosophy, which doesn't help me, or anybody. That's what I'm trying to avoid.