Is the Bible 100% truth?

[elder999]

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

I know it's Wikipedia, but it has the basics right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

 

[arnisador]

I thought it was pretty much agreed that one one of the references as indeed to "that" Jesus but that it had been aggrandized by later scribes.

 

[gardawamtu1]

"Yes, I believe all of the Bible is true and correct, even in symbolism
No, the Bible contains skewed opinions and is filled with fabrications
Not sure"

I have to say as a biblical scholar, the way this poll is worded bothers me (with all due respect to the original poster). True and correct are very positive terms, but not all truth is factual. For instance, we know from Babylonian chronicles that Belshazzar is the son of Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon, not Nebuchadnezzar as Daniel 5 suggests. THat does not negate the truths that Daniel proclaims about trust in human power. The term "fabrication" has highly negative connotations. Many of the narratives in the Bible contain historical facts, while others do not. The presence or absence of "fact" does not tell one whether or not the narrative contains truth.

While there is a "not sure" option, that really isn't a mediating position.

Moreover, there are so many voices within the Bible with different theological perspectives. Should one divorce their foreign wives as Ezra and Nehemiah suggest, or can a foreign wife be an asset to the community as in the book of Ruth? Can a foreigner or eunuch be banished from worship as in Deuteronomy 23? Or should they be allowed to participate as full members of the community in Isaiah 56.

Did Jesus come to abolish the law? According to Ephesians 2:15 Christ nullified the law. But if you read Matt 5:17, Christ did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. No matter how you parse these Greek words, fulfillment can not be the same as nullification.

These questions are much more complex than the simple "Is the Bible true or not?" That kind of question leads to the kind of absolutism that ushers in diatribes and does not invite respectful dialogue. It also moves those of us who hold these scriptures as sacred to become adversaries rather than believers in cooperative fellowship.

Again, I don't mean any offense, I would just like there to be an "its much more complicated than that" option.

 

[JDenver]

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.

That's your opinion, not honesty.

The teachings in the Bible were initially taught orally, passed down from a teacher to a student. When the teacher felt the student was ready, he would begin to reveal the secrets codified into the allegories. There is deep wisdom held in the stories, riddled into the allegories; in numbers, animals, weather, seasons, food, etc. Confusion arises from the positioning of the Old Testament with the New Testament as they were written under completely different circumstances, by very different groups of people.

To really understand the Bible, you need to understand the cultural context from which it was written. For example, many early Christians believed that the Christ story was about your individual relationship to the universe, and that it is your aim in life to engage your 'christ'.

Those aren't mistakes or lies. It's human wisdom. Just as there is wisdom in the Quran, or the I Ching, or anything else. Is the I Ching full of lies and mistakes?

 

[Ken Morgan]

When the teacher felt the student was ready, he would begin to reveal the secrets codified into the allegories. There is deep wisdom held in the stories, riddled into the allegories; in numbers, animals, weather, seasons, food, etc.

many early Christians believed that the Christ story was about your individual relationship to the universe, and that it is your aim in life to engage your 'christ'.

Really? Interesting. What’s your source?

 

[elder999]

Really? Interesting. What’s your source?

As far as the New Testament, there are numerous elements from ancient mystery schools of Greece, Egypt and the greater Levant, as well as elements from earlier Hebraic texts, that are clearly recognizable to scholars, and numerous papers and books have been written on the subject. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote (largely plagiarized, but from solid material at the time ) one such paper, The Influence of Mystery Religions on Christianity

 

[Ken Morgan]

Thanks Elder, I know that many of the “myths” in the NT came from other ancient cultures. Osiris for example.

I’m interested in finding evidence for, (“When the teacher felt the student was ready, he would begin to reveal the secrets codified into the allegories. There is deep wisdom held in the stories, riddled into the allegories; in numbers, animals, weather, seasons, food, etc. many early Christians believed that the Christ story was about your individual relationship to the universe, and that it is your aim in life to engage your 'christ”) from the Old Testament.

Yes I am an Atheist but I do consider myself a bit of a historian, and biblical evidence and such, is quite fascinating.

 

[elder999]

Thanks Elder, I know that many of the “myths” in the NT came from other ancient cultures. Osiris for example.

I’m interested in finding evidence for, (“When the teacher felt the student was ready, he would begin to reveal the secrets codified into the allegories. There is deep wisdom held in the stories, riddled into the allegories; in numbers, animals, weather, seasons, food, etc. many early Christians believed that the Christ story was about your individual relationship to the universe, and that it is your aim in life to engage your 'christ&#8221 from the Old Testament.

Yes I am an Atheist but I do consider myself a bit of a historian, and biblical evidence and such, is quite fascinating.

Well, not so much the Old Testament, but the bridge between the two: the Dead Sea Scrolls, other Q'umran material and the so-called Gnostic Gospels all say as much in one way or another. The Gospels of Mary Magdalene and Gospel of Thomas both come right out and say as much, and can be seen as the source of some of Christ's quotes in the canonical gospels to "things unseen." There is also a direct quote in the canon (think it's Matthew, give me moment) where he says as much when asked by the apostles why he speaks in parables......

here ya go:

Matthew 13:10-13: "And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?" {11} He answered and said to them, "Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. {12} "For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. {13} "Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand."

As for the Old Testament, all of the creation story of Genesis, with its Adam ("the man") and Eve ("the woman), Tree of Knowledge, Tree of Life, and serpent, is largely allegorical. Later Hellenized Hebrews, like Philo of Alexandria, linked these allegorical images to Platonic mystery schools, but they also had their own symbolism and mysteries...later chapters of Genesis and later books, like the prophets and Psalms, contain various allegorical imagery associated with mysteries, especially when one has an opportunity to examine some of the source documents, rather than poor translations like the KJV....

 

[JDenver]

There is a stark difference in the engagement of each Testament.

The Old Testament was written thousands of years before the New. It was written by a Jewish sect, and what was, at the time, seen as a fairly intractible one. God was projected as spiteful and foreboding.

The New Testament writings were, in some ways, a reaction to the Old writings. Jesus was peaceful and loving. Actually, now thinking about this, I'm always intrigued that more Christians either refuse to see or see but don't 'see' the incredibly stark differences between the God of the Testaments.

So, anyways, early Christians were, in many ways, Gnostic. They believed that Christ was an allegorical figure and that the stories weren't specific to christianity but were focussed from similar stories of the age. For example, if you wanted your god to be powerful, you'd make him come back from the dead. Alexander the Great was born of a virign, and so forth.

At the time of the stories, literacy rates were extremely low. Stories were passed orally. In fact, you could say the writing of the New Testament was an issue of preservation, a tactic in stemming the potential loss of the stories (and, of course, they bear such striking resemblence to other stories from neighbouring cultures that it could not be coincidential).

As for the codified messages, you couldn't believe that the stories were allegorical WITHOUT believing that there are deeper messages hidden in the stories. Why 12 apostles? Why walk on water or be resurrected?

What proof do I have of any of this? I dunno, it stems from research into early christian doctrine, writings, and greek, egyptian and latin stories from the age. There are loads of books on the subject, of course.

 

[girlbug2]

Jeez guys, 28 pages in and you STILL haven't settled the question once and for all??

Shocked, I am!

 

[arnisador]

Well, it's settled from a scientific or rational viewpoint...but once one rejects reason, anything's game!

 

[The Last Legionary]

You have a book that has been written over hundreds of years, by different authors, repeatedly mistranslated, with parts removed based on the whims of the people assembling it, with little to no reliable historical verification, with numerous contradictions contained within itself, with numerous debunking of historical 'fact' based on recognized records from the Roman, Greek, and Chinese, where key people show no knowledge of local geography that they should know, whose key figures are recorded only in this book, and you ask if it's 100% true?

Maybe the question to ask is, is any of it at all true?

 

[Xue Sheng]

WOW!!!!

Thread Resurrection

how apropos... or is it Irony

 

[shesulsa]

WOW!!!!

Thread Resurrection

how apropos... or is it Irony

Is this part of your coup? This won't distract us from your basement thread.

:btg:

 

[seasoned]

Is this part of your coup? This won't distract us from your basement thread.

:btg:

Or pictures.

 

[Mark Jordan]

Yes, but one should be careful in interpreting it.

 

[Bruno@MT]

For a while, Moses was said to have had horns because of a translation error.
http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/662,2068869/Did-Moses-have-horns.html
And I have read other parts where it was argued that Jesus was not standing on water but above water (which is a significant difference).
Slight nuances in translation can have vastly different meanings.

Given that fallible humans have written / edited / translated the contents of the bible multiple times, potentially biased by their own beliefs and predjudice, it is beyond me how anyone can believe that the English language document we refer to as the bible can be considered a 100% accurate rendition of the words and intent of the original.

Additionally, even the original aramic writings (which were written down by fallible humans as well) were at odds with other accounts from the same time, which were discarded by other fallible people deciding what should or should not be considered true or not.

 

[kungfu penguin]

i guess i will just say this if i offend i am sorry
1]God wrote it [thru human vessels]
2] i believe it
3] enough said!!!

 

[Bruno@MT]

i guess i will just say this if i offend i am sorry
1]God wrote it [thru human vessels]
2] i believe it
3] enough said!!!

First of all, there is nothing that wouldbe deemed offensive. You don't have to feel the need to apologise.

Now, I have already shown you the moses with horns thing, so you can't say that what we read today is 100% what was written down originally. How do you reconcile that knowledge with your statement that you believe (everything in?) it?

I also wonder: do you believe it in a literal sense or not? For example do you believe everything was created in 6 days, or do you believe (as I do) that it is a metaphor for describing the creation of th euniverse in a way that could be understood by people from that era?

 

[seasoned]

i guess i will just say this if i offend i am sorry
1]God wrote it [thru human vessels]
2] i believe it
3] enough said!!!

I think the "enough said" part brings in the "by faith" thing, of which the whole thing (Christianity), is based on. To some the bible is truth, to others it is not, that is fact. Now, if we consider the complexities of how the heavens and earth were formed, this gets very deep. Now, this is where the faith thing comes into play. As our faith in anything grows, we see that particular thing in a different way. Now to the question (Re: Is the Bible 100% truth?) Yes. Now to the question (Re: Is the Bible 100% truth?) No. You see, it depends on the individuals "FAITH". To have faith, is to beleive in things not seen. If one sees things through faith, and another does not, then to reach common ground, one must lose some faith while the other gains some faith. By doing this we attack the very foundation that Christianity is built on. "for it is by faith". There for, this begs the above number 3, enough said!!!