Is the Bible 100% truth?

[mantis]

No, I disagree (And I'm not even Christian )

I think Oral history, legends, myths, etc are very important to culture, and have always been. Ancient Greek religion survives, even if not followed, through it's stories and legends.

Stories are there too teach us, to explain things in a abstract way in order to teach us something. Kid's love them, and this is how they think.

Yet something in our culture has gone funny as of late. Stories are no longer important, facts are. "Stories" try to imitate reality now and the disconnect is not longer there.

The old "Once upon a time in a land far away" model is lost to trying to create modern stories in modern settings.

But just about any "traditional" culture is full of stories, legends, myths, and other such things. They shape the culture, teach the young morals and important lessons. And this goes for anywhere in the world. Europe had them, Asia does, North American Natives do.

Perhaps there is an importance to this type of story, not as a literal truth, but as a lesson in truth that has been largely forgotten?

What's left NOW is stories and tales. What has been LOST is probably more than that. Unless you can prove that the entire Bible is all stories.

It's like you're telling me any ancient book that has good stories qualifies to be a source for a religion.

 

[Andrew Green]

What's left NOW is stories and tales. What has been LOST is probably more than that. Unless you can prove that the entire Bible is all stories.

Good point, and it can't be done. All we have is what is left, not what was lost

But, I think that goes beyonf the Bible, all we have left from many religions is stories, what was lost we will never know.

 

[mantis]

Good point, and it can't be done. All we have is what is left, not what was lost

But, I think that goes beyonf the Bible, all we have left from many religions is stories, what was lost we will never know.

Except Islam which has a preserved holy book and preserved 'sunnah' which is a record of what the prophet said/did.

 

[Andrew Green]

Except Islam which has a preserved holy book and preserved 'sunnah' which is a record of what the prophet said/did.

Which is a interesting example, because even though all of this has been preserved, there are still many branches and interpretations of what it all actually means.

So if even a solid record of a Holy Book can lead to many interpretations of what it actually means, how does literal "truth" fit into all of this?

Perhaps the truth of a story, even a well documented one, is also based on the frame it is set in and what you personally take out of it?

 

[Touch Of Death]

Except Islam which has a preserved holy book and preserved 'sunnah' which is a record of what the prophet said/did.

Thats not true the quar' an is a masculanization of a goddess religion. (symbol of moon and goddesses name used for the title of their bible)

 

[mantis]

Which is a interesting example, because even though all of this has been preserved, there are still many branches and interpretations of what it all actually means.

So if even a solid record of a Holy Book can lead to many interpretations of what it actually means, how does literal "truth" fit into all of this?

Perhaps the truth of a story, even a well documented one, is also based on the frame it is set in and what you personally take out of it?

Well there's the text, and there's the 'sunnah'. The 'sunnah' is an application of the text. So if you follow both then you will not fall into the interpretation problem.
The other thing is you make it sound there are different interpretations people follow. That's not accurate. If you look at the major 2 sects of islam (sunnis and Shiis(sp)) you will realize that they both follow the same text of both sources, but shii's have different 'political' view. Their view simply says any leader of muslims should be from the prophet's offspring or at least related.

So there is not more than one interpretation. However, there are translations that are different. Which is okay as long as they say they are 'translations'. Translation is not considered the holy book.

 

[mantis]

Thats not true the quar' an is a masculanization of a goddess religion. (symbol of moon and goddesses name used for the title of their bible)

I have no idea where that came from.

Please elaborate.

 

[Ray]

One of the main criticisms leveled at Christianity from Islam is that the Qur'an is faithfull to it's original text, in it's original language, where as the Bible has been altered over the centuries.

They can only say this because all variants were collected, destroyed and a particular one was made "the right one." The particular language of the Koran has also been fixed...that is, translations of the Koran are not of equal weight of the arabic Koran. {This is just how I understand it to be}

I've heard it said that some Muslims believe that if the Bible were perserved perfectly then it would, in fact, be the same as the text of the Koran.

But, as far as the Bible goes, since the question asks if even in the symbolism whether the Bible is 100% correct, I must answer "yes" (because I get to define what is symbolism and what is not). However, the account of the swine running of the cliff is off a little, they trolliped more than ran.

 

[mantis]

They can only say this because all variants were collected, destroyed and a particular one was made "the right one." The particular language of the Koran has also been fixed...that is, translations of the Koran are not of equal weight of the arabic Koran. {This is just how I understand it to be}

I've heard it said that some Muslims believe that if the Bible were perserved perfectly then it would, in fact, be the same as the text of the Koran.

But, as far as the Bible goes, since the question asks if even in the symbolism whether the Bible is 100% correct, I must answer "yes" (because I get to define what is symbolism and what is not). However, the account of the swine running of the cliff is off a little, they trolliped more than ran.

okay, i'll pretend to be the defender of islam/muslims in this thread for a little while.

The story goes to before the destruction of the versions.
The story starts when the prophet's companions started getting killed in battles. So the khalif was afraid that the Koran would be lost because there was no compiled record of it. It was only compiled in poeple's brains.

So what they did is the khalif asked people from different regions in asian, and africa to send written copies of what they had. So people already knew the koran and memorized it before it was recorded. Then they got all of these copies and burned them so it's not scattered all over the place and they kept compiled copies in books. So instead of verses written here and there, they burned those and put all of them in a new book to be in one place.

Has it been fixed? sure not. It was only compiled in a single book. How do I know it has not been fixed? because the memorizers have already travelled to afraica and asia and they already taught students. If you compare the koran recited by 2 people one from china, and one from south africa they would be reciting the exact same thing with not difference.
The muslims believe that if the Bible was preserved it would have 'agreed' with the koran, and it would not be the same. Islam's core faith is that Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad are three prophets with the same main message but different details to fit their eras. so it would agree but it would not be the same.

 

[Xue Sheng]

OK I lied I didn't go away, but I will after this.

How can the bible be 100% true when it contradicts itself?

 

[7starmantis]

OK I lied I didn't go away, but I will after this.

How can the bible be 100% true when it contradicts itself?

We've been down that path before, do a search for threads.

7sm

 

[heretic888]

It has always struck me as interesting the great gulf that exists between "believers" and scholars that actually study Biblical History in detail. Certain cherished ideas like Jewish Monotheism, a World Flood, a Jewish exodus from Egypt, and a Davidic Empire are widely held, for example, but have received practically no evidence from the archeological record.

Even on this very thread somebody tried to pass off "apostolic ascension" as historical fact by citing Irenaeus (now there's a reputable source!). Next thing you know, people will be trying to claim, alongside church propagandist Eusebius, that the Alexandrian Therapeutae of Philo were the first "followers of Christ". Hey, maybe somebody well even claim Moses taught Pythagoras!!

Heh, go figure.

 

[bushi jon]

We must remember the bible was GOD inspired and written by man. Mean man is only an animal and GOD is the inlightenment

 

[Ray]

okay, i'll pretend to be the defender of islam/muslims in this thread for a little while.

Why pretend? Is this playtime or are you looking for deep truth?

The muslims believe that if the Bible was preserved it would have 'agreed' with the koran, and it would not be the same.

You may be absolutely correct...I will have to go through my papers and find from which source I said that "if the Bible were correctly translated, that it would be the Koran."

Islam's core faith is that Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad are three prophets with the same main message but different details to fit their eras. so it would agree but it would not be the same.

I wonder if it could be said from the Muslim perspective "if humanity had but listened to any one of those earlier prophets and recorded the doctrine correctly then would there have been any need for a later prophet?" or not.

 

[heretic888]

We must remember the bible was GOD inspired and written by man. Mean man is only an animal and GOD is the inlightenment

I am suddenly reminded of G. A. Wells' introduction in his Who Was Jesus?, in which he pointed out the Vatican position that divine inspiration does not ensure historical accuracy.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Oh, and for the record, I do not buy the Muslim myth of "apostolic ascension" (as defended by mantis) any more than I buy the Christian myth of "apostolic ascension" (as defended by fightingfat).

In both cases, we get the illusion that the "original teaching" of the respective faith was somehow monolithic and uniform in nature, with the modern adherents faithfully carrying on these original teachings.

This, of course, is complete bunk.

The primitive forms of these faiths were characterized by diversity and pluralism (usually on the local level), not uniformity and monolithism. It was only later, when one group gained a measure of power and control, that there were retroactive attempts to "harmonize" the faith (usually by burning the books of and killing everybody else that disagreed with the new One Vision).

In the case of Christianity, we get later Catholic redactors forging texts like the pseudo-Pauline "Pastoral Epistles" and the "Acts of the Apostles" sometime between the mid-to-late 2nd century to paint the illusion that Paul and Peter were not at odds in their own lifetimes, something that Paul attests to in his (mostly) authentic epistles like Galatians and Corinthians. In fact, I believe "axe-wielding circumcisionaries" was the term he used, suggesting the Petrine Christians should go all the way and "make eunuchs of themselves".

Like I said in the "Religion in the MA" thread, these religion-type thingies aren't just "intelligently designed" by clever individuals with a unitary vision and message. They evolve gradually over several generations and have their roots in the practices and mores of the culture they find themselves in.

Stuff isn't created, it "just happens".

Laterz.

 

[scottcatchot]

I do believe the Bible is 100 percent accurate. All things will come about to prove it to be true in time.

 

[mantis]

I do believe the Bible is 100 percent accurate. All things will come about to prove it to be true in time.

except that it keeps changing.
IMHO it has the chance to be proven true if it is constant, but if it changes with time then this argument is not too valid anymore, right?

 

[fightingfat]

Oh, and for the record, I do not buy the Muslim myth of "apostolic ascension" (as defended by mantis) any more than I buy the Christian myth of "apostolic ascension" (as defended by fightingfat).

I don't even know what apostolic ascension is! Do you mean apostolic succession?

This, of course, is complete bunk.

You speak with some authority? And what is your proof for this?

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

I selected 'Not Sure'.

It's so hard to say, factually, that the Bible is either accurate or inaccurate. I was -1961 when the New Testament got going, after all. I feel that the early Old Testament is part myth, part account and a lot of the NT is, as was earlierly mentioned, accurate to a particular POV.

Do I think that the noted aspects (which usually draw fire) are exacting?
Was the universe created in 6 days? No definition of 'day' exists for this time period.

Did everything pop up just as it is? Fossil evidence suggests no. Who's to say God didn't create evolution?

Did Jesus live and was He the Son of God? Yes, he lived. What many people fail to understand is that we are all children of God.

I am not enough of a dogmatic to say 'The Bible sez it; therefor, it's true'. I have felt far too much in my spiritual journey to say 'It's all bunk.' 'Not Sure' was the only viable choice to me.