Is the Bible 100% truth?

[MartialIntent]

It is conceivable that a person "on the fence" might find my arguments to be persuasive, but I cannot make that assumption. For the most part, I doubt many people will be swayed no matter how much logic and evidence is brought to them. That is the power of psychological inertia.

You're quite correct, many people are indeed not for swaying. I don't know if you'd class yourself among them? But yeah, "the power of psychological inertia" could actually be the scientist's way to describe the essence of faith perhaps. And of course faith is often blind to logic and evidence - a bit like the bee whose weight, dimension and size should preclude its ability to fly.

Anyway, sorry to be tangential. Thanks and respects!

 

[Ray]

In general, I assume that my arguments will not change the minds of most people. As a good rule-of-thumb, a given individual is not capable of altering their own worldview by more than 10%..

and it appears that the arguments of others will not change your mind. Maybe you're right and have no need to; or you're wrong and not capable of altering your own worldview (along with me and the other "most" of the people)...

 

[heretic888]

Wow... This thread has really grown. Mostly due to your tenacity Heretic. Seems this is a very well thought out issue for you (wether I believe your point of view or not, I've got to say....you can write a LOT about it).

I'll choose to take that as a compliment.

does that sum it up?
If these are your points.....

Pretty much, yeah.

I can live with that. :ultracool

If things were PERFECT, then there'd be no need for "faith", or hard work.
I believe that we are here to exercise and grow in both in our climb toward the light.
We still have our work cut out for us in our ascension then.

I agree.

See you on the path......

Have a good one.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

You're quite correct, many people are indeed not for swaying. I don't know if you'd class yourself among them? But yeah, "the power of psychological inertia" could actually be the scientist's way to describe the essence of faith perhaps. And of course faith is often blind to logic and evidence - a bit like the bee whose weight, dimension and size should preclude its ability to fly.

Anyway, sorry to be tangential. Thanks and respects!

No worries, MartialIntent.

I should point out though that what I'm talking about is not religious "faith" per se. It can refer to "faith" in just about anything. It may be faith in a person, an institution, a political party, or even your favorite restaurant.

The issue is that when a person emotionally and personally identifies with that something, when so much of their personal psychic energy and social identity is bound up in it, then it is very hard for a person to openly criticize and analyze that something. That is what I refer to as "psychological inertia".

This is related to cognitive dissonance theory in social psychology.

Laterz.

 

[elder999]

At John 18:37, 38 we find this interchange of words between Jesus and Pontius Pilate (which started when Jesus was on trial):
Pilate: ‘You aren’t a king, are you?’
Jesus: ‘You are saying that I’m a king. This is why I was born and why I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is on the side of truth listens to my voice.’
Pilate: ‘What is truth?’


What is truth?

I’m in a room at 68 degrees Fahrenheit-that’s a fact.

I say “It’s cold in here,” which, for me, is the truth.

My co worker gets up from his chair sweating, walks right over to the thermostat, turns it down even more and says, “It’s too hot in here,” which, for him, is the truth.

And there we have it: one fact, two truths, all valid.

I’ve found-as a former Christian- former seminarian, son, grandson and great- grandson of ministers who has studied most of the world’s greater religious scriptures, and several different versions of the Bible-and I’m a person with a deep love and respect for the teachings of the rabbi Yeshua, “faith” (or lack thereof) notwithstanding--that all the religious scriptures of the world contain much beauty and truth,

Facts, however, are…..well, up for discussion, if not often dubious.

Errors-in translation, interpretation and intent, are everywhere.

Starting with Genesis-the literal interpretation of the creation myth contained therein is pretty much a dark ages phenomena-early Hebrew commentary, and even some early Christian commentary (ala Augustine) pretty much make it apparent that prior to 1200 A.D. or so, the creation myth of Genesis was seen as allegory-thusly doing away with any scientific inconsistencies it contains, like, where Cain’s wife came from, or how long the days were before the sun was created, or how plants managed to survive before the sun was created-it’s simply someone’s way of explaining the universe’s existence, man’s place in it and his evolving relationship with the Creator.

While some of the events and people of the Old Testament can be found to have some basis in factual event and people, the relationship of the stories to facts is open to debate. Thus, we have a city called Jericho that archaelogical evidence points to having fallen after a long siege, but no support at all for its demise as the target of supernatural sonic weaponry. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen that way, and it doesn’t mean it did. And, while we can be pretty sure that there was a great flood, and that at some point, somebody was on a boat with some animals, the story’s been told and retold in so many versions in the region that we can be fairly certain that his name didn’t become “Noah” until the Hebrews got a hold of the tale, and that the boat probably just had some livestock on it, and not two of every kind of beast on earth-in fact, since “the world” at the time was pretty much as far as one could walk in a couple of days, for most of the people of that region, at any rate, and since we know that the flood was pretty much confined to that region, the phrase “two of each kind of beast” takes on a radically different meaning to the literal interpretation so often imposed on the tale.

I’m not even going to get into the whole New Testament thing in this kind of detail (several different potential debates there,starting with, say, Nazareth) except to point out that most accepted Biblical scholarship-and by that I mean academics in the field of religion, and not necessarily of the faith-have pretty thoroughly discredited every account or mention of Jesus ever held to be contemporaneous with the Gospels. Josephus’ mention of him is generally accepted as a later addition by translators. The Gospels themselves-well, they’re full of beauty and truth, for those who can see it, but they’re also full of a lot of other stuff, and a lot of it is simply not historically reliable, but, speaking as a scientist, I’ve pretty clearly demonstrated that just because something’s not a fact, doesn’t mean it’s not true, and vice versa.

 

[heretic888]

and it appears that the arguments of others will not change your mind.

Well, Ray, to be perfectly blunt. . .

Not a single person here arguing for Biblical infallibility has provided anything resembling a logical argument. Ad hominems ("you need to have an open mind. . ."), anonymous appeals to authority ("well, my Jewish friend says that. . ."), and bibliographies ("read these and you'll understand. . .") are not logical arguments, nor do they constitute proofs.

The fact that somebody disagrees with you does not constitute a valid "argument". It's just a disagreement.

Maybe you're right and have no need to; or you're wrong and not capable of altering your own worldview (along with me and the other "most" of the people)...

In either event, actual evidence is required. Somebody is not right or wrong "just because".

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

At John 18:37, 38 we find this interchange of words between Jesus and Pontius Pilate (which started when Jesus was on trial):
Pilate: ‘You aren’t a king, are you?’
Jesus: ‘You are saying that I’m a king. This is why I was born and why I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is on the side of truth listens to my voice.’
Pilate: ‘What is truth?’


What is truth?

I’m in a room at 68 degrees Fahrenheit-that’s a fact.

I say “It’s cold in here,” which, for me, is the truth.

My co worker gets up from his chair sweating, walks right over to the thermostat, turns it down even more and says, “It’s too hot in here,” which, for him, is the truth.

And there we have it: one fact, two truths, all valid.

I’ve found-as a former Christian- former seminarian, son, grandson and great- grandson of ministers who has studied most of the world’s greater religious scriptures, and several different versions of the Bible-and I’m a person with a deep love and respect for the teachings of the rabbi Yeshua, “faith” (or lack thereof) notwithstanding--that all the religious scriptures of the world contain much beauty and truth,

Facts, however, are…..well, up for discussion, if not often dubious.

Errors-in translation, interpretation and intent, are everywhere.

Starting with Genesis-the literal interpretation of the creation myth contained therein is pretty much a dark ages phenomena-early Hebrew commentary, and even some early Christian commentary (ala Augustine) pretty much make it apparent that prior to 1200 A.D. or so, the creation myth of Genesis was seen as allegory-thusly doing away with any scientific inconsistencies it contains, like, where Cain’s wife came from, or how long the days were before the sun was created, or how plants managed to survive before the sun was created-it’s simply someone’s way of explaining the universe’s existence, man’s place in it and his evolving relationship with the Creator.

While some of the events and people of the Old Testament can be found to have some basis in factual event and people, the relationship of the stories to facts is open to debate. Thus, we have a city called Jericho that archaelogical evidence points to having fallen after a long siege, but no support at all for its demise as the target of supernatural sonic weaponry. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen that way, and it doesn’t mean it did. And, while we can be pretty sure that there was a great flood, and that at some point, somebody was on a boat with some animals, the story’s been told and retold in so many versions in the region that we can be fairly certain that his name didn’t become “Noah” until the Hebrews got a hold of the tale, and that the boat probably just had some livestock on it, and not two of every kind of beast on earth-in fact, since “the world” at the time was pretty much as far as one could walk in a couple of days, for most of the people of that region, at any rate, and since we know that the flood was pretty much confined to that region, the phrase “two of each kind of beast” takes on a radically different meaning to the literal interpretation so often imposed on the tale.

I’m not even going to get into the whole New Testament thing in this kind of detail (several different potential debates there,starting with, say, Nazareth) except to point out that most accepted Biblical scholarship-and by that I mean academics in the field of religion, and not necessarily of the faith-have pretty thoroughly discredited every account or mention of Jesus ever held to be contemporaneous with the Gospels. Josephus’ mention of him is generally accepted as a later addition by translators. The Gospels themselves-well, they’re full of beauty and truth, for those who can see it, but they’re also full of a lot of other stuff, and a lot of it is simply not historically reliable, but, speaking as a scientist, I’ve pretty clearly demonstrated that just because something’s not a fact, doesn’t mean it’s not true, and vice versa.

Well said. :asian:

 

[pstarr]

I'd be very interested in what particular "historical inconsistancies" appear in the New Testament...?

Jericho, according to the most recent archeological evidence, may have been brought down by a large earthquake or some similar event-

The questions posed regarding the length of days during the creation, where Cain's wife came from, and so on, have been addressed by numerous Biblical scholars (both Christian and Jewish)... The answers that these scholars provide to the aforementioned questions may not be the answers you'd like, but they do provide answers to the questions, per se.

It would seem that you're only too anxious to jump on a bandwagon and poo-poo these writings without having done much homework on your own...

 

[elder999]

I'd be very interested in what particular "historical inconsistancies" appear in the New Testament...?

Jericho, according to the most recent archeological evidence, may have been brought down by a large earthquake or some similar event-

The questions posed regarding the length of days during the creation, where Cain's wife came from, and so on, have been addressed by numerous Biblical scholars (both Christian and Jewish)... The answers that these scholars provide to the aforementioned questions may not be the answers you'd like, but they do provide answers to the questions, per se.

It would seem that you're only too anxious to jump on a bandwagon and poo-poo these writings without having done much homework on your own...

Uh......right.

I’ve found-as a former Christian- former seminarian, son, grandson and great- grandson of ministers who has studied most of the world’s greater religious scriptures, and several different versions of the Bible-and I’m a person with a deep love and respect for the teachings of the rabbi Yeshua, “faith” (or lack thereof) notwithstanding--that all the religious scriptures of the world contain much beauty and truth,

Facts, however, are…..well, up for discussion, if not often dubious

Early on I earned a degree in religious studies; my father, grand father and great-grand father were all ministers, though they also practiced other trades.

See here.

I did my homework, quite literally, a long time ago, and I've kept up with my studies in that regard.


Okay,"Jesus of Nazareth." This appellation is the result of one of many mistranslations from the telephone game (Aramaic to Koine Greek to Latin to Greek to Latin to German(?)/English, etc.) the we've come to know as "the New Testament." It was, in truth, "Jesus the Nazarene," the Nazarenes being an sect of Judaism (though some might want to quibble and call them Essenes). Nazareth itself has been the site of human habitation for a long time, though there is no mention of it in any Jewish or contemporary texts prior to the third or fifth century A.D. Arcxhaelogical evidence indicates though, that the place that came to be called Nazareth was, in the years 100 B.C. to 100 A.D., most probably a nascent necropolis-a graveyard for the Hellenistic pagan city of Sepphoris. Hardly anyone lived there, was born there, and certaintly no Jews, because of the religious strictures they had at that time against living in just such a place. Hence, no Jesus of Nazareth. Not to say he didn't exist, just that he was from, well, somewhere else if he was a Hebrew.

I could go on about the mistranslations that have resulted in some obvious historic inaccuracies, but I won't-I think it suffices to say that Nazareth, in what we would call the time of Jesus, pretty much didn't exist, either as a Jewish town or much more than a village, and didn't really come to be inhabited by Jews until the onset of Rabbinic Judaism after the fall of Jerusalem, and then probably only by splinter sects, possibly with ties to Christianity, sometime after 100 A.D.

Someone did mention Josephus, though, and I need to add that most scholarship has discredited the mentioning of Jesus in Josephus as later additions, probably around 400 A.D.-or the same time as the solidification of church canon. The same goes for the "census" and nativity stories in the Bible-and I in no way mean to imply that he (Jesus) didn't exist, only that the references cited are hardly conclusive.


And, I'm sorry, if, against all scientific evidence, you want to believe that the universe was created jsut as it essentially is now in 6 days, well, that's your right,and I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise, but I think it's a mistake to do so, and not at all what I think the author(s) of that particular myth intended.Historical documents, such as commentary from the Tanakh and early Christian writings by the likes of Augustine, Eusubius,Origen, et al., support the notion that early on Christians and Jews believed the creation myth of Genesis to be allegorical, that the Creation and the Creator were unfathomable to the human mind-anyonew who believes it to be literal,is-in my opinion-quite literally living in the Dark Ages, as it is from that time that the notion originates.

edited for spelling and to add personal biographical details....

 

[heretic888]

I'd be very interested in what particular "historical inconsistancies" appear in the New Testament...?

"Factual inconsistencies" might be the more appropriate term, as not all of the inconsistencies or contradictions pertain to history per se.

To sum up what I have already explained at least three times now:

1) The Gospel of Luke has Jesus being born during the census of Quirinus (in 6 CE) whereas the Gospel of Matthew has Jesus being born during the reign of Herod the Great (who died in 4 BCE). These claims are incompatible. Furthermore, there is no historical record of the "slaughter of innocents" described by the Matthean author nor is such an event (as well the "escape to Egypt") ever mentioned in the Gospel of Luke.

2) The descriptions of Judean geography by the Markan and Johannine authors is glaringly inaccurate, so much so that no native of the land in question could have possibly made them.

3) The descriptions of first century Jewish customs and laws --- from an annual custom of releasing a criminal on Passover to telling Jewish women not to divorce their husbands to expecting the laity to wash their hands before eating or drinking --- are historically absurd.

4) The recollection of Jesus' lineage in the Matthean and Lukan sources are incompatible, beginning as early as Joseph's own father. The ex post facto rationalizations that one is a "biological" and one is a "legal" lineage is not supported by the texts themselves.

5) The location of the resurrection appearances are mutually incompatible, as the Jesus of Mark and Matthew appears to his disciples in Galilee (where they were specifically ordered to go) whereas the Jesus of Luke have him appearing in and around Jerusalem (which is about 100 miles away from Galilee).

That's just to name a few off the top of my head. . .

Of course, all of the preceding examples of "negative" evidence are further supported by examples of "positive" evidence:

1) The authors of the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John are dependent upon Mark's text. This is a hypothesis known as Markan Priority and has been the dominant paradigm in New Testament scholarship for the better part of one hundred years.

2) The Markan text itself appears to have been a creative midrash on Old Testamental literature. In Michael Turton's historical commentary on Mark, he demonstrates scene by scene how the Markan author mined the Old Testament to create his storyboard for "Jesus".

3) The basic form of the canonical Gospels themselves is that of a dramatic play, not a historical biography. There are a number of scenes in the Gospels where Jesus speaks "monologues" to himself (away from any "eyewitnesses") that betray this origin, as well as the rapid-fire pacing of the events, and other internal markers.

Sorry folks, but we just ain't dealing with history here.

Jericho, according to the most recent archeological evidence, may have been brought down by a large earthquake or some similar event-

Ah, "the most recent archeological evidence". . .

Appeal to Anonymous Authorities

The questions posed regarding the length of days during the creation, where Cain's wife came from, and so on, have been addressed by numerous Biblical scholars (both Christian and Jewish)... The answers that these scholars provide to the aforementioned questions may not be the answers you'd like, but they do provide answers to the questions, per se.

Ah, "numerous Biblical scholars". . .

Appeal to Anonymous Authorities

It would seem that you're only too anxious to jump on a bandwagon and poo-poo these writings without having done much homework on your own...

Ah, of course. My disagreement is due to social pressure and ignorance. . .

Ad Hominem Abusive

It's becoming readily apparent, pstarr, that the only things you're bringing to this discussion are appeals to unknown authorities and thinly-veiled personal attacks. In my own personal experience, these are common tactics from apologetics.

Laterz.

 

[pstarr]

I certainly don't mean to come across as throwing "thinly veiled attacks." I never veil an attack. If you feel that you're being attacked it must be due to some paranoia, but there's certainly no deliberate attack being generated from this end. I simply wondered why or how it is that when something regarding Christianity is mentioned you seem to be the first one to jump up and wave red flags.

 

[Nevada_MO_Guy]

[Disclaimer] In my opinion [/end disclaimer]

The Bible is 100% truth, if based on a persons Faith

The Bible is <100% truth, if based on views outside the "Faith" box.

By the way, what is up with the City of Gold with the Streets of Gold....I mean doesn't that seem like a lot of gold?

What if someone likes silver?

 

[celtic_crippler]

There's entirely too many contradictions contained within the bible for it to be true. Plain and simple. That's without going into all the material that was syphoned out by the Catholic Church and King James just because it didn't fit thier particular views.

 

[heretic888]

I certainly don't mean to come across as throwing "thinly veiled attacks." I never veil an attack. If you feel that you're being attacked it must be due to some paranoia, but there's certainly no deliberate attack being generated from this end.

Alright, pstarr, it's becoming readily evident you don't know how this works. Allow me to elucidate the matter for you. . .

First off, please read Ad Hominem Abusive, Circumstantial Ad Hominem, and Poisoning the Well.

Now, then, when you make accusations such as I am "too anxious to jump on a bandwagon and poo-poo these writings without having done much homework on your own", this implies that the reason I disagree with your position is because I buckle under social pressure and/or I am ignorant and unlearned on the subject. This is precisely a fallacy because it is an attempt to discredit one's opponent without having to go through all the trouble of refuting his actual arguments.

It may well be, as you said, that I "jump on the bandwagon" and haven't done my "homework". However, there are two problems here:

1) There is no way to actually prove those claims. Since the fallibilism principle of Karl Popper cannot be applied to them (that is, there is no way to disprove or refute them), then they remain nothing more than dogmatic assertions.

2) Even if your claims of my shortcomings are true, it does not mean I am wrong or that my arguments are invalid. In fact, such issues really have nothing to do with the discussion whatsoever.

So, in summation. . .

Yes, you are making personal attacks and, yes, you are doing so in an intellectually dishonest fashion. Simply saying you're not isn't going to change this.

I simply wondered why or how it is that when something regarding Christianity is mentioned you seem to be the first one to jump up and wave red flags.

Ah, I see. So now we're moving on to Straw Man arguments, eh?

It's pretty absurd to say I "jump up and wave reg flags" whenever anything "regarding Christianity is mentioned", considering I openly draw upon Apophatic Theology and Christian Mysticism in my own belief system. In fact, I have made this declaration more than once on this thread alone.

Of course, even if what you say is true, it still does not mean that my position is wrong or that any of the logical arguments I have brought up against Biblical inerrancy are in any way inaccurate. In fact, it just seems to be another attempt on your part to poison the well.

The lesson here is: personal attacks do not make a logical argument.

Laterz.

 

[michaeledward]

I don't know if this man's God was from the Bible, or somewhere else ... But I have to share .... and this doesn't really deserve its own thread.

Mike

"The man shouted 'God will save me, if he exists', lowered himself by a rope into the enclosure, took his shoes off and went up to the lions," the official said.
"A lioness went straight for him, knocked him down and severed his carotid artery."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060605/od_nm/ukraine_lion_dc;_ylt=AuEVv3QHyvUSnG8MZCnDAgKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

 

[Carol]

I don't know if this man's God was from the Bible, or somewhere else ... But I have to share .... and this doesn't really deserve its own thread.

Mike



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060605/od_nm/ukraine_lion_dc;_ylt=AuEVv3QHyvUSnG8MZCnDAgKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

 

[Kacey]

I don't know if this man's God was from the Bible, or somewhere else ... But I have to share .... and this doesn't really deserve its own thread.

Mike



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060605/od_nm/ukraine_lion_dc;_ylt=AuEVv3QHyvUSnG8MZCnDAgKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

I think he forgot the part about "God helps those who help themselves".

 

[michaeledward]

I think he forgot the part about "God helps those who help themselves".

I thought it was "God helps those who aren't idiots".

 

[Kacey]

I thought it was "God helps those who aren't idiots".

Different phrase, same theory!

 

[Carol]

Well...if "Jesus Saves" means what I think it does...God "saved" him all right. Be careful what you wish for