Do you accept the Bible? If not, explain why.

[KnightOwl]

I have accepted various Bibles and purchased a couple on my own.
I have of course a KJV. Also a NIV, the Jeh. Wit. version and I believe one or two others. In just the time between the KJV and today, English has morphed enough to make it slightly difficult to understand, sometimes even when you thought you understood... then you find out that back then, words and phrases didn't mean exactly what they do now.

Then of course, I found out that the Bible wasn't written in English and that there are problems with translations both inherent in trying to convey the same thing in a different language and also due to transcription errors.

Yet in the 10 commandments the Bible seems to insist that God is very adamant about us following him and his word. Odd given he helped facilitate confusion when he supposedly mixed up the languages in the Tower of Babel story.

At the end of the day, it doesn't take much to see that this massive collection of writings by many authors, in different styles and often with conflicting messages are just that and not the inerrant word of a powerful being that wants us to follow what is in these writings.

In my mind, if there was a god who created man similar to the modern Christian understanding...

• He would have given clear simple instructions that never needed to be expanded upon starting with the first man.
• He would have created EVERY person with the ability to easily understand what it was he expected of them.
• He would not have felt remorse about all of man's sinning because he would have known exactly what man would do and expected that result before he even finished creating us.
• He would have created us without vestigal organs or badly designed organs.
• He wouldn't have waited 4000 years or more to provide the current understanding of how to follow him (Christianity), allowing slavery, genocide and other immoral behavior in the interim.
• He wouldn't make his word so confusing that even people who believe in him have a hard time agreeing on what his words actually mean. (List of Christian denominations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

[averageJOE]

Do you accept the Bible? If not, explain why.

Yes. I accept it as a book written by ancient men who were just trying to understand the world around them. They observed certain events a attempted to document them as best they could. And the bible today is a product of centuries of re-translations and interpretations of those writings.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

So? Do you automatically believe everything you're told?

No, I have to be thoroughly convinced in a personal way.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

Biblestudent...

Do you view the Bible as an inerrant and absolutely literal book?

Not quite, it can be understood as literal,spiritual,allegorical,metaphorical etc . . .

 

[tumbleweed41]

Not quite, it can be understood as literal,spiritual,allegorical,metaphorical etc . . .

What part is literal?
Genesis?
Exodus?
Leviticus?
Etc....

 

[Skwim]

What part is literal?
Genesis?
Exodus?
Leviticus?
Etc....

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

 

[Autodidact]

bible: The form of your question disturbs me. To me, if someone wants me to base my life on a book, then they need to tell me why I should, I don't need a reason why not. The Bible is not the default position. So, if you accept the Bible as the inspired word of God, why?

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

I'm invoking Poe. This guy is an obvious troll who is using one- and two-liners just to get a reaction without contributing anything really meaningful or answering questions.

 

[Alceste]

Yes, from previous experience with atheists/agnostics/skeptics and non-believers who say similar things.

It says you're a Christian but you don't accept the Bible? . .That's odd

IT ISN'T ODD, for the love of Pete. YOU are odd. Angellous is normal, for a Christian.

 

[Alceste]

Do you accept the Bible?

Yes, I accepted my dad's bible and I read it from cover to cover. I appreciated the notes he scribbled in the margins during his time in seminary and his guidance on the book's history.

If not, explain why.

It's a book. It was written by people. If you think otherwise, you can not possibly have read it yourself.

 

[Gaura Priya]

Yes and no.

Hope that clarifies!

RFoG.

 

[Kurohige]

Yes as a Baha'i i accept the bible in a metaphorical way... but as free thinker and racional man... No way Jose!! everything on it is mean to be true but just literal like any other writing...

 

[Biblestudent_007]

I point to this verse in the NT, it deals with certain atheist claims.

2 Peter 1:16

16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I point to this verse in the NT, it deals with certain atheist claims.

2 Peter 1:16

16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty

Oh... so the Bible says its stories are true? Why didn't you say so before? Of course we should accept it, then.

BTW:

Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, most biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author, and instead consider the epistle pseudepigraphical.

Second Epistle of Peter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ninerbuff]

I point to this verse in the NT, it deals with certain atheist claims.

2 Peter 1:16

16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty

How do you know? Is there a way to prove that? Did peter personally write (since he was a seaman or fisherman), or were his words taken and written by someone else? Just reading a scripture in the bible doesn't mean it was written and truly witnessed.

 

[dolly]

As others have said before, why should I?

 

[Biblestudent_007]

I'm not "forcing" anyone to accept the Bible ~ just asking you to give it careful thought and consideration before wrongly dismissing it as fiction! . .

 

[Kami Servant]

The Bible presents a doctrine telling us how to live our lives, which I believe is such an act of misinterpretation of the divinity of the universe. We should find our own way, not all be mechanistic and follow some omnipotent deity which makes no sense whatsoever. The Bible is a mistake.

 

[dolly]

I'm not "forcing" anyone to accept the Bible ~ just asking you to give it careful thought and consideration before wrongly dismissing it as fiction! . .

But why should we? I could say that people should give Harry Potter "careful thought and consideration before wrongly dismissing it as fiction." Does that mean that Harry Potter deserves such consideration? Is there even a chance that it be a true story? It gives reasons why muggles wouldn't know about that world, after all.


Why should we think that the bible is worthy of such attention, but not any other fictional book in the library?

 

[waitasec]

I'm not "forcing" anyone to accept the Bible ~ just asking you to give it careful thought and consideration before wrongly dismissing it as fiction! . .

well i suppose you think the bible is read a certain way while others read a different way. if you look at it from a historical POV then you will notice each gospel tells a different story...

the gospel of mark has jesus saying “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
but the gospel of luke has jesus telling the other guy next to him
"Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
so here we have one story contradicting the other...


each gospel was written for a certain audience. consider the gospel of mark, most scholars believe was the 1st gospel written and was for the jews that were unsure about their future, since the temple had been recently destroyed a second time...(notice how the gospel ends.."Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." then funny enough
you see this disclaimer about the following verses...[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.])

luke however was written later and it was written for a greek and roman audience... hence why the other person in the luke account of the crucifixion was promised a place in heaven just for saying what he did...and says this "... repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem"

i would guess the ones that do not accept the bible as the word of god have considered these types of irreconcilable differences and rejected the idea of taking the bible at face value...