Is the Bible Trustworthy?

[thomas t]

My discussion partner in the other thread doubts it is...
He cited one example among others insinuating Bible contradicted itself. According to Matthew, Jairus said his daughter died, see Matthew 9:18-10, whereas Mark 5:21-24 quotes him in a sense that she is dying right the moment when they spoke.
Contradiction, no?

Well yes, Jairus contradicted himself.... doesn't mean Bible is wrong.
This is at least my 5 cents.

In my opinion, the Bible can be trustworhty even if the Canon was established only centuries later and even if the authors were partially unknown.

Thomas

 

[SalixIncendium]

Trustworthy relative to what? With regard to what?

Yes, there are contradictions, and by definition, one of the contradictory statements would, by default, be wrong.

Also, there are stories in the Bible that are scientifically and/or historically inaccurate.

That's my two cents.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In my opinion, the Bible can be trustworhty even if ...

What do you believe to be a reasonable criteria for trustworthiness?

 

[Windwalker]

In my opinion, the Bible can be trustworhty even if the Canon was established only centuries later and even if the authors were partially unknown.

Trustworthy in what regard? Is the story of George Washington not lying to his parents about chopping down the cherry tree, trustworthy? But is the meaning of the story that being honest in the right thing to do, trustworthy?

Can the latter be a true and trustworthy, even if the vehicle of the story to tell that lesson itself is fictitious? Most people would say yes.

 

[Twilight Hue]

My discussion partner in the other thread doubts it is...
He cited one example among others insinuating Bible contradicted itself. According to Matthew, Jairus said his daughter died, see Matthew 9:18-10, whereas Mark 5:21-24 quotes him in a sense that she is dying right the moment when they spoke.
Contradiction, no?

Well yes, Jairus contradicted himself.... doesn't mean Bible is wrong.
This is at least my 5 cents.

In my opinion, the Bible can be trustworhty even if the Canon was established only centuries later and even if the authors were partially unknown.

Thomas

Its no more or less approachable than Aesops Fables are.

Its certainly not trustworthy in any historical or scientific light.

 

[PureX]

My discussion partner in the other thread doubts it is...
He cited one example among others insinuating Bible contradicted itself. According to Matthew, Jairus said his daughter died, see Matthew 9:18-10, whereas Mark 5:21-24 quotes him in a sense that she is dying right the moment when they spoke.
Contradiction, no?

Well yes, Jairus contradicted himself.... doesn't mean Bible is wrong.
This is at least my 5 cents.

In my opinion, the Bible can be trustworhty even if the Canon was established only centuries later and even if the authors were partially unknown.

Thomas

The problem is that too many people do not understand that it's poetic/symbolic writing. And that it is not meant to be read like a history or text book. Once this is understood, the supposed discrepancies are irrelevant.

 

[sun rise]

Its certainly not trustworthy in any historical or scientific light.

This is an example about why being clearer what we mean by trustworthy can be relevant.

There is evidence that there are heavily mythologized events in the Bible such as my favorite of "crossing the reed sea".

Further, if you, as a Christian, believe that Matt 22:37-40 is trustworthy and accurate, you have a measuring rod for the rest of the Bible. Anything which does not obey and promote the laws of love is not trustworthy.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The problem is that too many people do not understand that it's poetic/symbolic writing.

^ reductionist, self serving, and wholly impotent hogwash from the Humpty-Dumpty* school of eisegesis.

The Tanakh is a tapestry of genres and each deserve to be approached honestly and intelligently.

*

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."​

 

[Windwalker]

^ reductionist, self serving, and wholly impotent hogwash from the Humpty-Dumpty* school of eisegesis.

The Tanakh is a tapestry of genres and each deserve to be approached honestly and intelligently.

*

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."​

So you are claiming they should be read literally in black and white understandings, from the Flatland School of Theology?

 

[Polymath257]

The Bible is a collection of texts, written by different people at different times and for different purposes. It was brought together by people selecting for a particular set of viewpoints.

Some of it is reliable as history. Some of it is unreliable as history. Some of it is reliable as guide for morality. Some of it is unreliable as a source for morality. Some of it describes the actions of real people. Some of it is pure fantasy. Some of it is a mixture.

All of it, as far as I can see, is from the perspective of a few people in a small region, and is biased concerning the importance of that region.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So you are claiming they should be read literally in black and white understandings, from the Flatland School of Theology?

I never suggested such a thing. Try again.

 

[Windwalker]

I never suggested such a thing. Try again.

You called reading scripture as symbolic, "Humpty Dumpty", with great scorn. Then what do you suggest as the alternative, I asked you? If it's not symbolic, then are you saying it is literal? Noah really built a real ark, and the earth was really flooded globally? The Red Sea was literally parted? And so forth?

You don't think these stories are mythological in nature, in the sense of a literary form? Your scorn at the suggestion they are, suggests you don't.

 

[icehorse]

In my opinion, the Bible can be trustworhty even if the Canon was established only centuries later and even if the authors were partially unknown.

Context is everything. Muslims claim that the Quran is the perfect, unaltered word of god - they set themselves an extremely high bar.

It would seem from your OP that you set a far lower bar for the bible? So I'd say we need to know more about your context for the bible before we can discuss its trustworthiness.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You called reading scripture as symbolic, "Humpty Dumpty", with great scorn.

I NEVER speak of Humpty Dumpty with "great scorn" -- an attitude I tend to reserve for those who do not learn from him.

 

[Kooky]

"trustworthy" means "being worthy of trust"
So, what and who is worthy of trust, is a decision everyone must make for themselves
I have my reason for trusting or distrusting books,
and you have yours,
and everyone else has everyone else's
but every reason is only a single point in a vast sea of points (pixels?)

 

[Windwalker]

I NEVER speak of Humpty Dumpty with "great scorn" -- an attitude I tend to reserve for those who do not learn from him.

You don't think saying "self-serving, and wholly impotent hogwash", is not scornful? These were your words:

^ reductionist, self serving, and wholly impotent hogwash from the Humpty-Dumpty* school of eisegesis.

You think seeing scripture as symbolic, poetic, and mythological is hogwash? You pointed to what PureX said, calling it out as hogwash. Those words definitely express scorn. Did I misread how you posted that with arrows to his words, calling his suggesting that they were poetic and symbolic as hogwash?

 

[MikeF]

My discussion partner in the other thread doubts it is...
He cited one example among others insinuating Bible contradicted itself. According to Matthew, Jairus said his daughter died, see Matthew 9:18-10, whereas Mark 5:21-24 quotes him in a sense that she is dying right the moment when they spoke.
Contradiction, no?

Well yes, Jairus contradicted himself.... doesn't mean Bible is wrong.
This is at least my 5 cents.

In my opinion, the Bible can be trustworhty even if the Canon was established only centuries later and even if the authors were partially unknown.

Thomas

In your theology, is the veracity of the Gospels of the New Testament dependent on the veracity of the Tanakh, or is Jesus descibing the true creator, correcting and replacing the myths of the Tanakh?

 

[MikeF]

The problem is that too many people do not understand that it's poetic/symbolic writing. And that it is not meant to be read like a history or text book. Once this is understood, the supposed discrepancies are irrelevant.

I would think many Christians would disagree that the Bible is merely fictional allegory. And if it is so, then we still do not know how all this came to be and what the purpose is for mankind. The Bible would only represents the thoughts of it's very human authors.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem is that too many people do not understand that it's poetic/symbolic writing. And that it is not meant to be read like a history or text book. Once this is understood, the supposed discrepancies are irrelevant.

Indeed. In fact, you made me think of my favourite poetic passage from the New Testament, in Matthew 1:


This is the record of the genealogy[a] of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah (by Tamar), Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, 4 Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, 5 Salmon the father of Boaz (by Rahab), Boaz the father of Obed (by Ruth), Obed the father of Jesse, 6 and Jesse the father of David the king.

David was the father of Solomon (by the wife of Uriah[c]), 7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa,[d] 8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, Joram the father of Uzziah, 9 Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon,[e] Amon the father of Josiah, 11 and Josiah[f] the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.

12 After[g] the deportation to Babylon, Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel,[h] Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13 Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, Abiud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, 14 Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, Achim the father of Eliud, 15 Eliud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.[j]

17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to Christ,[k] fourteen generations.

My favourite things about this poem are how its rich imagery and compelling meter energize the symbolism of the work, and also how it doesn't read anything like a dry list of purported historical facts.

 

[Audie]

The problem is that too many people do not understand that it's poetic/symbolic writing. And that it is not meant to be read like a history or text book. Once this is understood, the supposed discrepancies are irrelevant.

Maybe a lot of people do understand that
there's poetry and all that rot, but don't happen
to think that "god" was just talking poetry when he said "thou ahalt not kill" or that the whole world got flooded.

As for "trustworthy" the idea its all a just symbols,
well that leaves each person to trust himself to figure
the thing right.

Its already 40,000 sects and counting each with different
figuring.

How about 40000 different ideas about the instructions
how to fly the airplane or run a nuclear power plant?