• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is the Bible Trustworthy?

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
That strained interpretation does not work either.

Let me ask you, do you know why stories of people waking up in seed motel bathtubs full of ice are an urban myth?

Please note I did not ask if you knew that they were a myth, I was asking if you knew why we know them to be myth.
The bolded passage is an unsubstanciated claim. Since I hate unsubstanciated claims I won't engage in a discussion with you.

(and I stay with my opinion that 2 Peter 3:5-6 is a valid Bible verse @blü 2
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Keeping faith in the face of overwhelming evidence that the bible has contradictions is truly heroic.

Genesis 1.25 says that mankind was created before animals.
Genesis 2:18 says that mankind was created after animals.
no. God created the animals before.... and in the garden he revisited the creation process to add some others. No contradiction whatsoever.

Some kings didn't like certain passages of the bible, so those were changed by the kings.
Even a change does not necessarily indicate a contradiction. Both can be true: the original... + the changed version.
So.....why is there a difference in the Jewish, Muslim, and various versions of the Christian bible?
no idea.
Are the Mormons right about their version of the bible (Christ came to America, Europeans were the 1st settlers in the Americas (which has some credence due to the Solutrean Hypothesis)?

Why trust one bible over another?
I don't trust the Mormons, because they say the Bible has flaws. I hold that the Bible is 100% trithful.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The bolded passage is an unsubstanciated claim. Since I hate unsubstanciated claims I won't engage in a discussion with you.

(and I stay with my opinion that 2 Peter 3:5-6 is a valid Bible verse @blü 2
Don't be silly. Of course it was a strained interpretation. When I made that observation the correct action was to defend your poor interpretation. Instead you made another false claim and then pouted and ran away.

And even more importantly you ran away from an honest question that you know proves you to be wrong. That is the real reason you ran away.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I would have no qualms if scripture were presented as literature, for one can critique literature. This is not how it is presented. Above all, is the overarching unquestionable assertion of a prime mover as fact.
Only by a small fraction of religious zealots. I was educated in catholic schools until 9th grade and can recall class discussions about various ways to interpret 'miracles' and non-historical aspects of the text. It was understood that the content was intended to be interpreted, not taken literally and unconsidered. Too many people hear only the loudest and most absurd voices among believers, because those make it easy for them to reject and dismiss the content. And that's a bias they should be looking at in themselves.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Of course it was a strained interpretation. When I made that observation the correct action was to defend your poor interpretation. Instead you made another false claim and then pouted and ran away.
The bolded claim is unsibstanciated. My claim wasn't false, I think.
I don't want to keep on discussing with you to potetntially get more unsubstanciated claims.
That's all.
Don't be silly.
That's rude. So I'd like to end our discussion at this point. If I may?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The bolded claim is unsibstanciated. My claim wasn't false, I think.
I don't want to keep on discussing with you to potetntially get more unsubstanciated claims.
That's all.

That's rude. So I'd like to end our discussion at this point. If I may?
Still running away.

That is no way to win a debate. Observations are not rude in a debate. You appear to be genuinely afraid of the question that I asked you.

Try again.
 
Last edited:

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
no, I stay with my opinion, Jairus contradicted himself, not Bible in citing him.
Why do you think the bible doesn't contradict itself? The evidence that it does is overwhelming.
So, this is a case of Jesus changing his mind in a minor issue, I think.
No, another reporting error.
There is nothing you could use to back up this claim, I guess. And you didn't present any substanciation for the bolded claim.
It's right there in Mark 12:35-37.
I don't think the lineages as presented in Matthew and Luke are irreconcilable.
The one genealogy is focussed on real fathership, where as the other presented the biological lineage.
Either they're genealogies or they're not. You're saying only one of them is the real genealogy. But since in these two versions Joseph is not Jesus' father, both are nonsense, surely?
Preexistence does not rule out incarnation. There are three different models ─ the gnostic-flavored Jesuses of Paul and John, who both pre-exist in heaven with God and who both create the material universe; the not-Son-of-God-till-adopted version of Mark, and the Son-of-God-by-divine-insemination models of Matthew and Luke. They're three entirely different versions. The Jesuses of the three synoptics pre-exist in heaven and didn't create the universe, while those of Paul and John did. The Jesuses of Paul, Mark and John are not the result of divine insemination, while the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke are. The Jesuses of Paul, Matthew, Luke and John do not become the Son of God by adoption on the model of Psalm 2:7, while the Jesus of Mark does.
Yet the Bible books do not contradict themselves, as I see it.
I honestly don't see how your method improves your understanding or does justice to the texts. It's plain as daylight that the books contradict each other. And that they're full of scientific errors. And that some of the stories, like the Garden, the Flood and Babel, are folktales. That doesn't diminish their interest as ancient documents at all.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Only by a small fraction of religious zealots. I was educated in catholic schools until 9th grade and can recall class discussions about various ways to interpret 'miracles' and non-historical aspects of the text. It was understood that the content was intended to be interpreted, not taken literally and unconsidered. Too many people hear only the loudest and most absurd voices among believers, because those make it easy for them to reject and dismiss the content. And that's a bias they should be looking at in themselves.

I must say, this still begs the question as to whether there is any part of Judeo-Christian/Islamic/Mormon scripture that must be taken literally and without consideration. How is one to differentiate between what is to be taken literally and what is to be merely considered? Are no concepts presented in these documents to be taken literally?
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
Perhaps he adopted the guise of a human being
or a swan's feathery shape
or a bull's body
or He/She/It/They came as a mere humble pixels, sneaking in between our letters
delighting in their miniscule invisibility



Who can even say what is accurate or not
When we do not even agree what is said,
And about what is being talked about?

Just a little bit of common sense can be deployed. God doesn't interfere in the evolution of our wisdom, in fact he has decreed that human wisdom must evolve.

Man is partly to blame for his spiritual laziness, actually desiring the creation of fetish words, doctrines, rituals, creeds etc as a clever way of controlling the unknown, controlling the God experience rather than being controlled by it.

revelations occur but then we are at the mercy of the intermediaries, human recollection, speculation and conjecture. The imperfections of translations etc.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
True, but the instruction given in the Gospels (ie Matt 5,6,7) is quite precise - that most religions
honor Jesus' example and teaching in the breach doesn't alter the instructions he gave.
And most of us follow them even if we never heard of " Jesus ", because its pretty much universal folk wisdom, including in Chins.

Very little of the Bible is Jesus-sayings.

So what's all the rest for?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I must say, this still begs the question as to whether there is any part of Judeo-Christian/Islamic/Mormon scripture that must be taken literally and without consideration. How is one to differentiate between what is to be taken literally and what is to be merely considered? Are no concepts presented in these documents to be taken literally?

Even "though shalt not kill" involves a list of
exceptions.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No, that's the implication of your insinuation about the other three people you referred to.

You pointed out four people who are supposedly unfit to be ancestors of the Messiah. Well, three of the four are also listed as ancestors of David... and therefore also of all of David's descendants.
That’s not the insinuation for including any of them. But please continue fishing — it’s entertaining.

You’re not remotely aware of what Matthew’s getting at, are you?
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Observations are not rude in a debate.
"don't be silly" is not in observation it's just rude, in my opinion.
If you meant it as an "observation" in a sense of "you are silly"... then it is even worse an offence. I am not silly.
I hate unsubstanciated claims and I hate debating with you these days:
this was a common answer you gave today in replying to my posts:
Oh my, so wrong. This was explained to you. Naughty, naughty.
unsubstanciated claim. You did not present a quote. nothing. Just unsubstanciated guesswork.
since I hate "debating" in this style, I just offer you to end the debate between us right here.
I don't answer your questions any more here, I don't answer your posts for a while, that's it.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Just a little bit of common sense can be deployed. God doesn't interfere in the evolution of our wisdom, in fact he has decreed that human wisdom must evolve.

Man is partly to blame for his spiritual laziness, actually desiring the creation of fetish words, doctrines, rituals, creeds etc as a clever way of controlling the unknown, controlling the God experience rather than being controlled by it.

revelations occur but then we are at the mercy of the intermediaries, human recollection, speculation and conjecture. The imperfections of translations etc.

In honesty though, that has to be "revelations are said to occur ".

And there are an awful lot of fakers, and as Joseph Smith noted, they all cry " Lo here",
and, "Lo there ".

Mr. Smith for his part made claims that I
don't believe, but millions do.*

*I had a bit of a revelations myself on that one time, talking to an American lds missionary in Taipei.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
That’s not the insinuation for including any of them. But please continue fishing — it’s entertaining.

You’re not remotely aware of what Matthew’s getting at, are you?

Everyone has their own right-reading of scrip, as noted in this thread. What do you figure he is getting at (instead of just saying)?
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Why do you think the bible doesn't contradict itself? The evidence that it does is overwhelming.
I disagree. A loving God is able to present the truth, I think.

No, another reporting error.
I don't agree.
Either they're genealogies or they're not. You're saying only one of them is the real genealogy. But since in these two versions Joseph is not Jesus' father, both are nonsense, surely?
they are genealogies focussing on different apects as I said. So no nonsense in there.

I suspect that in Mark 12:37 jesus is asking them a question about how they interpret the sonship of Jesus. That does not instantly mean there is some contradiction.
Asking questions. They didn't answer and the debate ended there. No idea how Jesus would have answered this himself.

I stay with my opinion that the Bible is 100% truthful.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
That’s not the insinuation for including any of them. But please continue fishing — it’s entertaining.

You’re not remotely aware of what Matthew’s getting at, are you?
You're going to need to tone down the condescension if you want this conversation to continue.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
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 earliest Christians were persecuted and killed. Any original written records or public worship of Jesus was taboo, and all the original Apostles, except John, were killed, very early on. What was left was word of mouth, passed forward, in an underground fashion, for nearly two centuries.

To give this perspective, consider the censoring by FaceBook and Twitter, the fake news by the media and all the lying by Democrats leadership during the collusion delusion. Take this to the next level with legal torture and laws that allow for prison and killing, as part of an effort to suppress truth and manipulate public opinion and behavior.

The New Testament was written two centuries later, by compiling oral traditions from sources that had passed down, by word of mouth, of the teachings of the original Apostles. Word of mouth was not as reliable as original written documents, but those documents had long been destroyed by the suppression mob. That mob is still alive in spirit in many universities. Free speech poses a problem to manipulative propaganda.

The question becomes why purge and censor, Jesus, if Jesus was just a nobody? Rome was very good at keeping records and very tolerant of religion, since keeping religion open, helped them to control the empire. Censorship had to do with Rome feeling threatened from within, by the religion of slaves. They were dependent on slaves and law and this new religion threatened the status quo.

In the end, the Christians, ofter their New Testament was written, out lasted many more generations of persecutors, to eventually become the official religion of Rome in the 4th century AD. Christianity started at the bottom and worked its way up the ladder to the top, earning respect. Christianity would become a key part of an international empire that would last for centuries; Holy Roman Empire. It would render onto God what was God and render onto Caesar what was Caesar's. It became a paradox of humility and might as well as faith and reason.

The Saints of Christianity are somewhat unique to world religion. Unlike Martyrs who die to become Saints, most of the 10,000 recorded Saints, lived among us, and through their works and deeds expressed the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is a living religion. It has been almost 2000 years since the New Testament was written and it may be time to write book three, to honor those who had an impact and helped shape the present. The Church does have good records but not for all 10,000 Saints.
 
Last edited:
Top