• 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?

Audie

Veteran Member
The early 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, while censorship tried to cloud the issue and story.

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 torture, 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, as this calmed down, by compiling oral traditions from many sources. This was not as reliable as any original written documents, but these 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, if Jesus was just a nobody? Rome was very good at keeping records and very tolerant of religion, since the various religions helped them control the empire. Censor had to do with the manipulation of public opinion, since Rome felt threatened from within by the religion of slaves. They were dependent on slaves.

In the end, the Christians, with their New Testament written and studied, out lasted many generation of persecutors, to become the official religion of Rome in the 4th century AD. Christianity started at the bottom and worked its way to the top. Christianity would become a key part of an international empire that would last 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.

We've all heard this history a thousand times
in various versions.

So freaking what?
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
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.

We will all discover in the next life that so much of what we thought was important in this life isn't important at all. The details of our belief wasn't important, faith was.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
True. And with 'inaccuracies" we also need to figure out - is the bible talking literally or symbolically?
I take the 'six days' of creation to be symbolic, for instance, and the sequence of events of the stages
of 'creation' to be literal and accurate.
Those old timers were ignorant and superstitious, they'd believe anything.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
We will all discover in the next life that so much of what we thought was important in this life isn't important at all. The details of our belief wasn't important, faith was.

That is possible, I suppose, as is that I will be hit by lightning justvas I win the lottery.

There is zero evidence, though, for the belief you describe so, I personally would hesitate to state it as fact, as I would be with anything else
that is evidence -free.

I don't consider it intellectually honest to do otherwise.
 

PureX

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?
The answer is that it all should be considered ideological literature and valued accordingly. If we want to learn about history, there are many book intended to help us do that. If we want to be told what to do and think by God, we have to look within, because human dictators abound, and cannot be trusted.
 

MikeF

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

I think this is a cogent acknowledgement of our human fallibility. It is for these reasons, and more, that make the OP a valid question. I would say that the problem lies in whether a line can or should be drawn around some ideas that shield and protect them from evaluation, or whether any idea or concept can be subjected to reasoned and rational skepticism.

I, for one, take the latter position.
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
That is possible, I suppose, as is that I will be hit by lightning justvas I win the lottery.

There is zero evidence, though, for the belief you describe so, I personally would hesitate to state it as fact, as I would be with anything else
that is evidence -free.

I don't consider it intellectually honest to do otherwise.
The idea is that a fragment of God literally lives within you. You are supposed to be finding a relationship with God on your own, not through my experience or a ready-made religion.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
The idea is that a fragment of God literally lives within you. You are supposed to be finding a relationship with God on your own, not through my experience or a ready-made religion.
I know the idea.


But as there's no reason to believe
that, I don't
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The answer is that it all should be considered ideological literature and valued accordingly. If we want to learn about history, there are many book intended to help us do that. If we want to be told what to do and think by God, we have to look within, because human dictators abound, and cannot be trusted.

I would say we must explicitly not look inward and decide what feels right to each of us as individuals. We must all acknowledge we are inherently fallible. We can hold false beliefs, draw erroneous conclusions, engage in self-deception, and in rare instances be clinically delusional.

It is for these very reasons that those who wish to discern fact from subjective illusion abandon classic Philosophy as a valid knowledge pursuit and instead embrace the principles and standards of science. This is the only means we have at our disposal to mitigate human fallibility and get to what is real.
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran 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

99% of "Bible contradictions" are resolved simply by 1) looking at preceding or following verses for context or 2) understanding the historical/actual/physical context. I guarantee the answer to this one is at: Bible Questions Answered | GotQuestions.org - I recommend people look there and consider what is laid out before posting any "contradictions" here at RF.

Thanks.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
You're going to need to tone down the condescension if you want this conversation to continue.
Ok. Here’s The deal:

Matthew’s intent is to argue for his community of anointed-believers as the true Israel. Therefore, he intentionally adds in these women to his genealogy to show that Jesus was NOT the Jewish Messiah — and that the Jews were WRONG about who and what the Messiah was supposed to be. He points to the Davidic line, but ALSO shows how that line cannot produce the Jewish idea of a Messiah.

Additionally, Matthew lifts up outcasts as progenitors, thereby supporting the idea that Jesus himself was an outcast. This separates the Messiah from Israel and helps to establish the Christian movement as wholly separate from the Judaic religious authorities and power base. Jesus is NOT the Judaic Messiah. Jesus is the TRUE Messiah — one of “the least.” And THAT’S the nature of God’s imperial rule: humility — not military power.

That’s why Matthew includes these women, and that’s why Matthew’s genealogy is a wholly different list from that of Luke.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Rather than ask
  • Is the Bible trustworthy?
it would be better to ask
  • Is my acceptance criteria trustworthy?
and then be exceedingly cautious when pondering the answer.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
99% of "Bible contradictions" are resolved simply by 1) looking at preceding or following verses for context or 2) understanding the historical/actual/physical context. I guarantee the answer to this one is at: Bible Questions Answered | GotQuestions.org - I recommend people look there and consider what is laid out before posting any "contradictions" here at RF.

Thanks.

Mark -
1. Jesus eats the Passover meal (Thursday night) and is crucified the following morning.
2. Jesus is nailed to the cross at nine in the morning

John -
1. Jesus does not eat the Passover meal but is crucified on the day before the Passover meal was to be eaten.
Moreover,
2. John, he is not condemned until noon, and then he is taken out and crucified.

How will you reconcile that by reading the immediate context like you said?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
The idea is that a fragment of God literally lives within you. You are supposed to be finding a relationship with God on your own, not through my experience or a ready-made religion.

I know the idea i just don't believe it.
Rather than ask
  • Is the Bible trustworthy?
it would be better to ask
  • Is my acceptance criteria trustworthy?
and then be exceedingly cautious when pondering the answer.

Full many a bible-interpreter knows
more science than any researchers on earth-
and does it without a minute of study!
 
Top