-
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 historically accurate?
- Thread starter noob
- Start date
Mike182
Flaming Queer
Firstly, may i welcome you to our Forum, Noob! we have a space for introduction threads by new members, maybe you would like to introduce yourself?
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=21
secondly, to address your question, i was under the impression that the Bible was not a historical document, so we should not treat it as such. However, i will admitt to lacking detailed knowledge about historical studies of Biblical texts
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=21
secondly, to address your question, i was under the impression that the Bible was not a historical document, so we should not treat it as such. However, i will admitt to lacking detailed knowledge about historical studies of Biblical texts
Booko
Deviled Hen
Many things are possible. That does not make them probable.noob said:
If you wish to argue, say, that there are elements of Christianity that appear to have nothing to do with the Gospel, I wouldn't generally argue with that.
edit: I would also point out that it is important to keep in mind that the Bible is not a "book" but an "anthology."
If you want to prove something in it is fictional, you'll have to take it one book at a time. In some cases, you might have to take it one "letter" at a time.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
All religions are made up.
What's important is WHO made them up. If it is God, then that is good. If other than God, then it will probably be bad.
You ask if Scriptures are accurate. There is no proof either way. That they exist is a far greater reason to believe a reasonable accuracy than all of the conspiracy theories that abound. Scriptures were not meant to replace science or history books. They were meant to inspire us to love and good works. Many arrogant and evil men have twisted them to inspire evil. Those who are easily led astray buy into this heresy and propogate the belief that it is a religion based on hate and not love.
BTW, that's my simple answer.
What's important is WHO made them up. If it is God, then that is good. If other than God, then it will probably be bad.
You ask if Scriptures are accurate. There is no proof either way. That they exist is a far greater reason to believe a reasonable accuracy than all of the conspiracy theories that abound. Scriptures were not meant to replace science or history books. They were meant to inspire us to love and good works. Many arrogant and evil men have twisted them to inspire evil. Those who are easily led astray buy into this heresy and propogate the belief that it is a religion based on hate and not love.
BTW, that's my simple answer.
Doktormartini
å°è
Well like The Holy Qu'ran mentions Jesus, but he didn't die on the Cross. Other cultures believe he exhisted but wasn't divine.noob said:
You can't prove the Bible is true just as you can't prove any Holy Religious book to be true.
Booko
Deviled Hen
Doktormartini said:
I would point out that that verse can be understood literally or metaphorically. That so many have chosen the literal understanding is, imo, as unfortunate as the fact that so many have chosen a poor reading of "spare the rod and spoil the child."
But to...er...try to stay on topic here.
This depends on what you think the Bible is, and what you consider "proof" and "true."
I can't "prove" that my mother loves me, but I "know" that it is "true."
Likewise, if you want to look at whether the Bible is "true,
way as a spiritual guide, then look for examples of lives that have been changed for the better by an honest applicaction of the spiritual guidance contains.
If you want to use the Bible as a science or history textbook, imo that's like using a cookbook to learn how to fix your plumbing.
Booko
Deviled Hen
Oh gosh, I nearly forgot...
I'd also like to point out that, yes, there are people out there so desparate to "prove" the Bible is true that they lapse into thinking that "this is historically accurate" means "the whole thing is completely true on any level."
The fact that the Bible has been used to discover archeological sites doesn't mean that God exists.
I'd also like to point out that, yes, there are people out there so desparate to "prove" the Bible is true that they lapse into thinking that "this is historically accurate" means "the whole thing is completely true on any level."
The fact that the Bible has been used to discover archeological sites doesn't mean that God exists.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
The converse is also true. Apparent discrepencies in no way disprove God either!You can't have it both ways.Booko said:
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
I think we agree too much.
Linus
Well-Known Member
beckysoup61 said:
I don't necessarily agree with that. I would say that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts are highly historical documents. They are historical acounts of Jesus' teachings and the early church. They are documents drafted by men and should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other historical document.
You are right. Nothing can prove that God exists. But if it is true that a man named Jesus Christ exist, that he claimed to be the son of God, and that he was crucified, and ressurrected, it is highly likely that God exists. At the least, it shows that Jesus' prophesy that he would be ressurected was true.