The Bible - Why Trust It

nPeace said:

You refer to many things as myth, but on what basis?
So, may I ask, what is it that you know, which others don't, so that you know it is a myth?
You don't know, do you? In fact, the very things you refer to as myth, may very well be true. There is no valid reason to rule them out as myth.

Click to expand...

Moses is a myth because certain stories of Exodus are testable and they fail. Don't assume that someone does not know. You continually falsely claim that others assume and here you are dong the same.

Take for example, the crucifixion of Christ.
We know that this is what the Romans did - crucify criminals. We know how exactly they do it, and it is assumed why.
This method of execution was recorded, in the Bible, in the case of the Messiah.
You call it a myth, yet historians refer to it as fact. Not just any historian, but one who lived close to Jesus' lifetime, and a Roman, to besides.

Click to expand...

I have to correct you here. There are aspects of Jesus's life that are mythical. That does not necessarily mean that there was no Jesus. Think of the movie Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter. Yes, there was a Abraham Lincoln. no he did not fight vampires.

So basically, you argue simply based on personal opinion, rather than any confirmed supportive facts.
Anyone can do that... but what sense does it make, going back and forth, with my opinion, your opinion ?

Click to expand...

No, once again that appear to be your sin. Accusing others of your flaws is far from Christian.

Would you for example, go back and forth with this guy.

I think he would probably ask the same question I asked.
By any chance, are your opinions based on lack of archaeological evidence? Is that it - the "absence of evidence argument"?
Then see post #1.

You are aware that some scholars thought the Kingdom of Judah was a myth. What do they think now?
Baseless opinions move nothing. Contrarily, baseless opinions are moved. They fizz away... like Poof!

If you like, we can discuss how you know these accounts are myths.

Click to expand...

Actually Einstein's thoughts on Jesus are probably very similar to mine. He too can see that parts of his story are mythical. And yes, I would gladly discuss how we know that aspects of the Bible are myth. Just try to remember that an all or nothing attitude towards the Bible is not justified. That parts of the Bible are false does not mean that the entire Bible is false. And in the same vein the fact that parts of the Bible are right does not mean that the entire Bible is right. I have seen far too many creationists make that sort of argument.

nPeace said:

Thanks for sharing your view.
My question is, who decides how "a god" should be?
I can understand, if the 'god' is created, then the one that created it, would decide (Psalm 115:4-9). However, the Bible writers spoke of the true and living God, who has no beginning and no end (Psalm 90:2) - the one who created all things (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 3:4).
A psalmist said, (Psalm 8:3, 4) 3 When I see your heavens, the works of your fingers, The moon and the stars that you have prepared, 4 What is mortal man that you keep him in mind, And a son of man that you take care of him?

Some people believe that the God of the Hebrew Bible (O.T.) YHWH / YHVH was created in the minds of men, but how can that be, when the Bible is consistent throughout - from the Hebrew scriptures (Genesis to Malachi) to the Greek scriptures (Matthew to Revelation)?

Can you show me how that is not true?
Which part of the Greek scriptures do you find, paint God as different than is mentioned in the Hebrew scriptures?

I do agree with you, that the teachings of Christ are of greater value than man's wisdom... especially what we see at present.
However, I do believe the reason for this is because, of the truthfulness of what Jesus said of the source of his teachings.
(John 7:16, 17) 16 Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him who sent me. 17 If anyone desires to do His will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or I speak of my own originality.

I find what Jesus said in verse 17, is significantly profound.
To demonstrate how high this knowledge of Jesus is though, we just have to consider his "Sermon on the Mount" of olives. His teaching in verses Matthew 5:43-48 goes against every grain in the human psyche. Yet there it is.

Click to expand...

If a Man were to go about doing the sort of things "God" in the OT did- ie, sending plagues, killing the firstborn, ordering up genocides, nuking cities, etc- we'd brand him as a mass murderer at the very least. When combined with his orders that people should worship him (or else), and he starts issuing very confusing and sometimes nonsensical instructions, we might start looking at him as a psychopath.

Of course we don't accept this sort of behavior as 'normal' in Man, and by and large we don't tolerate it (our own history notwithstanding). If we don't tolerate it in our fellow Man, why on earth would we accept it as 'normal' for a being we are supposed to deify and worship? Personally, I'm not in the business of worshiping murderers and psychopaths- one would think this would be the sort of god one would avoid at all costs, and certainly not offer him your soul!

Now, we can run with the story as well that "God" is a man-made creation- all well and good. But if so, why would anyone decide to promote the idea of such a creature as being the Ruler of All Things? That's a terrible thought, that THIS is who is in charge of eternity?

On the other hand, if we accept the events of the OT as being at least semi-accurate, and the accounts of "God's" nefarious activities are spot on, how does this in any way square with the kind and loving "God" presented in the NT? In comparison, one cannot fail to draw the conclusion that the OT and the NT are describing two completely different beings. If we assume that the OT writers were accurate, and there was no reason to write of "God" in any other way, then of course the accounts of his acts would be consistent. If "God" in the OT were ACTUALLY like "God" in the NT, though, why wouldn't the writers of OT describe him as such- in other words why would they deliberately make him appear as a murderous psychopath if he were not that?

As I have commented elsewhere, though, I'm not so sure they're far off the mark- but that the "God" the OT writers are describing is actually Satan masquerading AS God. If one reads the OT as being a big power play by Satan, then it all falls into place and it makes perfect sense- whereas, if one sees the OT "God" and the NT "God" as being the same you have an awful lot of 'splaining to do about why he's acting so strangely.

As for consistency, note that in the OT "God" is constantly punishing Man with all sorts of evils- but later, in the NT, there are no such activities going on at all. Given that the Romans were very much in play during the time of the NT, and they wrote libraries full of historical accounts and the minutiae of life around the Empire, you'd think if God nuked just ONE city there would be some record of it by the Romans- after all it's their Empire- completely independent of the biblical texts. But there's not. Not a word. So this tells me that during the NT era, God was being cool and being the God Christ talked about and all that. He certainly wasn't being the "God" written of in the OT, that's for certain.

I see we're in general agreement on the teaching of Christ, so on that upbeat note I'll not make this any longer. Good response, and thank you for your insight.

Subduction Zone said:

Moses is a myth because certain stories of Exodus are testable and they fail. Don't assume that someone does not know. You continually falsely claim that others assume and here you are dong the same.

Click to expand...

Okay, so you don't know. You just speak as though you do. "Moses is a myth because..."
I won't assume. Is that to give the impression that you do know?

Subduction Zone said:

I have to correct you here. There are aspects of Jesus's life that are mythical. That does not necessarily mean that there was no Jesus. Think of the movie Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter. Yes, there was a Abraham Lincoln. no he did not fight vampires.

Click to expand...

I heard you make this argument before. I also heard, or more correctly, read where you claimed the crucifixion never happened, and is a myth.
So is this to say you are retracting that, or are you denying

Subduction Zone said:

No, once again that appear to be your sin. Accusing others of your flaws is far from Christian.

Click to expand...

So you are not arguing from personal opinion. So when you say, the crucifixion never happened, and the miracles of Jesus recorded in the Bible, are myth, on what facts are you basing your arguments?

Subduction Zone said:

Actually Einstein's thoughts on Jesus are probably very similar to mine. He too can see that parts of his story are mythical. And yes, I would gladly discuss how we know that aspects of the Bible are myth. Just try to remember that an all or nothing attitude towards the Bible is not justified. That parts of the Bible are false does not mean that the entire Bible is false. And in the same vein the fact that parts of the Bible are right does not mean that the entire Bible is right. I have seen far too many creationists make that sort of argument.

Click to expand...

So you like Jesus' teachings.
I wonder which ones you throw out, and which ones you keep. Or do you keep all?
Oops. Wait. Let me retract that, and not assume.
Einstein said, "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."
You agree with this?

Mind you, Jesus said you must love God.
Einstein clarified that he is not an atheist.

So you kno... let me ask that differently (language can be tricky). Do you know which parts of the Bible are true, and which are false? If you do, can you tell me how you know... based of course on the fact that you make that statement with such certainty... as if you know.

Oh, and don't mind what "far too many creationists" argue. You can always ask me my view. I am here.

nPeace said:

You said most are not, so I take it you probably agree with some in the OP.
Is this your opinion, or do you have something you can share with us, on the parts you know to be historically accurate, and the parts you know, are not?
Like, how do you know which parts are not historically accurate, for example.

Click to expand...

I love history and I minored in it. Obviously Genesis is not history, the Exodus is not history, Jesus may or may not be history. The wars, judges and kings are history. It's not supposed to be history, it's supposed to be stories that show truths about people and the world. That's how we can use it. To pretend otherwise reduces it to kid stories, except for the many parts that are not kid friendly.

Goodman John said:

If a Man were to go about doing the sort of things "God" in the OT did- ie, sending plagues, killing the firstborn, ordering up genocides, nuking cities, etc- we'd brand him as a mass murderer at the very least. When combined with his orders that people should worship him (or else), and he starts issuing very confusing and sometimes nonsensical instructions, we might start looking at him as a psychopath.

Of course we don't accept this sort of behavior as 'normal' in Man, and by and large we don't tolerate it (our own history notwithstanding). If we don't tolerate it in our fellow Man, why on earth would we accept it as 'normal' for a being we are supposed to deify and worship? Personally, I'm not in the business of worshiping murderers and psychopaths- one would think this would be the sort of god one would avoid at all costs, and certainly not offer him your soul!

Now, we can run with the story as well that "God" is a man-made creation- all well and good. But if so, why would anyone decide to promote the idea of such a creature as being the Ruler of All Things? That's a terrible thought, that THIS is who is in charge of eternity?

On the other hand, if we accept the events of the OT as being at least semi-accurate, and the accounts of "God's" nefarious activities are spot on, how does this in any way square with the kind and loving "God" presented in the NT? In comparison, one cannot fail to draw the conclusion that the OT and the NT are describing two completely different beings. If we assume that the OT writers were accurate, and there was no reason to write of "God" in any other way, then of course the accounts of his acts would be consistent. If "God" in the OT were ACTUALLY like "God" in the NT, though, why wouldn't the writers of OT describe him as such- in other words why would they deliberately make him appear as a murderous psychopath if he were not that?

As I have commented elsewhere, though, I'm not so sure they're far off the mark- but that the "God" the OT writers are describing is actually Satan masquerading AS God. If one reads the OT as being a big power play by Satan, then it all falls into place and it makes perfect sense- whereas, if one sees the OT "God" and the NT "God" as being the same you have an awful lot of 'splaining to do about why he's acting so strangely.

As for consistency, note that in the OT "God" is constantly punishing Man with all sorts of evils- but later, in the NT, there are no such activities going on at all. Given that the Romans were very much in play during the time of the NT, and they wrote libraries full of historical accounts and the minutiae of life around the Empire, you'd think if God nuked just ONE city there would be some record of it by the Romans- after all it's their Empire- completely independent of the biblical texts. But there's not. Not a word. So this tells me that during the NT era, God was being cool and being the God Christ talked about and all that. He certainly wasn't being the "God" written of in the OT, that's for certain.

I see we're in general agreement on the teaching of Christ, so on that upbeat note I'll not make this any longer. Good response, and thank you for your insight.

Click to expand...

Long? What 'long' are you talking about? Clearly, you haven't seen long.

Thanks though. Appropriate the clear explanation.
Actually, I understand your view, and why some do see an apparent difference in God, as presented in the Greek scriptures.
However, from what I read, there is no difference, and it is written all over the Christian Greek scriptures (So you know, I am referring to what is commonly called O.T. The Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and letters to the congregations, and Revelation by Jesus, are not a testament though, so I hope you will bear with me, as I normally don't use those terms. I'll bear with you as you use them though. ).

Why is there an apparent difference?
A number of scriptures reveal the answer.
The Bible says, the true God is holy.
What does that mean? I understand that to mean, pure. To the highest degree, God is.
Scriptures show, he cannot dwell (not in form, but by presence) among, or in the midst of wickedness.
(Numbers 35:34) You must not defile the land in which you dwell, in which I am residing; for I, Jehovah, am residing in the midst of the people of Israel.’”
(Leviticus 26:11, 12; Deuteronomy 6:14, 15)

God's tolerance of wickedness, evidently is a product of his abundant mercy.
So when he acted against wickedness, as he did during the days of Noah, and in the time of Lot, against Sodom and Gomorrah, and other similar instances, the level of wickedness was extreme, and beyond God's abundant mercy.
This is what I get from reading the scripture.

The scriptures say that God tolerated a lot of things. That has not changed. What changed was how he was dealing with mankind.
(Romans 9:22) What, then, if God had the will to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known, and he tolerated with much patience vessels of wrath made fit for destruction?
(Acts 17:29-31) 29 “Therefore, since we are the children of God, we should not think that the Divine Being is like gold or silver or stone, like something sculptured by the art and design of humans. 30 True, God has overlooked the times of such ignorance; but now he is declaring to all people everywhere that they should repent. 31 Because he has set a day on which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and he has provided a guarantee to all men by resurrecting him from the dead.”

From these scriptures, it is clear to me, that God exercised great patience before the Messiah arrived - the one through whom God had been granting forgiveness, and who would open the way for man's regaining a relationship with God - which none of us had (so should be thankful God, by mercy allowed us life).

It is also clear to me, from the scriptures, that since Christ is the mediator of the new covenant between God and man - like Moses, he can intercede, and further God has placed judgement in his hands, So until that appointed time, man has opportunity to accept God's mercy... No different to the past.

I definitely can't agree with anyone who says there is a difference.
Perhaps then that would mean removing parts of scripture, or believing as some claim that Paul was a fraud.

If one does that though, I think they also have to get rid of Jesus,

...and Peter,

...and John...

Wait. But that's the entire Greek scriptures.

Anyway, that's the way I see it.
I still don't see how one can decide what God should be though. To me, that's like saying, "I know everything, and have all the facts about every situation."
I am not God. I don't have all the facts. I don't know what God knows.
How often has humans demonstrated that they don't know a thing. How often have they demonstrated that when they think they are doing the right thing, they aren't. They realized they messed up.
Yet, they think they are right, and people say they must be.

"Yeah. Send the soldiers in.", they scream.
"Blow the living daylights out of them. They deserve it", they yell.
No one complains.

"The death penalty is cruel. Lock them up." they protest.
Oh, and don't forget to grant them parole after they serve X time.


Better not let some out though.

I hope you understand what I am trying to convey.
I think we need a fair / just, righteous, wise judge one not afraid to act (to remove bad, in behalf of good), and demonstrate his authority and power - not just because he can, but because he loves. Loves what? His righteous works.
Isaiah 45:18 For this is what Jehovah says, The Creator of the heavens, the true God, The One who formed the earth, its Maker who firmly established it, Who did not create it simply for nothing, but formed it to be inhabited: “I am Jehovah, and there is no one else.
Inhabited by righteous people.

When we think we are bigger and better than God,

Now, that's what you call, long.
Thanks again for your thoughts.

Thirza Fallen said:

I love history and I minored in it. Obviously Genesis is not history, the Exodus is not history, Jesus may or may not be history. The wars, judges and kings are history. It's not supposed to be history, it's supposed to be stories that show truths about people and the world. That's how we can use it. To pretend otherwise reduces it to kid stories, except for the many parts that are not kid friendly.

Click to expand...

Without showing something how can it be obvious?
That seems to me, similar to saying, "I believe it, so it's obvious. Everyone else is pretending."
We can all play the same game. 'It's obvious that the Bible contains truth, and there are no myths. Those who don't agree with that, are obviously happy to claim otherwise.'
How's that?

Biblical days

nPeace said:

When you say "people could not read back then", when are you referring to, and how do you know?


You are saying this based on what proof?

Click to expand...

In biblical days and early church days when Priests at the Catholic Church would interpret the bible for them because they could not read.

in biblical days they could not. It's a part of biblical church history and the church teaches it. This is why so many Christian's came to America way back when the pilgrims to have religious freedom to read and interpret the bible for themselves.

Uh I was taught that at The Baptist and Pentecostal church are you Christian?

Wycliffe and other Bible's started being written in secret in Europe sold so that Christian's could have a Bible for their own because Catholic priest would not let them read it or interpret it.

They were burned and killed for writing the bible Wycliffe and others who wrote the new testament out do Christian's could learn to read and interpret the bible for themselves.

Most did not.Most women did not read and write till the early 1900s.

My grandmother who was born in 1900 could not read and write till she got older she dropped out of school in the 3rd grade told us girls really weren't allowed to read and write nor go to school even not past the 5 or 6th grade.

This is early 1900s in Texas so even then females did not read and write much . but they knew the bible knew enough to read the Bible some and go to church on Sundays

But back in the 1600s in Europe they weren't allowed to read the Bible .

Are you actually talking to me about the Christian bible?I'm sorry but this is Christian basics 101 if you were taught people in biblical days and earlier then the 1600s we're all reading the Bible somebody has brainwashed you.

I took history and high school and read about that.

Riders said:

Biblical days

In biblical days and early church days when Priests at the Catholic Church would interpret the bible for them because they could not read.

in biblical days they could not. It's a part of biblical church history and the church teaches it. This is why so many Christian's came to America way back when the pilgrims to have religious freedom to read and interpret the bible for themselves.

Uh I was taught that at The Baptist and Pentecostal church are you Christian?

Wycliffe and other Bible's started being written in secret in Europe sold so that Christian's could have a Bible for their own because Catholic priest would not let them read it or interpret it.

They were burned and killed for writing the bible Wycliffe and others who wrote the new testament out do Christian's could learn to read and interpret the bible for themselves.

Most did not.Most women did not read and write till the early 1900s.

My grandmother who was born in 1900 could not read and write till she got older she dropped out of school in the 3rd grade told us girls really weren't allowed to read and write nor go to school even not past the 5 or 6th grade.

This is early 1900s in Texas so even then females did not read and write much . but they knew the bible knew enough to read the Bible some and go to church on Sundays

But back in the 1600s in Europe they weren't allowed to read the Bible .

Are you actually talking to me about the Christian bible?I'm sorry but this is Christian basics 101 if you were taught people in biblical days and earlier then the 1600s we're all reading the Bible somebody has brainwashed you.

I took history and high school and read about that.

Click to expand...

Ohhhh. You mean they could not read Latin. Not that they couldn't read.
However, there were persons who could read Latin, and so someone could convey the message.
For example, you mentioned Wycliffe, and there were others, who translated it so that others could read it for themselves.

Nonetheless it was available.
Good to know you learned some history.

nPeace said:

Without showing something how can it be obvious?
That seems to me, similar to saying, "I believe it, so it's obvious. Everyone else is pretending."
We can all play the same game. 'It's obvious that the Bible contains truth, and there are no myths. Those who don't agree with that, are obviously happy to claim otherwise.'
How's that?

Click to expand...

Dude, even most Christians don't think Genesis is history. Truth is not fact. Myths show truths. They show the way things never were but always are.

Thirza Fallen said:

Dude, even most Christians don't think Genesis is history. Truth is not fact. Myths show truths. They show the way things never were but always are.

Click to expand...

What do "most Christians" have to do with truth? Most "Christians" celebrate pagan holidays, and worship a triad of gods.
I don't understand the series of claims in the last three sentences. I take them as your opinion.
I can't say yeah or nay, because I don't really understand what you are claiming.

nPeace said:

What do "most Christians" have to do with truth? Most "Christians" celebrate pagan holidays, and worship a triad of gods.
I don't understand the series of claims in the last three sentences. I take them as your opinion.
I can't say yeah or nay, because I don't really understand what you are claiming.

Click to expand...

That is what myths are. The inerrant view of the Bible is less than 100 years old. It was never meant to be fact.

Thirza Fallen said:

That is what myths are. The inerrant view of the Bible is less than 100 years old. It was never meant to be fact.

Click to expand...

Another opinion? Noted.

nPeace said:

Another opinion? Noted.

Click to expand...

Inerrancy of Scripture - Fundamentalism
Did Fundamentalists Invent Inerrancy?

I am sorry facts hurt you.

Thirza Fallen said:

Inerrancy of Scripture - Fundamentalism
Did Fundamentalists Invent Inerrancy?

I am sorry facts hurt you.

Click to expand...

Opinion... noted.

nPeace said:

Opinion... noted.

Click to expand...

I feel like I'm talking to my 16 year old...

Thirza Fallen said:

That is what myths are. The inerrant view of the Bible is less than 100 years old. It was never meant to be fact.

Click to expand...

Sure, it was! In fact, many Jewish festivals, like the Passover for instance, are based on their history! (Most of them in some way are related to, or fulfilled by, the coming of the Messiah.)

I’m really surprised that there aren’t more Jews on here — at least Orthodox Jews — that take part in supporting their Scriptures, i.e., the Hebrew / Aramaic books.

Hockeycowboy said:

Sure, it was! In fact, many Jewish festivals, like the Passover for instance, are based on their history! (Most of them in some way are related to, or fulfilled by, the coming of the Messiah.)

I’m really surprised that there aren’t more Jews on here — at least Orthodox Jews — that take part in supporting their Scriptures, i.e., the Hebrew / Aramaic books.

Click to expand...

Really? What history is that? I thought that it was based upon the mythical slavery in Egypt.

nPeace said:

Another opinion? Noted.

Click to expand...

Since the Bible can be shown to fail when one makes the errors that you do it is more than opinion. You are in effect stating that the Bible is worthless when you go with an all or nothing attitude. Of course you would have to learn at least the basics of science to understand how Genesis is a book of myths. Are you up to the challenge?

nPeace said:

Okay, so you don't know. You just speak as though you do. "Moses is a myth because..."
I won't assume. Is that to give the impression that you do know?

Click to expand...

No, I do know. How did you come up with such a faulty conclusion?

I heard you make this argument before. I also heard, or more correctly, read where you claimed the crucifixion never happened, and is a myth.
So is this to say you are retracting that, or are you denying

Click to expand...

No, I posted that there is good evidence that it may be a myth. There is a difference. But then you have as yet to show that you understand the nature of evidence.

So you are not arguing from personal opinion. So when you say, the crucifixion never happened, and the miracles of Jesus recorded in the Bible, are myth, on what facts are you basing your arguments?

Click to expand...

It is not proper to strawman. There are aspects of the Jesus story that are myth, just as most of Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer is mostly myth. Your all or nothing attitude is perhaps your biggest weakness.

So you like Jesus' teachings.
I wonder which ones you throw out, and which ones you keep. Or do you keep all?
Oops. Wait. Let me retract that, and not assume.
Einstein said, "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."
You agree with this?

Click to expand...

Some of them. And remember, what you are reading in the Gospels was almost certainly altered. As to Einstein's quote you do not understand it. Do you think that you could approach it without your false beliefs that you have attached to it?

Mind you, Jesus said you must love God.
Einstein clarified that he is not an atheist.

Click to expand...

No, again, that is what the Bible says the he said. You need to take everything in the Gospels with a huge grain of salt. We really do not know exactly what Jesus said at all. Not even the Gospels agree on this. There are differences between them at times. Relatively minor ones, but differences none the same that should not exist if the Bible were the "word of God".

So you kno... let me ask that differently (language can be tricky). Do you know which parts of the Bible are true, and which are false? If you do, can you tell me how you know... based of course on the fact that you make that statement with such certainty... as if you know.

Oh, and don't mind what "far too many creationists" argue. You can always ask me my view. I am here.

Click to expand...

No, there are parts that we can never know if they were true or false. But there are also some parts that we can verify and parts that can be shown to be wrong. Again, drop the all or nothing attitude. Some of the Bible can be wrong and some can be right. There is no need for the extremes that you espouse.