InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
Can a book with an unknown author, contain true knowledge and valid logic?
-
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?
- Thread starter thomas t
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bible contradictions
I think treating 'scripture' as a single genre is self-serving at best and stupid at worst. Genesis 1 is not the same as Leviticus 19 which, in turn, differs from Numbers 22; likewise the Song of Songs is different from the Book of Ruth.
Augustus
…
They were selecting on perceived authenticity, not really 'viewpoints' as this seems to imply they would reject early sources that 'said the wrong thing'. Most texts were fairly well established, with only a few points of disagreement. The fact that 4 Gospels were included despite contradictions demonstrates they were all well established before becoming canonical (or likely even before they were considered scripture akin to the OT).
Based on the standards of modern scholarship, they did a pretty good job of selecting the earliest sources. Of course this says little about authenticity beyond the fact that they were authentically 'Early Christian'.
Personally, I don't think he was suggesting that, all or nothing, black or white understanding of it. Certainly, yes, there are things which were laws about social order, actual historical events which can be confirmed, such as David was a real king of Israel, for instance. I don't think he, nor anyone takes all of it as poetry and myth. But there most certainly are those who take all of it as scientifically and historically factual, and that is the error right there.
That is the Humpty Dumpty problem. Literalism. Literalism, kills symbolism when it mistakes the meaning of the myth, with its insistence the stories must be factual in order to have truth and meaning. That is, in fact the point of this thread. Can you agree? Can you accept that one does not need to understand the Red Sea parting as factual history, in order for it to have symbolic meaning?
Augustus
…
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.
Just because you don't recognise the symbolism, doesn't mean it was not written in that manner...
The Gospel of Matthew begins with the words "The Book of Genealogy [in Greek, "Genesis"] of Jesus Christ", deliberately echoing the words of Genesis 2:4 in the Old Testament in Greek.[Notes 2] The genealogy tells of Jesus' descent from Abraham and King David and the miraculous events surrounding his virgin birth,[Notes 3] and the infancy narrative tells of the massacre of the innocents, the flight into Egypt, and eventual journey to Nazareth.
Matthew 1:1–17 begins the Gospel, "A record of the origin of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham: Abraham begot Isaac, ..." and continues on until "... Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ."
Matthew emphasizes, right from the beginning, Jesus' title Christ—the Greek rendering of the Hebrew title Messiah—meaning anointed, in the sense of an anointed king. Jesus is presented as the long-awaited Messiah, who was expected to be a descendant of King David. Matthew begins by calling Jesus the son of David, indicating his royal origin, and also son of Abraham, indicating that he was an Israelite; both are stock phrases, in which son means descendant, calling to mind the promises God made to David and to Abraham.[6]
Matthew's introductory title (βίβλος γενέσεως, book of generations) has been interpreted in various ways, but most likely is simply a title for the genealogy that follows, echoing the Septuagint use of the same phrase for genealogies.[7]
Matthew's genealogy is considerably more complex than Luke's. It is overtly schematic, organized into three sets of fourteen, each of a distinct character:
- The first is rich in annotations, including four mothers and mentioning the brothers of Judah and the brother of Perez.
- The second spans the Davidic royal line, but omits several generations, ending with "Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon."
- The last, which appears to span only thirteen generations, connects Joseph to Zerubbabel through a series of otherwise unknown names, remarkably few for such a long period.
Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia
Audie
Veteran Member
Could, but regardless of author you need to be able to cross-reference with outside sources.
Egypt..check
Red sea...check, and its still wet.
Noah's flood?... hmm. No evidence.
Lots of contrary data.
PureX
Veteran Member
Only? We often convey the truth about existence better through fiction than we can through facts.
We will likely never know this. But such religious literature helps us to understand ourselves in relation to the mystery.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
Do you think this is an actual lineage? And that these characters actually existed in this historical relationship? And if the Star Wars trilogy, or Shakespeare's plays had contained some sort of similar "lineage" would you have taken those as fact, too? Just because you find no symbolic or metaphorical purpose for writing such a thing doesn't mean there isn't any. Also, there are many different authors and editors of the biblical texts, and many different ideological paradigms through which they wrote and assembled these texts. There is no way we're going to understand what they did, or why, by presuming their text to be historical fact. Especially when at the time they were writing, they could not possibly even have know the historical facts.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.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
Well, if they think "God was talking" at all, then they've clearly not understood that the stories are symbolic, metaphorical, allegorical, ideological, and written by men, for men.
Yes, it does. All writing is "just symbols" on a page; that we then have to interpret and determine it's significance, to us.
It's not a "how to" book. And presuming that it is would be quite foolish, for exactly the reason you just posted.
like a person offering you to look after your children for an hour or so.... might be trustworthy or not.
I personally believe the Bible is 100% truthful and reliable throughout.
In my opinion, it is best understood literally if its not a prophetic passage such as Jesus saying "I am the door".
For me, a perfect God can deliver perfect scriptures even if Muslims tend to use the same apporach to their book, if I'm well informed, @icehorse .
the Tanakh isn't myth and all stories are interdependent in the Bible, as I see it.
maybe.
Do you understand that the questions "is this factually correct?" and "is this a factual claim?" are not the same question?
I look forward to being corrected, then. Please enlighten us: what's the symboluc or metaphorical purpose for this genealogy?
Indeed. Some if it is written as rules and laws, some of it is written as poetry and symbolism, some of it is written as a straightforward historical chronicle or as an account of real events.
If we approach the text with an open mind, there's no reason to throw out the idea that the passages presented as history weren't intended as history.
... to our standard. I doubt very much that you have any special insight into how reliable some first-century author considered his beliefs to be.
So then do you think you should answer a fool according to his folly?
If you truly believe this, then why should my opinion matter to you?
yes. I'm just not good at it.
You made a very good point about the poetry of citing genealogies, btw.
You could as well cite the poetry of Jesus announcing to come back... or else...
I find it interesting to see how other people deal with that question.
And, it seems to me God has blessed this debate already, @Jayhawker Soule for instance made good points, too in my opinion, and it is more than interesting to know who these discussions develop.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
As the saying goes: A demand that the Bible be read literally is the fastest road to atheism. If one treats it as an inspirational book it has quite a bit of merit.
I wasn't aware He even had an account here. What's His username? Which post is His?
My church believes there are translation problems and that the Book of Mormon is correct to help someone figure things out.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Even worse, if one takes the Bible literally and goes by the genealogies for dates then we have Moses escaping Egypt to get back into . . . Egypt
At the time of the Exodus according to genealogies Egypt was a rather extensive empire. It extended north and east past what is Israel today.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Belief is one thing. Supporting those beliefs is another. I can believe that I can fly by flapping my arms. That does not make it so.
Meanwhile it is easy to show evidence that refutes such claims as "there was a global flood" and others.
it's my belief that he sometimes has a beneficial hand on things