Does the Bible Have to be "True"?

[Jayhawker Soule]

I read it in the order in which it was composed, with the gospels ordered Mark, Matthew, Luke then John.

When you do that, it becomes immediately apparent that ...

Doubt is to certainty as neurosis is to psychosis. The neurotic is in doubt and has fears about persons and things; the psychotic has convictions and makes claims about them. In short, the neurotic has problems, the psychotic has solutions.

- Thomas Stephen Szasz

 

[Scuba Pete]

The Bible claims to be the Word of God.

No it does not. Please cite the scripture that even suggests this. Moreover, John 1 cites Jesus as being the "Word".

Fundamental, Orthodox Christians will tell you that the Bible is the word of God and is absolutely true. For them to admit that the Bible is not 100% true means that their foundation of faith comes crashing down.

They rely only on human tradition for this. Not only does the scripture declare itself to be the "Word of God", it consequently never claims to be without error.

The biggest problem with religions is that they don't like to admit when they are wrong.

Speak for your own religion. Mine does not hold any belief as sacrosanct.

If the Bible isn't true then the faith of Christians is completely in vain and as Paul says they of all people are to be pitied.

That's not what Paul wrote. Not even close. It's the same kind of interpolation used by literalists to justify holding on to the other human traditions.

Scripture is useful. Sure. But it's the Spirit that's supposed to lead us into all knowledge.
Scripture is inspired. Excellent, but that doesn't imply it's perfect or that it's the Word of God.

God works through the imperfect to display his perfection. Why should it be any different with Scriptures?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

@Scuba Pete : it's good seeing you my friend.

 

[allfoak]

Hello @Kirby D. P.

The Bible has to be historically true in order to claim Jesus to be God.
In fact if the Bible is not historically true then the entire structure comes crashing down

 

[Brian Schuh]

May I add a Jewish point of view? Remember that the Bible was written by Jews. Proper observance is what has to be correct. There can be no doubt as to the correct way to keep the laws of Moses. That is the only aspect of the Scripture that is relevant to my every day life. Whether there really existed an empire of Hittites and who they were, for example, doesn't affect my life, and it wouldn't affect my observance if Hittites turned out to be a myth.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

Hello @Kirby D. P.

The Bible has to be historically true in order to claim Jesus to be God.
In fact if the Bible is not historically true then the entire structure comes crashing down

I beg to differ, Allfolk. Paul never claims that the Bible (OT or NT) is absolutely historically accurate. Nor does Jesus ever claim the BE God -- one of the few ways in which the gospels are consistent. I see you include a quite form the Buddha in your posting format. Forget (for the moment) what the majority of devout Christians claim today, I don't think you can find a single scrap of scripture that requires they be used as a history or science text, but instead as a code of teachings, just like the teachings of Buddha. This would be separate and apart from considering any supernatural qualities of Jesus (if he did exist) or the existence of God.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There can be no doubt as to the correct way to keep the laws of Moses.

Seriously?

So tell me: what's your favorite kitniyot dish during pesach.

 

[allfoak]

I beg to differ, Allfolk. Paul never claims that the Bible (OT or NT) is absolutely historically accurate. Nor does Jesus ever claim the BE God -- one of the few ways in which the gospels are consistent. I see you include a quite form the Buddha in your posting format. Forget (for the moment) what the majority of devout Christians claim today, I don't think you can find a single scrap of scripture that requires they be used as a history or science text, but instead as a code of teachings, just like the teachings of Buddha. This would be separate and apart from considering any supernatural qualities of Jesus (if he did exist) or the existence of God.

You are correct.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

[T]he correct way to keep the laws of Moses ... is the only aspect of the Scripture that is relevant to my every day life.

That certainly is a very Jewish perspective, Brian. I used to be of a similar bent. Though, the more I understood of the 613 OT commandments and their talmudic extrapolations, the more I found that the one salient principle worth keeping from Jewish tradition is there should be a law, that it be moral, and that it applies to all. Beyond that, taking the OT as a code of law for human behavior is demonstrably odious.

 

[Altfish]

If it is not true (it isn't) where does that leave Christian and other religions?

 

[Brian Schuh]

Seriously?

So tell me: what's your favorite kitniyot dish during pesach.

I don't keep Passover. In fact, I don't keep a lot of it. I'm just repeating stuff I learned from hassidic rabbis. The fact is that I don't see any reason why I should read the Tanakh one more time. It is all irrelevant to my life.

 

[Quagmire]

I’ve recently been asking my Christian acquaintances this question and I have not received, to my understanding, a satisfactory answer.

First, let’s just stipulate that I am conversant in scripture, both Old and New Testament. And I grasp the commonly held fundamental dogma of modern Christianity.

My question is:

Regardless of whether or not God exists, whether there is a Heaven or Hell, whether or not Christ lives and has the power to save… does the literal, historical accuracy of the Bible matter? If so, why?

I contend that it does not.

I think it matters in the sense that any ancient writings that are historically accurate in any sense are invaluable.

As a spiritual guide though? No, I don't think historical accuracy matters.

 

[Brian Schuh]

I mean seriously, how many times should you read the same book? It seems one would know what it says the first or second time reading it. But that doesn't stop Jews and Christians from reading the Bible over and over and over.

 

[Quagmire]

I mean seriously, how many times should you read the same book? It seems one would know what it says the first or second time reading it. But that doesn't stop Jews and Christians from reading the Bible over and over and over.

It isn't the same book the second time you read it.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

If it is not true (it isn't) where does that leave Christian and other religions?

Nowhere, so long as any religion depends upon the "reality" of the supernatural.

However, I can see an argument for the use of almost any religious tradition as a template around which to orient their ethical understanding and behavior.

Not my cup of tea, exactly. But I think, in this light, I can be less militant against religion in general than I have been in the past.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I’ve recently been asking my Christian acquaintances this question and I have not received, to my understanding, a satisfactory answer.

First, let’s just stipulate that I am conversant in scripture, both Old and New Testament. And I grasp the commonly held fundamental dogma of modern Christianity.

My question is:

Regardless of whether or not God exists, whether there is a Heaven or Hell, whether or not Christ lives and has the power to save… does the literal, historical accuracy of the Bible matter? If so, why?

I contend that it does not.

Even if it isn't literally true, every word would have some sort of intended meaning.

In a lot of ways, a non-literal interpretation is more difficult. If it's just a recounting of literal events, then it's fine for it to include coincidences and things that don't have any special significance. If it has all been deliberately crafted to communicate some message, though, then every word of it is meaningful and no detail is a coincidence - it was all put there deliberately.

All in all, I'd say that your approach would make it significantly harder to reconcile all the parts of the Bible together into one cohesive whole.

 

[Brian Schuh]

It isn't the same book the second time you read it.

I studied the Bible from 12 yrs old till almost 40. From what I can tell, it obviously is a very Jewish book, written by Jews and primarily concerned with Jewish issues. I don't see how a Gentile can justify spending his whole life studying a book that belongs to a culture that he doesn't belong to.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As a spiritual guide though? No, I don't think historical accuracy matters.

I would live my life very differently if I thought that Christ was going to literally swoop down and make the world perfect than if I thought his swooping was only metaphorical.

 

[McBell]

I studied the Bible from 12 yrs old till almost 40. From what I can tell, it obviously is a very Jewish book, written by Jews and primarily concerned with Jewish issues. I don't see how a Gentile can justify spending his whole life studying a book that belongs to a culture that he doesn't belong to.

I can think of several reasons that justify it.

The main being that because so many people use the Bible to "justify" passing laws in this country (USA) that it makes sense to understand the book behind the proposed laws.

 

[Quagmire]

I studied the Bible from 12 yrs old till almost 40. From what I can tell, it obviously is a very Jewish book, written by Jews and primarily concerned with Jewish issues. I don't see how a Gentile can justify spending his whole life studying a book that belongs to a culture that he doesn't belong to.

Why would anyone have to justify that?