Is the Bible Trustworthy?

[Subduction Zone]

GotQuestions.org and other sites demonstrate how different gospel writers use different reckonings for hours/time. There is no contradiction there.

The Pharisees and Sanhedrin members plotted to kill Jesus long before "two days before the passover".

What I'm pointing at is that Jesus and most of His disciples (Galileans) ate the Passover on the 13th, and were hosted not by Galileans, but by Essenes, for the last supper. Jesus had other meals with Pharisees, tax collectors, etc. which does not make Mark written by a Pharisee or a tax collector.

Apologists sites are not reliable. They tend to be written by Liars For Jesus. Do you have anything written by actual scholars that support your claims?

You could get your ideas from those sites, but you would need to support your claims by sources outside of those sites.

 

[firedragon]

GotQuestions.org and other sites demonstrate how different gospel writers use different reckonings for hours/time. There is no contradiction there.

The Pharisees and Sanhedrin members plotted to kill Jesus long before "two days before the passover".

What I'm pointing at is that Jesus and most of His disciples (Galileans) ate the Passover on the 13th, and were hosted not by Galileans, but by Essenes, for the last supper. Jesus had other meals with Pharisees, tax collectors, etc. which does not make Mark written by a Pharisee or a tax collector.

Does not answer anything I raised mate.

Cheers.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Apologists sites are not reliable. They tend to be written by Liars For Jesus. Do you have anything written by actual scholars that support your claims?

You could get your ideas from those sites, but you would need to support your claims by sources outside of those sites.

Ad hominem fallacy from you.

 

[McBell]

Ad hominem fallacy from you.

So that is what, a "No"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ad hominem fallacy from you.

Nope. But nice try.

 

[Moses_UK]

Mere questions cannot support a claim about the purported lack of trustfulness of someone.
A question.... is a question.

than your deluded

 

[paarsurrey]

The problem is that too many people do not understand that it's poetic/symbolic writing. And that it is not meant to be read like a history or text book. Once this is understood, the supposed discrepancies are irrelevant.

Does one mean that it is a whimsical tool in hands of the Christendom priesthood to take whatever they want as literal and physical and whatever they want to declare it poetic and symbolic, please? Right friend, please?
Or
Is there a reasonable methodology to do it, please? Right friend, please?
Did Jesus mention such methodology in clear and straightforward manner, please? Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[PureX]

Does one mean that it is a whimsical tool in hands of the Christendom priesthood to take whatever they want as literal and physical and whatever they want to declare it poetic and symbolic, please? Right friend, please?
Or
Is there a reasonable methodology to do it, please? Right friend, please?
Did Jesus mention such methodology in clear and straightforward manner, please? Right friend, please?

Regards

It means the text has to be interpreted, and contemplated, by each of us, for how it relates to our lives. The priests are not meant to stand between ourselves and God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well yes, Jairus contradicted himself.... doesn't mean Bible is wrong.

If a book holds 2 contradictory statements, then at least one of them has got to be wrong. By definition.

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.

Some parts are accurate and some aren't. Plenty of things in that book are demonstrably incorrect if they are supposed to be taken literally. Most of genesis and exodus, for example, fly in the face of scientific knowledge.

 

[thomas t]

than your deluded

actually, when you accuse somebody of something... the onus is on you to back the claims up.
In discussions like this:
A: "you're a murderer"
B: "you didn't back this claim up, I find this unsubstantiated!"
A: "Who shot the man?"

... the mere question cannot back anything up.
If you want to convict... present the evidence or I won't believe you and call your claims unsubstantiated.
It's useful to first ask the questions, then present the evidence and draw the conclusions last, I think.

 

[paarsurrey]

Keeping faith in the face of overwhelming evidence that the bible has contradictions is truly heroic.

Genesis 1.25 says that mankind was created before animals.
Genesis 2:18 says that mankind was created after animals.

There were many people (apostles) around to vouch for the validity and authenticity of the bible. The bible was written 100 years after all of them were dead, and after they were all dead they all got together (as dead people) to verify, certify, and guarantee that the bible was correct (this is how their chapters got into the bible).

Some kings didn't like certain passages of the bible, so those were changed by the kings.

Jews didn't believe in Satan, but Christians do, and Satan is in the Christian bible (where did he come from?). Remember, the Christian faith is a spinoff of the Jewish faith.

But, the Muslim faith is also a spinoff of the Jewish faith.

So.....why is there a difference in the Jewish, Muslim, and various versions of the Christian bible?

Are the Mormons right about their version of the bible (Christ came to America, Europeans were the 1st settlers in the Americas (which has some credence due to the Solutrean Hypothesis)?

Why trust one bible over another?

Most people rely on the bible for info about God (to believe in God). So, if the bible is wrong, wouldn't God's existence be questionable?

I look at the bible as a statistical problem, much like quantum mechanics. Sure, there are unknowns, but you can statistically say that some of it is valid. Certainly it is true that certain ancient cities existed (some are known today, and some have been discovered and match biblical records). So, as a history book, the bible is sometimes true. According to quantum mechanics, electrons have wave functions that are imaginary (that is, there is square root of negative one in them). Though they are imaginary, the probability, which is the product of a wave function and the complex conjugate of a wave function, as a real value (so we can predict a statistical probability for the position of an electron).

Similarly, though we know that there are mistakes in the bible, there is a statistical probability of finding truth if we look hard enough.

Clara Tea, "So.....why is there a difference in the Jewish, Muslim, and various versions of the Christian bible?"

One may like to correct oneself. We Muslims don't have any version of the Christianity Bible or of the Jewish Torah, please. Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The later books of the Bible were more accurate then the earlier material.

How is one sure of it being "accurate", please? How does one decide accurate from the non-accurate? What is the criteria, please?
Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[thomas t]

If a book holds 2 contradictory statements, then at least one of them has got to be wrong. By definition.

actually, if a person contradicts itself and you quote the contradicting information... it's not wrong. It's true.

I stay with my belief that the Bible is infallible. Miracles always fly in the face of science, I guess.
I believe in the veracity of the resurrection, for instance. Totally unscientific, yet I believe in an afterlife, for instance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

actually, if a person contradicts itself and you quote the contradicting information... it's not wrong. It's true.

That makes no sense.

I stay with my belief that the Bible is infallible.

You can believe that. One can hold false beliefs.

Miracles always fly in the face of science, I guess.

Yes, because miracles are impossible things happening anyway.
It's magic.

I believe in the veracity of the resurrection, for instance. Totally unscientific, yet I believe in an afterlife, for instance.

At least the resurrection isn't literally disprovable, like Noah's flood / ark and the creation myth.

It's off course still believing things without rational justification, but at least you can still say that it can't be disproven. Plenty of other stuff in the bible, that you likely also believe religiously and dogmatically, can be disproven. And have been.

To believe the unfalsifiable is one thing - not a good thing, but one thing. But to also believe the already falsified... that's just.... well... you know.

 

[paarsurrey]

The earliest 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.

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 legal torture and laws that allow for 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, by compiling oral traditions from sources that had passed down, by word of mouth, of the teachings of the original Apostles. Word of mouth was not as reliable as original written documents, but those 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, Jesus, if Jesus was just a nobody? Rome was very good at keeping records and very tolerant of religion, since keeping religion open, helped them to control the empire. Censorship had to do with Rome feeling threatened from within, by the religion of slaves. They were dependent on slaves and law and this new religion threatened the status quo.

In the end, the Christians, ofter their New Testament was written, out lasted many more generations of persecutors, to eventually become the official religion of Rome in the 4th century AD. Christianity started at the bottom and worked its way up the ladder to the top, earning respect. Christianity would become a key part of an international empire that would last for 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 as well as faith and reason.

The Saints of Christianity are somewhat unique to world religion. Unlike Martyrs who die to become Saints, most of the 10,000 recorded Saints, lived among us, and through their works and deeds expressed the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is a living religion. It has been almost 2000 years since the New Testament was written and it may be time to write book three, to honor those who had an impact and helped shape the present. The Church does have good records but not for all 10,000 Saints.

wellwisher, " Saints, most of the 10,000 recorded Saints, lived among us, and through their works and deeds expressed the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Aren't they are all sinners, according to Christendom everybody is a sinner except Jesus, please? Right, please?
Is it a Holy Spirit or the un-Holy spirit that gives 30000+ denominations of Christianity different messages and divides them, please? Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[thomas t]

That makes no sense.

it does.
When a person says "it's raining" and "the sun is shining", even if both statements can't be true... the quotes can be true.
Saying "A said: it rains, but he also said the sun is shining" is a true statement.
You can quote someone correctly also in moments when they make contradictory statements.
In a sense that the quoting was correct and you depicted correctly what the other one said.

At least the resurrection isn't literally disprovable, like Noah's flood / ark and the creation myth.

Noah's flood isn't diprovable when God exchanged earthes during or after the flood as indicated by 2 Peter 3:5-6.
You can't prove the flooding of a house when the owner had it replaced by a new one shortly after.
In my opinion, the creation myth is not a myth and cannot be disproven, either.
You can't disprove anything from the Bible, I think. There is nothing you could potentially falsify, In think.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Noah's flood isn't diprovable

Except that it is.
It makes (at least) 2 very testable predictions about what we should and should see in today's data.
A global flood layer (much like the KT boundary) and a universal genetic bottleneck in all species dating to the same period. Neither exists. Therefor it did not happen.

Data doesn't lie. People do though.

when God exchanged earthes during or after the flood as indicated by 2 Peter 3:5-6.

Off course, if you allow for magic to happen, you can explain away anything and everything.
But even in this instance, this fails. See below.

You can't prove the flooding of a house when the owner had it replaced by a new one shortly after.

But you could disprove that claim of "rebuilding" by pointing out that the supposed "new" house isn't at all new and instead can be shown to be old. Just like the earth.

The earth has a 4.5 billion year history. With fossils of animals going back hundreds of millions of years.
There's billion years worth of "history" in the geological column.

No, this earth is not new at all. And humans were on this earth ever since they evolved. So were their ancestors. And their ancestors. And their ancestors. And so on. All the way back to life's beginning at least 3.8 billion years ago.

In my opinion, the creation myth is not a myth and cannot be disproven, either.

Your opinion doesn't get priority over the facts.
Humans evolved. At no point in history was human population below a couple thousand individuals - let alone 2 like genesis claims. The genetic and fossil record, disproves a literal reading of genesis. It is what it is. Your "opinions" notwithstanding.

You can't disprove anything from the Bible, I think.

Well, you're wrong about that.

There is nothing you could potentially falsify, In think.

I just told you how that isn't true.

 

[thomas t]

The geneitc bottleneck can only appear if God did not change genetics after the flood.
Genesis 11:7 indicates he did, since linguistics and genetics are interlinked.
If he changed genetis one time, he did so many times perhaps... rendering it impossible to track a potential bottleneck.

But you could disprove that claim of "rebuilding" by pointing out that the supposed "new" house isn't at all new and instead can be shown to be old. Just like the earth.

He created a ne but old looking house, maybe.
when God created Adam, he made him look like adult.
He wanted an adult. So he created one. In other words; he created a human with the appearance of age. Hi just didn't want to organize a mother for him who could breastfeed him and such.

The earth has a 4.5 billion year history. With fossils of animals going back hundreds of millions of years.
There's billion years worth of "history" in the geological column.

No, this earth is not new at all. And humans were on this earth ever since they evolved. So were their ancestors. And their ancestors. And their ancestors. And so on. All the way back to life's beginning at least 3.8 billion years ago.

When God created Adam, he gave him and his muscles a history. He could walk. Newborns can't walk.
Muscles need a history to work.
So that's why God gave Adam a good history of working muscles. Right at the day of his creation, according to the Bible.
Same with earth, I think.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The geneitc bottleneck can only appear if God did not change genetics after the flood.
Genesis 11:7 indicates he did, since linguistics and genetics are interlinked.
If he changed genetis one time, he did so many times perhaps... rendering it impossible to track a potential bottleneck.

He created a ne but old looking house, maybe.
when God created Adam, he made him look like adult.
He wanted an adult. So he created one. In other words; he created a human with the appearance of age. Hi just didn't want to organize a mother for him who could breastfeed him and such.


When God created Adam, he gave him and his muscles a history. He could walk. Newborns can't walk.
Muscles need a history to work.
So that's why God gave Adam a good history of working muscles. Right at the day of his creation, according to the Bible.
Same with earth, I think.

No, just no.

The flood.would have created a population bottleneck. Haven't you read the myth?

Your claim that God lied cannot handwave away the bottleneck problem.

 

[Colt]

How is one sure of it being "accurate", please? How does one decide accurate from the non-accurate? What is the criteria, please?
Right friend, please?

Regards

Some common sense, some guidance from the spirit of truth and then continued revelations that help sort it all out.