• 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?

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
yes. I'm just not good at it.
That's not what the Bible advises.

... though it also is what the Bible advises:

Proverbs 26:4-5:

Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you yourself will be just like him.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
flood? there might not be no evidence at all since it happened on the forerunner of this earth, according to the Bible... see 2 Peter 3:5-6.
That strained interpretation does not work either.

Let me ask you, do you know why stories of people waking up in seed motel bathtubs full of ice are an urban myth?

Please note I did not ask if you knew that they were a myth, I was asking if you knew why we know them to be myth.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
flood? there might not be no evidence at all since it happened on the forerunner of this earth, according to the Bible... see 2 Peter 3:5-6.
2 Peter 3:5 They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago, and an earth formed out of water and by means of water, 6 through which the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.​

That appears to be an attempt by the unknown author of 2 Peter to explain away the impossibilities of Noah's flood, no? I don't recall such a tale anywhere else in the bible.

We know from the evidence of reality there was no Noah's flood, and we know there was no such "former earth". And Revelation 21:1's "a new heaven and a new earth" doesn't count.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
My discussion partner in the other thread doubts it is...
He cited one example among others insinuating Bible contradicted itself. According to Matthew, Jairus said his daughter died, see Matthew 9:18-10, whereas Mark 5:21-24 quotes him in a sense that she is dying right the moment when they spoke.
Contradiction, no?

Well yes, Jairus contradicted himself.... doesn't mean Bible is wrong.
This is at least my 5 cents.

In my opinion, the Bible can be trustworthy even if the Canon was established only centuries later and even if the authors were partially unknown.

Thomas

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

Well-Known Member

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
I wasn't aware He even had an account here. What's His username? Which post is His?
Perhaps he adopted the guise of a human being
or a swan's feathery shape
or a bull's body
or He/She/It/They came as a mere humble pixels, sneaking in between our letters
delighting in their miniscule invisibility


The later books of the Bible were more accurate then the earlier material.
Who can even say what is accurate or not
When we do not even agree what is said,
And about what is being talked about?
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
My discussion partner in the other thread doubts it is...
He cited one example among others insinuating Bible contradicted itself. According to Matthew, Jairus said his daughter died, see Matthew 9:18-10, whereas Mark 5:21-24 quotes him in a sense that she is dying right the moment when they spoke.
Contradiction, no?

Well yes, Jairus contradicted himself.... doesn't mean Bible is wrong.
This is at least my 5 cents.

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.

Thomas

I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired and that everything that we need to know is there.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
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.

:rolleyes:
Do you notice the four parenthetical names? Women. One was raped (and so was unclean). One was a prostitute (also unclean). One was a foreigner (unworthy to be in the lineage of the Messiah). One was a product of adultery. Then there was the mention of Mary, who was unwed. The symbolism inherent in these inclusions is precisely theological poetry, and sets the stage for Matthew’s central theological message of his Gospel. It’s poetry; it’s not intended to be factual.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
As the human self consciousness is both questioner and answerer the reality am I trustworthy as author hearer of voice answers. Writer thinker,?

No.

Brother to Brother already said no.

Science is coercive.

You never owned natural formed presence in scientific invention

Machine presence.

Water mass owned presence minerals not machine.

Water used unnaturally sacrificed a man male life storyteller as you have to be a man living present to own all stories told by a man.

Scientist.

So if a woman says sex and my O ovary gave you life.....science would argue about where our original parents came from.

Never being the parent.

Science constructed originally just for machines is the status science history of.

Tell a scientist your life today from human sex. He cannot in self presence use that information in science

Hence coerced his baby human birth information as the human act of sex.

As that information is not written as fact then it is not fact is it?

Yet if you claim it medical science. Healer as past medical human title then it would be read correctly.

Yet the ego does not infer it as a medical study due to changes in the natural state.

Philosophers therefore said. Humans misquoting the information was not allowed and you had to be taught the medical reasoning. Not the occult.

Most of you agree only with the occult terms. Therefore are not its teacher.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
In my opinion, it is best understood literally if its not a prophetic passage such as Jesus saying "I am the door".
Oh, so Jesus is a literal door? Where are the hinges? Is he made of paneled wood? Let’s throw him into the pond to see if he floats. This is the problem with taking mythic texts literally.

the Tanakh isn't myth and all stories are interdependent in the Bible, as I see it.
You see it wrong. If you can’t even correctly identify the literary genres, I believe you don’t have an informed opinion.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
flood? there might not be no evidence at all since it happened on the forerunner of this earth, according to the Bible... see 2 Peter 3:5-6.
Please stop this nonsense. There is evidential continuity to the age of the earth. That’s science. If we have evidence of dinosaurs and yet no evidence of a much-later flood, what does that tell you? The flood would have had to happen after the dinosaurs, because we know that the dinosaurs died out before human beings appeared. Your misuse of 2 Peter Does. Not. Work.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Of course. Virtually anything can have symbolic meaning. What's more, since symbolic meaning is subjective, the symbolic meaning something might have to me might well be different than the symbolic meaning it has for you. None of this is particularly relevant.

Where interpretation turns to ignorant mush is when it pretentiously makes baseless claims about the author's 'symbolic' intent.
The texts haven’t lasted because they are factually true. They’ve lasted because they’re multivalent.
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
*sigh* There are days I wonder which Chinese emperor I farted in the presence of in order to have been cursed to be reincarnated as a member of RF. This is one of those days.
My world has come crashing down. I didn’t realize you farted...
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Please stop this nonsense. There is evidential continuity to the age of the earth. That’s science. If we have evidence of dinosaurs and yet no evidence of a much-later flood, what does that tell you? The flood would have had to happen after the dinosaurs, because we know that the dinosaurs died out before human beings appeared. Your misuse of 2 Peter Does. Not. Work.
Earth when given sink holes floods.

Water goes inside of earth emptied out tunnels cools brittle radiating earth mass core release. Earth entered a pre formed hot radiating satanic black hole.

Original human owned inferred science calculus. Human taught references what human science as science caused. Proof to self on earth you did it. Activated vacuum changed.

Vacuum snap froze all life. Proof food still in dinosaur mouth. Also unfrozen. Most bodies decomposed into sludge.

Flooding evaporation effect foot prints. As flooding is first irradiation effect. As is baking of clay feet. Evidence foot prints.

Radiating space inherited.

Reason black holes shrink as space vacuum shifts hole. How earth entered a black hole yet survived. Life did not

What science destroyer self quotes I always knew.

No flooding evidence is reasoned.

Yet it did flood cooling atmospheric effect for gases. Not for life continuance the warning.

Space owned the gases. Not human scientists the warning to self sacrifice
 
Top