• 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
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.
I'll leave it to our Jewish members to tell you what they think of your insinuation that the Messiah can't be descended from King David.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Jesus begins as a baby story.

Not O God earth mass. Not maths O imposed to remove energy out of God mass.

Science origin O for machine.

Science is a coercive liar.

O baby male self from an ovary. Not from God.

Origin old quotes reason garden body owned the eviction.

Theme.
Thesis. Why it occurred to an equal human parent adult body......humans.

Is that information too difficult to assess as information?

No says the scientific coercer I want to false preach it.

A human baby is born by human sex.

Argument...it was magic.
Magic.
Magi.
Three men.

Men adult living males.

Saw phenomena returned wandering star. Followed it.

In astral science cosmology one philosophy star watching data was real to the study.

But don't tell real human observations because it is a secret to tell the truth.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
That’s not the insinuation of the inclusion of the wife of Uriah.
No, that's the implication of your insinuation about the other three people you referred to.

You pointed out four people who are supposedly unfit to be ancestors of the Messiah. Well, three of the four are also listed as ancestors of David... and therefore also of all of David's descendants.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
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
and the dialog of the crucifixion is also contrary

but that doesn't mean it didn't happen
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
No, that's the implication of your insinuation about the other three people you referred to.

You pointed out four people who are supposedly unfit to be ancestors of the Messiah. Well, three of the four are also listed as ancestors of David... and therefore also of all of David's descendants.
Secrets.
Science meanings amongst group status.
Scientists.

Special language. Initiation to a group state. Believers.

D AVI D. Phi teachings.

Scientists.

In the past Moses event. Life harmed water loss X mass off ground in temple pyramid nuclear cause. Ground fission.

Life sacrificed. Natural desert dweller DNA changed as told.

Then Hebrew DNA culture emerged as new sciences temple pyramid.

Egyptian history changed as DNA families and status.

New DNA bloodline emerged due to Phi fallout conditions.

New language.
New way to infer science origin to Egyptian. Now Hebrew Israel knowledge.

Inherited science caused history.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Trustworthy relative to what? With regard to what?

Yes, there are contradictions, and by definition, one of the contradictory statements would, by default, be wrong.

Also, there are stories in the Bible that are scientifically and/or historically inaccurate.

That's my two cents.

Micah 5:2 says that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Isaiah 7:14 mentions Mary being a virgin. Psalm 22 mentions that the Messiah would die by crucifixion, and Isaiah 53:9 mentions Jesus being buried in a rich man's tomb. Only Jesus fulfilled all of those prophecies before 70 AD, the year that the second temple was destroyed.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
@Moses_UK ......... you asked......:-
Would you accept or read a grade 5 Science book (before your exam) that has tons of contradictions?
I might......... if the exam was crank as well, I might just put down answers that the examiners thought were right. I can tell of several examples about that.
No, you wouldn't
Ah ha! You weren't going to wait for my answer anyway! Imagine being governed by folks who tell you what you think, what you want........ *shivers*
neither would your teacher allow you to learn from it.
There you go again, telling more I would do. That's a bit manipulative isn't it?
How then could you accept a book which lies, deceives, and manipulates take hold of society?
Whose society? The UK's? The UK is mostly secular these days.
what if evidence can be provided? if you still believe you must be delusional which is a mental sickness
And that........ shows me how you might handle any who disagree with you.
Off to the mental hospital, eh?
Now that's really frightening.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Trustworthy relative to what? With regard to what?

Yes, there are contradictions, and by definition, one of the contradictory statements would, by default, be wrong.

Also, there are stories in the Bible that are scientifically and/or historically inaccurate.

That's my two cents.

Inaccurate? As say compared to the Zeus on Mount Olympus? Or the legendary Rainbow Serpent?
Not always, but generally speaking, where you CAN verify something with biblical history - usually
you:
1 - do verify it
2 - or cannot disprove it.
3 - it feels plausible

by way of example:

1 - there really was a King David
2 - Solomon built the first temple
3 - Moses left Egypt during the times of the great migrations during the Bronze Age collapse, and
spent 38 or the 40 years at a place called Kadesh.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Maybe a lot of people do understand that
there's poetry and all that rot, but don't happen
to think that "god" was just talking poetry when he said "thou ahalt not kill" or that the whole world got flooded.

As for "trustworthy" the idea its all a just symbols,
well that leaves each person to trust himself to figure
the thing right.

Its already 40,000 sects and counting each with different
figuring.

How about 40000 different ideas about the instructions
how to fly the airplane or run a nuclear power plant?

True, but the instruction given in the Gospels (ie Matt 5,6,7) is quite precise - that most religions
honor Jesus' example and teaching in the breach doesn't alter the instructions he gave.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Inaccurate? As say compared to the Zeus on Mount Olympus? Or the legendary Rainbow Serpent?
Not always, but generally speaking, where you CAN verify something with biblical history - usually
you:
1 - do verify it
2 - or cannot disprove it.
3 - it feels plausible

by way of example:

1 - there really was a King David
2 - Solomon built the first temple
3 - Moses left Egypt during the times of the great migrations during the Bronze Age collapse, and
spent 38 or the 40 years at a place called Kadesh.
You can add another 20 or even 30 pages of what is accurate and it still has absolutely nothing to do with the inaccuracies.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Someone can still be trustworthy, and not be infallible. They may make misstatements from time to time, and you be a good friend and excuse them their mistakes. Or, if they come a half hour delayed, are you going to forever banish them as your friend? Will you be insistent upon perfect accuracy from them, in order for you to find value in a relationship with them? That's kind of what you are saying is your expectation from scripture in your relationship with it.


Is it best to reject science then when it disagrees with your interpretations of scripture? Is that healthy spiritually? Does that bring your closer to God, to deny other perspectives than what you currently hold as true?
If someone replies to questions without providing a truthfull picture, even if they could... I wouldn't trust them.
Also, it's a matter of responsibilities.
If someone wants to inform... but does not meet their resonsibility to stick to the truth as good as they can, it's a lack of responsible behavior, IMO.
That's my take, at least.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
You can add another 20 or even 30 pages of what is accurate and it still has absolutely nothing to do with the inaccuracies.

True. And with 'inaccuracies" we also need to figure out - is the bible talking literally or symbolically?
I take the 'six days' of creation to be symbolic, for instance, and the sequence of events of the stages
of 'creation' to be literal and accurate.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
There might be no evidence that I'm controlling your mind, but that doesn't mean I'm not!

What's the difference?
The difference is that in the former case one could expect to see evidence, as I see it.

Surely it's a simple case of Matthew contradicting Mark, not Jairus contradicting himself?
no, I stay with my opinion, Jairus contradicted himself, not Bible in citing him.

But the bible contradicts itself in many little ways eg

Mark 6:8 He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts;

Matthew 10: 9 Take no gold, nor silver, nor copper in your belts, 10 no bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor a staff;
So, this is a case of Jesus changing his mind in a minor issue, I think.
And in big ways. Mark's Jesus is an ordinary Jew until God adopts him as [his] son on his baptism. He's not descended from David.
There is nothing you could use to back up this claim, I guess. And you didn't present any substanciation for the bolded claim.
The Jesuses of Matthew and Luke are the products of divine insemination and have God's Y-chromosome. They're each descended from David by genealogies which are as fake as each other and completely irreconcilable (and Jesus is not the son of Joseph in those stories anyway).

The Jesuses of Paul and John pre-existed in Heaven with God, created the material universe (regardless of Genesis 1), and were born into Jewish families which are descended from David.
Th trouble is there are tons of contradictions in the bible. another contradiction is the ancestry of Jesus being different in different books. There´s no proof the bible is true.
I don't think the lineages as presented in Matthew and Luke are irreconcilable.
The one genealogy is focussed on real fathership, where as the other presented the biological lineage.
There are biological fathers that don't even meet their offspring, sadly.
Preexistence does not rule out incarnation.
I think the problem arises because of a Christian tradition that the bible must be read so as to tell a single unified story. Since it very clearly doesn't, since it very clearly is written in separate books at separate times and places by separate authors (sometimes more than one author per book) with separate purposes and separate agendas, the tradition of a unified story is untenable when you read the documents impartially.
The books were written in seperate times by seperate authors who had different intentions in their minds... Yet the Bible books do not contradict themselves, as I see it.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
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.
that's not advice.
 
Top