The narrative point? Not much to address there. If it's a story, it's a story and I have no problem with that. I was only referring to the part written as narrative. I apologize for not being specific enough.
-
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!
Two Words That Disprove the Bible
- Thread starter Giega
- Start date
The narrative point? Not much to address there. If it's a story, it's a story and I have no problem with that. I was only referring to the part written as narrative. I apologize for not being specific enough.
Thank you, both for addressing it, and using the quote button.
Oh, as another point, the Word of God as handed down to man isn't the way I view Scripture. I feel I should point out that I'm not a Christian(or any sort of follower of Abrahamic religions); I just did a bit of rudimentary Bible study a few years back.
No, I was going for the point of did this man and his actions really exist. I was going for a more "this isn't scientifically possible, so why do people believe it really happened" direction.
I don't honestly expect all Christians to feel that way, but in my area about 80% of them do, so I made an assumption.
I see you missed my post about the Moabite Stone. That's okay, I'll just post the link again, with a few other examples to further support my point that a lot of sections of the Bible can be corroborated by independent discoveries.
Here is a link talking about the physical seals of Hezekiah.
Here is an actual wall from a prominent temple from Biblical Times
Then there's the Tel Dan Stele, which I myself don't even really know all of what that is, but here's a link about it anyhow.
There you go people. Physical stuff that in no way shape or form could possibly corroborate anything that happened in the Bible. Satan just happened to put it there to trick us believers.
I can't argue that, and I won't try. I was looking for things that couldn't happen without divine intervention, but whatever.
Any chance of you arguing for yourself?
Oh, and another thing.
You can't "disprove" something with the words "prove it." Just because there isn't hard "proof" doesn't automatically mean something isn't so. In this particular case, it could very well be, don't get me wrong. But let's say you used "prove it" against, say, the Big Bang theory. As far as I know, we don't have any sort of "proof" that it happened, and thus it cannot be "proven." However, the theory does still hold up because it fits what we're currently able to observe.
The point is that absence of proof isn't enough to disprove; you need more.
For me, all that I need to convince me that the Bible isn't the inherent Word of God is the simple fact that it's not a single work, but a collection of works compiled over time, in addition to the fact that there are actually different versions of the Bible in terms of contents; the Catholic Bible has texts not included in the Protestant Bible; the Ethiopian Bible features the Secrets of Enoch, etc.
It's things like that which are enough to convince me that the collection as a whole is not the inherent Word of God.
You can't "disprove" something with the words "prove it." Just because there isn't hard "proof" doesn't automatically mean something isn't so. In this particular case, it could very well be, don't get me wrong. But let's say you used "prove it" against, say, the Big Bang theory. As far as I know, we don't have any sort of "proof" that it happened, and thus it cannot be "proven." However, the theory does still hold up because it fits what we're currently able to observe.
The point is that absence of proof isn't enough to disprove; you need more.
For me, all that I need to convince me that the Bible isn't the inherent Word of God is the simple fact that it's not a single work, but a collection of works compiled over time, in addition to the fact that there are actually different versions of the Bible in terms of contents; the Catholic Bible has texts not included in the Protestant Bible; the Ethiopian Bible features the Secrets of Enoch, etc.
It's things like that which are enough to convince me that the collection as a whole is not the inherent Word of God.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
And you're asking the 'motivation' for such believing....
Death would be that cause.
Death is greater than all of us....no exceptions.
But then to believe Someone might actually have done so....conquered death.
That person would have to be greater than the 'average joe'.....
in a lot of ways.
If His reputation is false....then Death wins.
If His reputation needs proving....you can't believe....Death wins.
I believe in life after death....and the Carpenter is my inspiration.
But as you can see by my banner....I'm different.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
As a Christian, this is how I see the bible:
The bible is a book of scriptural guidance. It's not a book of science, or even literal history. That being said, there are many different styles of literature in the bible, including poetry, parable, mystical, simple letters, eyewitness accounts, etc.
When reading the bible, it's really not that difficult to determine which style you're reading. At least, that's not my own personal experience. When I read the bible, I consider the context - who the audience is, the historical setting, the writing style, the original language, etc.
It's challenging at times, but not really all that difficult to grasp.
The bible is a book of scriptural guidance. It's not a book of science, or even literal history. That being said, there are many different styles of literature in the bible, including poetry, parable, mystical, simple letters, eyewitness accounts, etc.
When reading the bible, it's really not that difficult to determine which style you're reading. At least, that's not my own personal experience. When I read the bible, I consider the context - who the audience is, the historical setting, the writing style, the original language, etc.
It's challenging at times, but not really all that difficult to grasp.
Hence why the Big Bang Theory is that, a theory. I think it's safe to say that most Christians believe that Jesus was resurrected after three days, but I have yet to find one that can provide evidence for it.
I understand what you're saying about the collection of works over time, but I don't think its enough. To look a little further back, at Greek mythology. It was adopted into Roman mythology and accepted for a long time, yet now it has literally no believers. In two thousand years, the same thing could happen to the bible.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
If you last more than 20 posts or so, Giega, on this forum, you will find that I am quite capable of "arguing for myself." However, be warned - I do lose interest quickly if the person I'm engaged in conversation with is less than compelling or if I've argued the same points twenty times in the past three years.
Looking at death a little further, it's not a being. Death is a guaranteed fact, it will happen eventually. It isn't a finite being for us to struggle against, which is how I think of it. Extending that, the man who "conquered death" didn't enjoy the rest of his mortal life according to the Bible, he rose to heaven. The difference was he didn't die to do it.
Last edited:
I see. Which is why it took you about 8 posts to finally make a point actually relevant to the topic. And saying you believe differently than other Christians doesn't really work against me.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I don't personify Death...
But that should not be confused with Someone standing over you as you lay down to surrender your last breath.
And the flesh cannot inherit the kingdom.
Don't you have to die to go there?...( so I've heard)
I'm a little confused as to what you're saying. You said that by believing a man conquered death, we wouldn't let death win. That sounds like heavy personification. And if this man did die, doesn't that mean he DIDN'T conquer death?
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
I will redirect you to three threads that I created that show in fact that Jesus was born to this Earth. The information is in three threads because it was a paper I wrote that was compiled into 43 pages:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/107541-josephus-jesus.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/107542-paul-jesus-13.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/110449-jesus-mythical-god-men.html
As for the resurrection (people have written books on just that subject. Some of these books are hundreds of pages long), simply can not be proven as a historical event as it would be a miracle. By definition, it is the least likely thing to occur. However, that doesn't mean it didn't happen, simply that one can't prove it. At the same time though, if it didn't happen, something else has to be used to explain why the movement continued even though we would assume it would have died once Jesus died.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Relevance is in the eye of the beholder. I don't expect you to agree with me or admit that I make a valid point (such as "prove it" is too broad and ridiculous a "challenge" to answer seriously).
As for "believing differently than other Christians," most Christians I have known over my 49 years on this earth basically agree with what I posted when it comes to biblical interpretation. Of course there are those who don't - but my beliefs are pretty mainstream.
This will take a little while to read. Mind if I get back to you later?