What makes the Bible so believable for people?

[1213]

Actually science itself doesn't change. I mean you don't change the laws of physics or thermal dynamics or whatever. What science does do is adjust with new information. It doesn't change what is discoverd and established. You could say science is dynamic.

It's true the Bible is static but that also means it's outdated. It does not suit this day and age. It was primarily written for another time and another group of people.

Sorry, I have no reason to think Bible is outdated. That modern beliefs are different, doesn’t mean Bible is wrong.

And about science, it obviously depends on what we mean with it. If it is just the scientific method, it doesn’t change. Also, if we speak about a scientific theory, it also may not change, it could just be proven wrong. If I would have believed what “scientists” say, I would have believed for example scientific Piltdown man story. Later I would have heard that it as a fake thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

When there are lot of things like that, wouldn’t I be fool, if I would believe what they now claim, if they have history full of fakes and wrong ideas?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

But don’t get me wrong, scientific method is ok and everything that can be proven correct, is fine. Many scientific claims, like evolution theory, can’t be proven correct by scientific method, therefore I can easily reject it.

 

[1213]

...
It changes all the time. There's no need for a New Testament if the Old one doesn't need a rewrite, right?
..

Please show one example?

 

[1213]

How do you know this?

If a natural number, which is what 8 and 18 are, is less than accurate then it's wrong. This is grade school math, 1213.

So, show us this original text.
.

… שמנה…
2 Chronicles 36:9
http://raamattu.uskonkirjat.net/servlet/biblesite.Bible?lex=BDB&ref=2+Chronicles+36%3A9&ent=08083
= AV-eight 74, eighteen 06240 18, eighteenth 06240 11, eighth 5, eighteen thousand 07239 1

… שמנה…
2 Kings 24:8
http://raamattu.uskonkirjat.net/servlet/biblesite.Bible?lex=BDB&ref=2+Kings+24%3A8&ent=08083
= AV-eight 74, eighteen 06240 18, eighteenth 06240 11, eighth 5, eighteen thousand 07239 1

 

[1213]

I am not an atheist, but read my first reply (the one to Skwim), regarding to Genesis 5 and 11, regarding to the ages of most patriarchs, of when they became father’s to their successors.

Interesting, if true. Unfortunately, it is possible to make bad translations of the original text. When we speak about is Bible wrong, I think we should evaluate the original text, after all, it is possible that the enemies of God, intentionally twist the meanings as it looks like has been done in newest Finnish translation, to mislead people.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Please show one example?

I did. I said there is a New Testament. If the bible doesn't change, why is there even a new one at all?

 

[Skwim]

… שמנה…
2 Chronicles 36:9
http://raamattu.uskonkirjat.net/servlet/biblesite.Bible?lex=BDB&ref=2+Chronicles+36%3A9&ent=08083
= AV-eight 74, eighteen 06240 18, eighteenth 06240 11, eighth 5, eighteen thousand 07239 1

Then I draw you attention to your own 74 interpretations of שמנה as "eight": "eight 74," Which, by the way, is also supported by Strong's Concordance for its use in 2 Chronicles 36:9.

So, I meet your bet and raise you four 2 Chronicles 36:9 "eights."

KJV
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.

NASB
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem, and he did evil in the sight of the Lord.

NRSV
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign; he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem. He did what was evil in the sight of the Lord.

CJB
Y’hoyakhin was eight years old when he began his reign, and he ruled in Yerushalayim for three months and ten days. He did what was evil from Adonai’s perspective.

.​

 

[BilliardsBall]

Of course there is no Divinity. The Bible is just old/ancient literature.

Another rhetorical post. As a born again Christian, I go for facts when skeptics make counter claims. The vast majority of all persons, ever, say there is divinity.

 

[sojourner]

I read once that the Christian mass or worship was designed to subconsciously program people into belief. The rituals, recitals, hymns, even the hardwood pews designed to consciously flee the scene and leave your subconscious open to programming.

It was designed to bring people into fellowship. Christian worship was originally designed around Eucharist — the shared meal. That meal was designed after the Roman symposium, or dinner party, wherein the host would invite guests in order to build sociability. The symposium was the Roman social driving force — just as it has been for the church for millennia.

 

[sojourner]

Another rhetorical post. As a born again Christian, I go for facts when skeptics make counter claims. The vast majority of all persons, ever, say there is divinity.

An appeal to popularity doesnt = truth, though. Please come up with a better argument.

 

[Hawkins]

Honestly I can't think of a single thing.

That's because you are clueless about what human witnessing could mean. Humans will have to rely on putting faith in middle persons to get to a truth. Even science behaves so such that you don't need to participate in experimenting the existence of black holes or atoms. You can put your faith in our scientists as the "middle man" to get to the facts without actually evidence.

History is another typical example of how things work. Humans don't have the capability to access the past. Our history is basically made of accounts human testimonies for us to believe with faith. You can randomly open a history book written more than 1000 years ago and go through each page with the question "how this page can be supported by evidence".

That said. Christianity is more like a live event supported by eyewitnesses who are willing to martyr themselves to testify its truth.

 

[1213]

Then I draw you attention to your own 74 interpretations of שמנה as "eight": "eight 74," Which, by the way, is also supported by Strong's Concordance for its use in 2 Chronicles 36:9.

So, I meet your bet and raise you four 2 Chronicles 36:9 "eights."

.​

Actually, I think they all should have eight, also the Kings scripture that was previously quoted.

 

[1213]

I did. I said there is a New Testament. If the bible doesn't change, why is there even a new one at all?

Bible is the combination of OT and NT, not just OT. Both are, because they tell things from long period of time. But they are really not in contradiction. Everything in NT is in line with OT. But things have changed, for example Jews rejected God, which led to many things that were told long time ago. People rejected God, but God has been merciful and made new covenant that was predicted in the OT long time ago.

The basic message is still the same, righteous will live, others will not.

 

[sojourner]

I did. I said there is a New Testament. If the bible doesn't change, why is there even a new one at all?

First of all, the Bible does change. The texts weren’t written until after the Babylonian Exile. Before then, it was oral tradition. Since being written, it has undergone a lot of redaction and translation. There are two factors that contribute to its being seen as implacable: 1) the stories being changed from a fluid, oral tradition to written text, 2) the setting of the canon.

Second, there is a New Testament because there is a new religion. When Xy shifted from a movement within Rabbinic Judaism to a separate, Hellenistic religion, the oral stories and letters that had been part of its tradition also became canonized as scripture.

 

[gnostic]

If I would have believed what “scientists” say, I would have believed for example scientific Piltdown man story. Later I would have heard that it as a fake thing.

Now you are being absurd.

Charles Dawson wasn’t a scientist, he wasn’t a biologist, he wasn’t a palaeontologist, and he wasn’t even an archaeologist. He had no qualifications that made him “expert”.

He was an all-rounder fake.

The Piltdown Man was already challenged by biologists in 1914, two years after Dawson’s alleged discovery, and repeatedly questioned over the next 4 decades.

But it wasn’t until 1953, when it was conclusive debunked.

The Piltdown Man was never a scientific discovery, and it is absurd that you would use this hoax as example of science.

 

[sojourner]

Honestly I can't think of a single thing.

Nobody knows who wrote it, with any degree of certainty. No names of the original authors, nobody knows who was on the Council of Trent , Council of Nicea Etc.

It's obviously been redacted , has incomplete information and has gaps in its narratives. Side-by-side variations are noted in each version of the Bible that exist today to substantiate that is indeed the case.

The Bible clearly is not a divinely inspired collection of books either , evidenced by Christianity's vast and varied amount of denominations and sects, who, to this day remain visibly at odds with ongoing issues over interpretation and meaning, making it clear there's no evidence of any type of guiding hand at play to indicate it now or was ever divinely inspired to begin with at its inception.

There's no real support or proofs to the notion of divine harmonization between one author with another throughout the Testaments over significant periods of time to substantiate any type of harmony exists because each subsequent book could be "harmonized" with each proceeding book by simply reading what each proceeding book said and conveniently changing the subsequent book to "fit" each narrative to uphold the claim that the subsequent authors did not know what the preceding authors wrote making such alleged harmony between books a divine proof a Biblical accuracy and credibility.

Oral tradition is actually worthless. If it wasn't, it could have been used and demonstrated today as a living testament of reliability and accuracy but it isn't for a reason. Obvious reasons.

Hence the requirement for writing something down , and we've seen how effective that can be.


Why would anybody be willing to think the Bible is for one reason or another a proper foundation to base an entire religion on and in cases, people's own lives to point of believability that it would trump logic and science?

It’s quite simple and logical: the Bible is attractive, useful and lasting because it lends itself to many interpretations, many of which are valid. It is precisely the disharmony that reveals a multifaceted revelation of faithful people which accomplishes this.

Actually, oral tradition is quite effective; perhaps more so than a written repository. That way, the revelations more easily shift as our experiences shift and as development occurs.

 

[Twilight Hue]

.........

Actually, oral tradition is quite effective; perhaps more so than a written repository. That way, the revelations more easily shift as our experiences shift and as development occurs.

I would like, no I would love to see oral tradition attempted to be practiced in an experiment spanning several plus years by people already deemed knowledgeable about the Bible, but are no longer allowed to use it as reference and resource anymore for the duration of the experiment and subsequently retell the tales and accounts described orally and see what it looks like upon the conclusion of the experiment.

 

[gnostic]

Interesting, if true. Unfortunately, it is possible to make bad translations of the original text. When we speak about is Bible wrong, I think we should evaluate the original text, after all, it is possible that the enemies of God, intentionally twist the meanings as it looks like has been done in newest Finnish translation, to mislead people.

What original texts?

Any original texts have been gone long before the Septuagint was first composed and compiled. Long before the Dead Sea Scrolls.

You cannot compare the translations to original works, because they are all lost forever.

Most modern English translations of the Old Testament, are based on extant copies of the Masoretic Text (MT), and since the discovery, translation and publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), the DSS have being used as supplement to translation of MT.

Previously, English translations, like the KJV and its variants, supplemented MT with the Greek Septuagint in certain passages, mainly to align the gospels’ quoting the Old Testament passages, the “supposed” messianic prophecies of Jesus.

Even the original Septuagint hardly exist any more; there are few fragments dated to the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE, but not enough to compare with. The Septuagint manuscripts that are available today, are copies, hence the Codex Alexandrinus (early 5th century CE) and Codex Vaticanus (mid-4th century CE) are the most complete and extant versions of the Septuagint.

The oldest manuscript of the Septuagint is the Codex Sinaiticus (early 4th century CE) Is slightly older than C Vaticanus, but it is badly fragmented, so many parts of the books or whole individual books are missing (for instance, only parts of Genesis chapters 23 to 24 survived, while Exodus is gone).

The oldest copy that survived to this day, are fragments of scrolls made from silver, hence the name, Silver Scrolls, dated to either late 7th century or early 6th century BCE, and found in cave and tomb at Ketef Hinnom. What survived on the fragments is a passage from Numbers 6, concerning the Priestly Blessings.

You talk of comparing originals from the original authors, don’t exist.

 

[sojourner]

I would like, no I would love to see oral tradition attempted to be practiced in an experiment spanning several plus years by people already deemed knowledgeable about the Bible, but are no longer allowed to use it as reference and resource anymore for the duration of the experiment and subsequently retell the tales and accounts described orally and see what it looks like upon the conclusion of the experiment.

It would be interesting, that’s for sure.

 

[Milton Platt]

Science is in constant change. It would not be wise to base world view on it, when after couple of years it may again claim something else than today.

Bible doesn’t really change, so it is better foundation. And that atheists can’t show even one mistake or error in the Bible, I think it is really good. Also, I have seen it to be correct in many things that I think people would not know or understand or even chose without God.

So we should stick with the Old Testament, then, since it never changes? Bring back stoning women for adultery? Slavery? Genocide on orders from God?

Should we abandon all scientific inquiry and go back to ignorance?

The strength of scientific inquiry is that it can adapt to new information about the world. Dogma is useless.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Of course there is no Divinity. The Bible is just old/ancient literature.

Again, this is a claim, not a fact in evidence. The Bible is more than ancient literature, factually, as it is arguably THE most influential volume in history.