Why the Bible is reliable

[RazorOutlaw]

So I recently got into a light-hearted conversation with a Christian, a man strong in his faith. He said, and I quote, "The inconsistencies aren't damaging to doctrine or understanding of passages, mainly. Also, besides a section in Mark, the usage of words is difficult simply because of the language of Greek itself. It's one of the most vivid languages around and translating it into its original meaning isn't exactly easy. However, scholarship shows that the Bible is reliable."

That is a tall claim to me, a skeptic, to say that the Bible is reliable. I couldn't pass up his statement, so I prodded him as to why he felt the Bible is reliable. As I told him after he brought up the points, each point felt like a door. To ask for more information on one is like entering into a whole 'nother area. Regardless, I present to you what he told me as to why the Bible is reliable.

1. The Bible reflects what the truth is on places we can check, which means we are more likely to give it credence on things we can't, and that it becomes our burden to explain why it shouldn't be trusted. This is a similar criteria used for any book of history.

To draw a conclusion on this, I would imagine he might be referencing the "Love your neighbor as yourself." A proven way of living peacebly, I'd imagine.

2. Textual Criticism argues against the view that later writers and copyists changed the text for their own purposes.

3. Internal evidence: The Bible writers claim to be telling the truth (much like taking as truth what a person says under oath.)

4. External evidence: The Bible is coherent with what we find outside of it. Archaeology, non-Christian works, etc.

5. Most errors and contradictions that people claim (like Dan Barker and other skeptics) can be explained as long as you don't interpret scripture anachronistically. The rest can also be explained. I haven't seen a contradiction yet that has not been answered by someone somewhere reasonably.

Regarding point five, I think he is saying that if you use the original Greek translations in the way they were used in the past, you would see that the contradictions are a result of mistranslations or archaic thinking. But, judging by the prodding I just gave him after point three, for him to expound on any point at length would result in a couple pages worth of response.

[Sétanta]

I must agree. I take it you view the bible in a more realist sense now instead of blindly disbelieving.

[RazorOutlaw]

I'm heavily skeptical about the existence of God, and still skeptical about what this fellow has told me. Regarding whether or not I believe the Bible, I'm no scholar and my learning about the Bible is merely at a High School level. However I posted this more as a way of presenting these ideas here for discussion, not because I agreed completely with what he said.

And while I suppose I came across as disbelieving all parts of the Bile, I never made it clear that metaphorical interpretations are a non-issue with me. Literal interpretations are another thing...

[Spiff]

right well heres my take

1. The Bible reflects what the truth is on places we can check, which means we are more likely to give it credence on things we can't, and that it becomes our burden to explain why it shouldn't be trusted. This is a similar criteria used for any book of history.

To draw a conclusion on this, I would imagine he might be referencing the "Love your neighbor as yourself." A proven way of living peacebly, I'd imagine.

Im sure this principle existed long long before the bible was supposedly written, if i told someone today "You need oxygen to live" it wouldnt then follow that all my theories on aliens are bound to be correct (note i dont actually have theories on aliens..)

2. Textual Criticism argues against the view that later writers and copyists changed the text for their own purposes.

ok well fine.. but that's just arguing against, not disproving a claim.

3. Internal evidence: The Bible writers claim to be telling the truth (much like taking as truth what a person says under oath.)

Yes but theres no proof when it was written or who it was written by, and if that person had a sinister agenda or not. Parts could have been re-written, added to or removed any number of times. How can it still possibly be the word of God if it has no way of being verified.. basicaly my problem is they are asking people to just believe it

4. External evidence: The Bible is coherent with what we find outside of it. Archaeology, non-Christian works, etc.

External evidence appears to more often than not contradict the bible.. see for example recent discussions here on Creation and the great flood.. neither appear probable in the slightest with modern science, from what i can see.

5. Most errors and contradictions that people claim (like Dan Barker and other skeptics) can be explained as long as you don't interpret scripture anachronistically. The rest can also be explained. I haven't seen a contradiction yet that has not been answered by someone somewhere reasonably.

It appears more like you have to interpret the bible diferently in light on new discoveries otheriwise it doesnt make sense any more. As i've said in other places, when written i do believe the bible was intended literaly on the majority of its texts. The fact that so many people have different interpretations in my view dis-credits it even more. If not even all Christians can agree on what it means, how can a non-christian be expected to take a word of it seriously?

[removeduser_487563287433]

The Bible is both reliable and not reliable, and of course in many cases it's impossible to know. It is an incredibly valuable historical source, but that's as far as I personally take it. When it comes to the idea of God my views are well known.

[SirLoinalot]

The bible most definitely in my opinion is not a credible source of information. Something written that long ago and translated so many times by a body of religion with such a direct interest in the outcome of the translation will surely not be accepted by any non-Christian skeptic.

Saying that, whether the bible is technically a scientifically accepted, credible piece of literatue probably wouldn't faze too many of the patrons down at your local church on a Sunday morning (Saturday night if they're lazy).

[Marcus Scaurus]

The bible most definitely in my opinion is not a credible source of information. Something written that long ago and translated so many times by a body of religion with such a direct interest in the outcome of the translation will surely not be accepted by any non-Christian skeptic.

Than you shouldn't believe writers like Plutarchos, Aristotle, Plato, Suetonius, Arrianus... all translated many times and written long ago.

[Mangalore]

Than you shouldn't believe writers like Plutarchos, Aristotle, Plato, Suetonius, Arrianus... all translated many times and written long ago.

To my knowledge ancient writers are generally not trusted when evaluating facts stated by them (e.g. the number of enemies, the magnitude of a disaster/accomplishment/etc.). Some are trusted a little more because they sound plausible but generally these sources are usually just the first step in exploring a certain event after which painstaking research is started to verify if their version of events was at all possible and can be supported by hard evidence.

Similarily the bible is not a book full of lies or untruths. Alot of the stuff is just extremely biased. E.g. none doubts that the claim that Herod ruled Jerusalem during the times of the NT is true, this has however no impact on the questions wether the miracles worked by Jesus Christ are true (they can be but they don't have to be, so far without any hard proof of divine interaction there is plainly no basis for an educated call) or that he may have been the son of god.

But that's why you need faith in the bible. If all this was known fact, faith would be irrelevant because you'd know wether it's true or not and don't just believe it might. Thus the notion that you have to believe in it and have faith that it is true, is for me argumentative proof that obviously the correctness of the bible or more precisely its contents cannot be 100% verified and thus cannot be generalized as being reliable (some parts might, some others might not).

[DarkKnight]

1. The Bible reflects what the truth is on places we can check, which means we are more likely to give it credence on things we can't, and that it becomes our burden to explain why it shouldn't be trusted. This is a similar criteria used for any book of history.

Isaac Newton provided science with many theories which could be checked and were accepted as truth. But when concerning theory of light, something that they could not check then, he argued it was a particle. So I guess the physists then should have accepted that light was a particle because Newton said it was and in all theories he made that could be checked, he was right. I guess Young never should have conducted his double slit experiment which provided substantial evidence that light is a wave.
Of course then quantum had to come in and throw a wrench into everything...which I don't feel like getting into now.

2. Textual Criticism argues against the view that later writers and copyists changed the text for their own purposes.

That statement is blatantly untrue.
Textual Criticism has shown many inconsistencies of the manuscripts. The later of the accepted manuscripts often vary from the earliest.

3. Internal evidence: The Bible writers claim to be telling the truth (much like taking as truth what a person says under oath.)

...must be a joke, right?

4. External evidence: The Bible is coherent with what we find outside of it. Archaeology, non-Christian works, etc.

Spiff answered this quite well

5. Most errors and contradictions that people claim (like Dan Barker and other skeptics) can be explained as long as you don't interpret scripture anachronistically. The rest can also be explained. I haven't seen a contradiction yet that has not been answered by someone somewhere reasonably.

I have yet to see the epicuran paradox explained reasonably.

[1{H][NA]

reliable only to a certain point, considering most of it was written nearly 40 years after jesus's death.

[Musashi]

[/QUOTE]I have yet to see the epicuran paradox explained reasonably.[/QUOTE]


Well if you have seen the very start of the biple there is an answer to this paradox.
When Adam and Eve where in paradise God gave them the possiplity to shoose. The tree and the aple that whas not allowed but still to be taken if you choose to go against Gods will.

Atleast in my country this is commonly known that humans have the freedom to deside from between good and evil and that this is one of the most important things for God. That people come to him if they want to and he accepts all who wants to come to him.
So without the two (evil and good) there would not bee freedom to decide. (hense no freedom at all)

Still. For my part this is really not the bigest proplem with biple. It's just impossiple for me to understand why on earth people believe in this one book just because in that book it says that there is a God.
If it would really be true that the book whas something marvellous and that there whas proof beond any reasonable doubts that it whas written like it happened but thre isn't. Actually like others allready pointed out there are multiple evidence that it whas many times translated into different meanings and again translated and again translaten and besides that it has been "adjusted" to bee the sourse of religion that the all mighty surches wanted it to be.

Besides that, who incane person in now aday really believes that humanbeens where made in one day from dust and that woman whas made from mans bone?

If you can explain to me how can it be possiple that when there whas no other humanbeens on earth but Adam and Eve and theyre sons Cain and Abel it says in the bible that Cain and Abel went to neiboring willage to get them selfs wifes. Then you are in the good start of explaining the biple and making it accurate and trueghtfull book.

Sorry my ebglish. Hope you understood.

[ckerr094]

sorry I thought you were taking a dig at the bible!

[SirLoinalot]

Took the words right out of my mouth

[DarkKnight]

Well if you have seen the very start of the biple there is an answer to this paradox.
When Adam and Eve where in paradise God gave them the possiplity to shoose. The tree and the aple that whas not allowed but still to be taken if you choose to go against Gods will.

But there it fits the paradox. God being omniscient knew that we would choose to eat the apple. Therefore because God did not stop us he is not omnibenevolent which violates the premise of the paradox. It doesn't matter if it is evil to deny us freewill (which I disagree with), it does not change the fact that he allowed evil into the world (by non action) and is supposedly omnibenevolent.
Anyways this is not the thread to debate this. There is already a thread about this here

[DefenderofFreedom]

Too many of the athiests on these forums are reading the bible with the goal of finding contridicting statements. If that is why you are reading the bible, you are missing the true nature of the Bible, you are simply seeing things how you want to see them: as a way of feeling superior that you have proven another way that the Bible controdicts itself... when you really haven't. If read the Bible as a believing Christian would, these controdictions would seem pathetic. Also, some of you think that the Bible is simply a book, and no more. But it is truly much more than that. If you read into it and contemplate there is much more behind it than just the text. So dont just look at the text... find the true meaning.

[humvee2800]

And too many christians shrug of well laid arguements by atheists for just that reason. Also christians often go in too try and find statements too combat the atheists statements.

The fact is that atheists arent argueing all the historical info in the bible but the bibles allegations of a god and thigns related too him.

Whether or not a invent unrelated too god or jesus happens in the bible doesnt prove it right or wrong. Even a invent slightly related like soem city falling at around the same time the god allegedly does the miracle doesnt mean anything unless a clear enough correlation can be proven between the two.

I for one dont look for info within the bible too combat itself because id be basing my proof on a source that i find shaky at best.

Never the less in a debate the job of oen side is too find facts too support their own arguement, and too find other facts too disprove the others. the one who finds more and more defendable facts is generally the winner

[DarkKnight]

Too many of the athiests on these forums are reading the bible with the goal of finding contridicting statements. If that is why you are reading the bible, you are missing the true nature of the Bible, you are simply seeing things how you want to see them: as a way of feeling superior that you have proven another way that the Bible controdicts itself... when you really haven't. If read the Bible as a believing Christian would, these controdictions would seem pathetic. Also, some of you think that the Bible is simply a book, and no more. But it is truly much more than that. If you read into it and contemplate there is much more behind it than just the text. So dont just look at the text... find the true meaning.

Too many theists on these forums are reading the bible with the unbased notion that it is true. If this is why you are reading the bible, then you are missing the true nature of the bible, you are simply seeing things how you want to see them: as a way of comforting yourself that there is a higher power... when you have no base to believe so. If you read the bible as a skeptic or atheist would, there would be astonishing contradictions. Also, some of you think that the bible is more than simply a book, when it isn't. There is no evidence to believe it is except for using internal evidence provided by it, which is fallacious evidence to assume. If you read into it and contemplate there is more behind the text just like any other literary art. There is a deeper meaning but not necessarily true due to no evidence supporting it.

[ZaPPPa]

Too many theists on these forums are reading the bible with the unbased notion that it is true. If this is why you are reading the bible, then you are missing the true nature of the bible, you are simply seeing things how you want to see them: as a way of comforting yourself that there is a higher power... when you have no base to believe so. If you read the bible as a skeptic or atheist would, there would be astonishing contradictions.

That is exactly what the church is doing.. Where do you think all the different branches of Christianity come from? Each branch has a different interpretation of the bible. Each branch wants to see how they want to see it. Depending on the character of the leaders at the time of the founding of the branch, the branch becomes more or less tight-arsed.

[Mangalore]

..., you are simply seeing things how you want to see them: ....

Don't we all?

[Musashi]

But there it fits the paradox. God being omniscient knew that we would choose to eat the apple. Therefore because God did not stop us he is not omnibenevolent which violates the premise of the paradox. It doesn't matter if it is evil to deny us freewill (which I disagree with), it does not change the fact that he allowed evil into the world (by non action) and is supposedly omnibenevolent.
Anyways this is not the thread to debate this. There is already a thread about this here

It does matter if it's evil to deny freewill. The basic thing in cristianity as I earlier explained is that God want people to keep hem as GOd pecause they (People) want to. Not because there never whas any alternative. What do you think that the alternative should have been? Another God? That would have been really a paradox. Also not making an alternative would have made God just a short of a Dictator.
I understand what your saying about God knowing we would eat the aple but have you ever thould that it was hes plan all along.

I'm sorry this oftopic but I just had to make an argument on biples haf in here because even that I am not a believer I still think that this can be only explained trough believes not reability and reason.
I think that the very fact that the biple claimes there to be a God gives it the ingredibility that just multipyes along the way.

Then about the argument that for example me myself and I would be reading the biple just to get evidence for against arguments. That is just plain wrong. I'm sorry but you relly don't know anything about me or any other nonbeliever for thatmatter.
Just to give you an idea about me. I have raised in by a deebly religious mother. i have read the biple in the soul reason of finding out more about the God. I believed every word of it and where beleiver myself too.
Then somehow I just started to see evidence against the biple. I found out that it had been altered and that if it truely whas a Gods words in the beginning it has'nt been that for a long long time. So at first I just disagreed with the biple and still believed in God. Then I just realised that only thing that is an evidence about God even existing is the wery biple that just is known to be false. It is not accurate and it has millions of things that just argues agains the other issues in the very same book. The whole book is a web of paradoxes. You could argue that God has guided the ones that wrote it and made chainches to it but that's just plain bull. The very idea of the freewill denys that in the first plase and that is exactly how bilple is a paradox as a book. It is wery distubing that so many people read it blindly. By this I don't mean just believers but there are many cinds of peoble in the world that justifyes theyre actions by the biple. Not to mention thay read the book eather in anger against it or in extasy for it. That cind of way to look things can make any book dangerous.

Almost ewerything that has been writen in the biple can be argued against and for but in the end all it takes is someone to beleive it. I believe in the old Shinese saying: Even if a thousand fools believe in the lie, it's still a lie.