How true is the Bible?

[basics]

There are three types of people in the world that can be said to make up the world and these are those that consider the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, those that cling to the belief that it is optional, and those that just don't believe in it at all. The statement I have just made comes out of the Bible so in that it is quite inerrant. Strangely it is the most sought after book when stress is most apparent, why? Indeed it is even most sought after today by peoples who were denied it in the past so what is it about it that makes it so powerful a read?

[Commissar Caligula_]

It seems a lot of people like the Bible because of its main character, little baby Jesus. The chapter where he came back to life was a total deus ex machina cop out though.
I also find it weird how the author changed the tone so much. The first book was really grim-dark and cool, whereas the sequel is happy-clappy and skips a few thousand years or something.

[basics]

It seems a lot of people like the Bible because of its main character, little baby Jesus. The chapter where he came back to life was a total deus ex machina cop out though.
I also find it weird how the author changed the tone so much. The first book was really grim-dark and cool, whereas the sequel is happy-clappy and skips a few thousand years or something.

Commisar Caligula,

The first books called the Old Covenant can be rather dark but the endearing thing about them is that God continually predicts through the prophets the coming of Jesus as well as what would happen to Him so that the darkness you speak of can be changed in your life. What is called the New Covenant or as you call it the happy clappy times is all about the events that take place when He did come and according to the prophets did all that they had spoken of Him so His death and resurrection are essential to both books as well as the promises made by God within them. There wouldn't be any story to tell if it wasn't for His resurrection for it ordains what men and women enter into when they die. This is guaranteed by the four or five hundred who saw Him, talked with Him and even ate with Him after He was resurrected and put on record by the writers of the New Testament or Covenant.

[fkizz]

I also find it weird how the author changed the tone so much. The first book was really grim-dark and cool, whereas the sequel is happy-clappy and skips a few thousand years or something.

What about the disciples ending up tortured/killed? Not very happy clappy or is it?

There are three types of people in the world that can be said to make up the world and these are those that consider the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, those that cling to the belief that it is optional, and those that just don't believe in it at all. The statement I have just made comes out of the Bible so in that it is quite inerrant. Strangely it is the most sought after book when stress is most apparent, why? Indeed it is even most sought after today by peoples who were denied it in the past so what is it about it that makes it so powerful a read?

The scripture is designed to have several layers of understanding, reaching of which depends on the ability of the reader to see the metaphors or read between the lines. Different readers will find out more or less layers of truth in it.
However some truth layers peeled off remains for the persistent, because that which cannot be understood at a conscious level, the unconscious itself can process it, given it's repeated reading.

Of course it's not just ability. When people already concluded, due to Ideological Indoctrination, that it is a bad read or a waste of time to read, before starting to read it, obviously they are self sabotaging anything of value that can be extracted.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

Not to go too far into my wider beliefs on the matter, I think there is much to be derived from it that makes sense in forming a good life, but as far as how true the events claimed are and the things within are stated to be, I'd say I am extremely skeptical by and large. I think it can be a good guide, but I wouldn't even consider it a guideline for the truth of things beyond what humans can see and comprehend, as a written work compiled and processed and judged by man. There are things that likely happened to some extent and possibly great extents within I am certain, but again, I don't think it is, to use a figure of speech, the bible for what is in fact reality. But to further elaborate on this I'd have to comment on how I approach religion in general and spout on about worldview beyond the scope of what was asked.

mikamcha,

What does that mean?

A figure of speech to indicate you missed the point. In this case, the post you replied to was completely tongue in cheek, and taking it seriously will not result in anything coming of it.

Of course it's not just ability. When people already concluded, due to Ideological Indoctrination, that it is a bad read or a waste of time to read, before starting to read it, obviously they are self sabotaging anything of value that can be extracted.

The reverse of this is also ideological indoctrination, where people are predisposed to consider it true despite potentially weak reasons for doing so, because they simply have faith and do not register things based on their own observations but based on a more convenient picture of the world to believe, or from other influences that the bible is simply true and does not merit the same scrutiny that other works may receive when desiring to identify and verify the details.

The pendulum swings both ways.

[fkizz]

The reverse of this is also ideological indoctrination, where people are predisposed to consider it true despite potentially weak reasons for doing so, because they simply have faith and do not register things based on their own observations but based on a more convenient picture of the world to believe, or from other influences that the bible is simply true and does not merit the same scrutiny that other works may receive when desiring to identify and verify the details.

The pendulum swings both ways.

Point being, the Bible has 73 books for catholics, 66 books for protestants (KJV bible) and the average of 1,200 pages is due to massive letter shrinkening done under King James so everyone could buy a pocket Bible, rather than lack of content.

When you see someone so surely saying that the compilation of those 73 books is so bad, without showing knowledge of whatever those 73 books talk about, then you know it's mostly bluff and they are just parroting ideological indoctrination.

However even if someone was conditioned to see the Bible as a good thing as you say, pre-conditioned on opposite side, there is an incredibly time consuming 73 books ahead before you can make a final conclusion, which is long enough to eventually wear out your initial conditioning.

Perhaps one day when I do I will actually read the whole thing.

Well there's some humility at least. Also did you know Lucius Senneca and St. Paul exchanged letters, claiming to find each other philosophies points in common?

[Abdülmecid I]

Not much, considering how often the Bible contradicts himself, like, for example, in the different descriptions of Jesus' birth and genealogy, as given by the Evangelists Matthew and Luke. The Old Testament is also full of boasting and a rather sanguinary attitude, which is very common in the "literary" tradition of the Antiquity, from the inscriptions of the Assyrian monarchs to the hyperbolic account of Herodotus about Xerxes' campaign. That being said, if examined critically and, under the condition that its claims are at least partially confirmed by secondary sources, material or textual, then it could give some light to certain otherwise obscure events of the Near Eastern history.

Also did you know Lucius Senneca and St. Paul exchanged letters, claiming to find each other philosophies points in common?

Their correspondence is considered to be forged, since the beginning of the modern era. It's a collection of rhetorical excercises written around the 4th and 5th centuries AD.

[Axalon]

About the same as Star Trek, I would imagine... There are probably some kernels of truth in it (here and there), but not much...

- A

[alhoon]

Since I am a Christian, I 100% believe the Bible is True. However, I acknowledge my limitations in understanding the truth in the Bible and I realize that my understanding of the Bible will be imperfect and flawed. As such, since I am an Orthodox Christian I take solace in the countless blessed and enlightened theologians that had for millennia tried to understand the bible a little more and pass on to us their views. Scripture and Holy Tradition.

[Prodromos]

Scripture is infallible in that when interpreted correctly, it won't fail to yield correct conclusions and communicate God's truth. It doesn't follow from this, however, that the interpreter can never err. Councils, bishops and even Church Fathers have erred. Ultimately, God is more interested in us having a clean conscience than believing in the "correct" doctrines, since salvation is by faith, not by belief.

[Cope]

Scripture is infallible in that when interpreted correctly, it won't fail to yield correct conclusions and communicate God's truth. It doesn't follow from this, however, that the interpreter can never err. Councils, bishops and even Church Fathers have erred. Ultimately, God is more interested in us having a clean conscience than believing in the "correct" doctrines, since salvation is by faith, not by belief.

That in itself is a doctrinal position.

[Prodromos]

That in itself is a doctrinal position.

You can (and should) believe in the correct doctrines, but it's not what actually saves you. As the Bible says, "even the demons believe."

[95thrifleman]

Scripture is infallible in that when interpreted correctly, it won't fail to yield correct conclusions and communicate God's truth. It doesn't follow from this, however, that the interpreter can never err. Councils, bishops and even Church Fathers have erred. Ultimately, God is more interested in us having a clean conscience than believing in the "correct" doctrines, since salvation is by faith, not by belief.

Christians have murdered and commited acts of genocide with a clear conscience, justified by their interpretation. You yourself have advocated the destruction of Iran with a clear conscience.

This is the problem with christians, they all have their own interpretation and are convinced they are right.

[Cope]

Christians have murdered and commited acts of genocide with a clear conscience, justified by their interpretation. You yourself have advocated the destruction of Iran with a clear conscience.

This is the problem with christians, they all have their own interpretation and are convinced they are right.

That's a problem with a significant proportion of humanity - not with "christians [sic]" specifically. Supposing that self-righteousness, hubris or zealotry are traits which are unique to, or even uniquely associated with, Christianity is largely baseless. There are examples of institutional actors across the racial, religious and ideological spectrum who've committed, with a seemingly clear conscience, murder and genocide.

[95thrifleman]

That's a problem with a significant proportion of humanity - not with "christians [sic]" specifically. Supposing that self-righteousness, hubris or zealotry are traits which are unique to, or even uniquely associated with, Christianity is largely baseless. There are examples of institutional actors across the racial, religious and ideological spectrum who've committed, with a seemingly clear conscience, murder and genocide.

There lies the inherent fallacy of the bible. Christians claim it's the word of god and to be followed then cherry pick what they want to follow and claim it's about interpretation. Which interpretation is the true one? If the bible is so great, the word of god, how come so many factions have developed, happily killing each other to prove they are right?

The bible has been used to justify war, slavery, persecution of homosexuals, pagans and jews. Every time the people doing it claim they are true believers and their actions are right and good.

I am not claiming that human flaws are the result of the bible but I do propose that the bible and christianity is not some great panacea or guidebook to salvation and a perfect world.

[Cope]

There lies the inherent fallacy of the bible. Christians claim it's the word of god and to be followed then cherry pick what they want to follow and claim it's about interpretation. Which interpretation is the true one? If the bible is so great, the word of god, how come so many factions have developed, happily killing each other to prove they are right?

The bible has been used to justify war, slavery, persecution of homosexuals, pagans and jews. Every time the people doing it claim they are true believers and their actions are right and good.

I am not claiming that human flaws are the result of the bible but I do propose that the bible and christianity is not some great panacea or guidebook to salvation and a perfect world.

What has any of this got to do with my post? I'm accusing you of ideological myopia for implying that oppression is uniquely associated with Christianity and/or Scripture. As for your invitation to a theological debate, I will accept it once you give me the impression of being someone who's read any of the arguments against your position ever. Until then, I have no inclination to rebuke points which ought only to be impressive to 6th form students.

[Prodromos]

Their correspondence is considered to be forged, since the beginning of the modern era. It's a collection of rhetorical excercises written around the 4th and 5th centuries AD.

I don't know about this Seneca guy, but I recall reading that Jews were pretty influential in the development of Greek philosophy.

Jewish Impact on Greek and Western Philosophy? - Jewish History

Question:

Is there any evidence that Jewish thought and philosophy had an influence on the Greeks?

Answer:

Contemplating your question, I thought that perhaps it would be best to begin by quoting Hermippus of Smyrna, where he accused Pythagoras of doing and saying “things imitating and transferring to himself the opinions of the Jews.”1

Or perhaps I would quote Clearchus of Soli, who related the following from an encounter between Aristotle and a certain Jew: “He conversed with us and with other philosophical persons, and made a trial of our skill in philosophy; and as he lived with many learned men, he communicated more information than he received from us.”2,3

1.
Josephus, Contra Apionem I:22; Origen, Contra Celsum I:15. See also Porphyry of Tyre, Life of Pythagoras 11.

The full paragraph in Josephus reads: “Then [Hermippus] adds after this the following as well: ‘And Pythagoras used to do and say these things imitating and transferring to himself the opinions of the Jews and the Thracians. For that man is in fact said to have transferred to many of the customs of the Jews to his own philosophy.’” While many scholars are very skeptical in attributing the last sentence (“For that man . . .”) to Hermippus, they see no reason to dispute the attribution of the previous sentence (“And Pythagoras used to . . .”) to him, as it matches the approach he takes toward Pythagoras in surviving passages of his biography (Bezalel Bar-Kochva, The Image of the Jews in Greek Literature: The Hellenistic Period, ch. V).

2.
Josephus, ibid.; Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book I, ch. 15. Regardless of whether this incident took place, the fact that a student of Aristotle would write this is an indication of what his impressions of the Jews were.

It is interesting to note that one of the aims of Clearchus’ work, On Sleep, of which only fragments have survived and from which the above quotation is taken, was to show that Aristotle himself believed in the immortality of the soul—i.e., that the body and soul are separable, and the soul lives on after death, as was the opinion of Aristotle’s teacher Plato—a view that the other students of his vehemently claim he abandoned. See Hans Lewy, “Aristotle and the Jewish Sage According to Clearchus of Soli,” The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 31, No. 3 (1938), pp. 205–235.

3.
The meaning and ramifications of these quotes, as well as the degree of credence given to them, are matters of considerable debate between scholars. However, since the point of this article is about Jewish impact on Western thought in general (beyond the impact on any one specific person or philosophy), their purpose here is to draw attention to them and to the fact that these discussions do exist. It is for this reason that none of the other myths and legends of Greek philosophers having met, or learned from, Jewish sages are cited in this article.

Supposedly this was a common view among the Church Fathers, like Irenaeus and Clement.

Clement of Alexandria: Merging Greek and Christian | Medieval History Geek

One of Clement’s most profound ideas is that the Greeks and the Jews are not wrong, it is just that the Christians are more right. The Greeks and Jews know God, the Greeks through philosophy, the Jews through the Old Testament. Philosophy is a gift to men from God, a means whereby they may come to know him more fully. Greek philosophers, particularly Plato, have been studying God for centuries although Christians are better at it. 5 This is a huge shift from prior authors and apologists who argued not just for their faith but that Jews and Greeks were in error. For Clement philosophy has a great deal of value and even heretics have some usefulness. Keep in mind this is not the same as Clement believing that the worship of the Roman Gods is correct. He is quite explicit that the Roman Gods do not exist, that stories of them are either invented or of evil men. 6 However Clement’s Christianity is more inclusive than that of other early writers and Greek philosophers. Jews, and even heretics are not wholly excluded. Personally, of all of Clement’s ideas I find this one the most interesting. Christianity may have evolved very differently if this had gained acceptance.

Following the lead of Irenaeus and others, Clement states that the Greeks received their philosophy from other sources. For the most part this is from Moses and the Old Testament. He also believes much of their thought originated with barbarians including Egyptians and Indians. By the time Clement gets done comparing the ideas of the Greek philosophers with concepts from the Old Testament and barbarians, the Greeks are pretty much left without an original thought they can call their own.

There lies the inherent fallacy of the bible. Christians claim it's the word of god and to be followed then cherry pick what they want to follow and claim it's about interpretation. Which interpretation is the true one? If the bible is so great, the word of god, how come so many factions have developed, happily killing each other to prove they are right?

The bible has been used to justify war, slavery, persecution of homosexuals, pagans and jews. Every time the people doing it claim they are true believers and their actions are right and good.

I am not claiming that human flaws are the result of the bible but I do propose that the bible and christianity is not some great panacea or guidebook to salvation and a perfect world.

That's not a fallacy (error in reasoning). The fact that different people interpret something differently doesn't mean that it isn't true, or that people don't believe it to be true. People disagree about all kinds of things, from morality to the shape of the Earth, but it doesn't follow from this that they're all wrong or that morality doesn't exist or that the Earth has no shape. That's just intellectual laziness on your part. Are you a human or an animal? Use your reason and judge which faction is right or wrong. As Chrysostom says:



So, one Christian says that gay marriage is God's will, another says it's not. How do we know which is correct? Chrystotom is entirely correct that we should appeal to the Scriptures and our reason to discern the truth. Search the Scriptures and see where your reason leads you. Since our goal is to arrive before God with a clean conscience, different people will have different beliefs and be equally justified before God. If another Christian has different beliefs than you, frankly that's none of your business, since he's accountable to God alone. If you believe him to be mistaken, you can seek to persuade him using reason and truth, not coercion. We have no need for artificial unity based in vicarious faith and political submission to one pope or council.

[barongan]

sub'd to this thread

[PointOfViewGun]

There are three types of people in the world that can be said to make up the world and these are those that consider the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, those that cling to the belief that it is optional, and those that just don't believe in it at all. The statement I have just made comes out of the Bible so in that it is quite inerrant. Strangely it is the most sought after book when stress is most apparent, why? Indeed it is even most sought after today by peoples who were denied it in the past so what is it about it that makes it so powerful a read?

People usually turn away from truth to feel peaceful. So, to say that the Bible is the most sought book out there doesn't really sit well.

[basics]

PointOfViewGun,

Quote,

5 billion copies
The second billion was attained in less than 14 years (2002 to 2015). More objectively, according to Guinness World Records, the Bible is the best-selling book of all time with over 5 billion copies sold and distributed as of this year. I don't know if that number includes Gideons Bibles. Unquote.

Rather than what you wrote could it not be that people are seeking the truth to get peace?