How true is the Bible?

[basics]

The problem with this is that it is not going to happen. Jesus is not going to come back. Let the old fairy tales rest, and accept the world as it actually is.

Whoever the historical Jesus was, a pious Jew, a cult-leader, a rebel-leader (or any combination of these), he certainly wasn't what Christian theology makes him out to be.

Calypze,

Well you can rest assured that He will be back and that every person alive and or dead will see Him, why? Because it'll be judgement day, the finality of this creation and even you will get to recognise what you have rejected. He is exactly what Scripture tells us He is so perhaps you might explain some examples?

[TheLeft]

So Jesus spends 40 days in the desert on his own and gets tempted by Satan, to which he declines the offer. The Bible then reports this verbatim.

Can no one else see the flaw here?

[Calypze]

Calypze,

Well you can rest assured that He will be back and that every person alive and or dead will see Him, why? Because it'll be judgement day, the finality of this creation and even you will get to recognise what you have rejected. He is exactly what Scripture tells us He is so perhaps you might explain some examples?

Let's see what evidence you have for that.

[Gromovnik]

Let's see what evidence you have for that.

Oh, come on now. His own religion says that his religion is legit. What more evidence do you need?

[basics]

So Jesus spends 40 days in the desert on his own and gets tempted by Satan, to which he declines the offer. The Bible then reports this verbatim.

Can no one else see the flaw here?

TheLeft,

Then let's consider that as Peter tells us all Scripture is given by God and only through God the Holy Spirit can we decipher it. The first Biblical example of that was when Moses was given the books of the Law to write down and yet he was not there when creation took place but God was. So when we read of things that Jesus did outside of the vision or hearing of His disciples these writers conveyed what the Spirit inspired in them to write. Of course to all them that are devoid of the Spirit of God those persons will see flaws where none actually exist. It is why a person must be born again of the Spirit of God not only to be saved from their sin but to enjoy the sheer beauty and love of God Who now works in them.

[TheLeft]

TheLeft,

Then let's consider that as Peter tells us all Scripture is given by God and only through God the Holy Spirit can we decipher it. The first Biblical example of that was when Moses was given the books of the Law to write down and yet he was not there when creation took place but God was. So when we read of things that Jesus did outside of the vision or hearing of His disciples these writers conveyed what the Spirit inspired in them to write. Of course to all them that are devoid of the Spirit of God those persons will see flaws where none actually exist. It is why a person must be born again of the Spirit of God not only to be saved from their sin but to enjoy the sheer beauty and love of God Who now works in them.

So in other words... they made it all up. There we have it Ladies and Gentlemen, the definitive answer to the thread title, "How true is the Bible?" is...

Not at all...

[Calypze]

Oh, come on now. His own religion says that his religion is legit. What more evidence do you need?

I would like to see him laying out his reasons for believing in the religion in the first place.

[Sar1n]

I would like to see him laying out his reasons for believing in the religion in the first place.

Few decades ago, he had a dream. He'll tell you if you get him started.

[basics]

So in other words... they made it all up. There we have it Ladies and Gentlemen, the definitive answer to the thread title, "How true is the Bible?" is...

Not at all...

TheLeft,

That's your opinion because you have no other answer to the power and might of God. I mean we are talking about a Power that holds all existence in the palm of His hands so why would He have men and women make anything up about Himself? Right now all across this world men and women are having Jesus Christ revealed to them thus drawing them to their God and Saviour Jesus Christ and probably all if not most thought the way you do. No my friend, the power of God is way beyond the imagination of man.

[Akar]

Well, no. The power of god actually is the imagination of man. If not for the imagination of man there would be no god. It's pretty hard to say the "power of god is beyond the imagination of man" when we've seen Cthulhu do way cooler stuff in Lovecrafts novels. Except, unlike the god of the bible, Cthulhu doesn't wipe out the entire population of the earth. There has to be a logic outside of personal experience and the bible itself. The bible relies on circular reasoning, i.e the bible is true because the bible says so. Unless that issue can be justified it's impossible to have a rational discussion on the reality of the bible since you refuse to even debate it scientifically.

[Cope]

Well, no. The power of god actually is the imagination of man. If not for the imagination of man there would be no god. It's pretty hard to say the "power of god is beyond the imagination of man" when we've seen Cthulhu do way cooler stuff in Lovecrafts novels. Except, unlike the god of the bible, Cthulhu doesn't wipe out the entire population of the earth. There has to be a logic outside of personal experience and the bible itself. The bible relies on circular reasoning, i.e the bible is true because the bible says so. Unless that issue can be justified it's impossible to have a rational discussion on the reality of the bible since you refuse to even debate it scientifically.

The salient points of the Bible (lets just stick to the NT for now) are beyond the scope of the scientific method. That's because miracles are, by definition, exceptions to the constants. In other words, your standard of proof immediately and irrevocably disqualifies any possibility that the key claims made in the Bible are true.

[conon394]

That's because miracles are, by definition, exceptions to the constants. In other words, your standard of proof immediately and irrevocably disqualifies any possibility that the key claims made in the Bible are true.

Except here the problem is lots of faiths have stories of miracles. If the NT was only recounting of miraculous events you would a have solid case. But I got lots of miracles to pick from a lot of different divinities.

[Prodromos]

Well, no. The power of god actually is the imagination of man. If not for the imagination of man there would be no god. It's pretty hard to say the "power of god is beyond the imagination of man" when we've seen Cthulhu do way cooler stuff in Lovecrafts novels. Except, unlike the god of the bible, Cthulhu doesn't wipe out the entire population of the earth. There has to be a logic outside of personal experience and the bible itself. The bible relies on circular reasoning, i.e the bible is true because the bible says so. Unless that issue can be justified it's impossible to have a rational discussion on the reality of the bible since you refuse to even debate it scientifically.

I notice you capitalized Cthulhu and Lovecraft, as well as every other word that needs to be capitalized. If I'm not mistaken, you're a native speaker, so you probably know that proper nouns should be capitalized. So is there a reason why you're not capitalizing God and the Bible?

[Cope]

Except here the problem is lots of faiths have stories of miracles. If the NT was only recounting of miraculous events you would a have solid case. But I got lots of miracles to pick from a lot of different divinities.

What's being contested is the miracles, not the supplementary social commentary on Judea during the Roman occupation.

[conon394]

What's being contested is the miracles, not the supplementary social commentary on Judea during the Roman occupation.

I'm not sure I getting your distinction. Other non NT faiths not based in Jesus have miraculous events. Miraculous events that are kinda contradictory to the NT writers... so from the outside one has to ask except for internal circular logic what am I supposed to buy if I am shopping?

[Cope]

I'm not sure I getting your distinction. Other non NT faiths not based in Jesus have miraculous events. Miraculous events that are kinda contradictory to the NT writers... so from the outside one has to ask except for internal circular logic what am I supposed to buy if I am shopping?

It's false to claim that there is no crossover between Christianity and other faiths; the Word exists within all men, irrespective of whether they knew/know Christ's ministry or not. What we see expressed outside of Christianity is an instinctive understanding of God which lacks a knowledge of the specifics. For this reason I would say that the other religions and their miracles (they're still God's miracles) are incomplete rather than incorrect or incompatible. Remember, the Bible does not purport to be a complete anthology of all the miracles in history, but it does inform us all that is necessary.

[Akar]

The salient points of the Bible (lets just stick to the NT for now) are beyond the scope of the scientific method. That's because miracles are, by definition, exceptions to the constants. In other words, your standard of proof immediately and irrevocably disqualifies any possibility that the key claims made in the Bible are true.

Well, then the bible isn't true. If you have to throw the scientific method out the window to even discuss the truth of the bible then you have to agree that it's a work of fiction. I'm more than willing to throw the scientific method out the window if we're talking about Harry Potter, because we both have a mutual understanding that Harry Potter is a work of fiction and that our world's typical rules and things like the scientific method may not apply there. If you're asking me to do the same thing with the bible, then we both have to have a mutual understanding that it's a work of fiction and that the scientific method might not work there.

I notice you capitalized Cthulhu and Lovecraft, as well as every other word that needs to be capitalized. If I'm not mistaken, you're a native speaker, so you probably know that proper nouns should be capitalized. So is there a reason why you're not capitalizing God and the Bible?

I have more respect for Cthulhu and Lovecraft than god and the bible. I don't think the christian god is worth pressing the shift key for. Plus, you know, Lovecraft at least actually wrote his own stuff. God used a ghost writer.

Except here the problem is lots of faiths have stories of miracles. If the NT was only recounting of miraculous events you would a have solid case. But I got lots of miracles to pick from a lot of different divinities.

And everyone of those miracles is either outright made up or a misinterpretation/misunderstanding of a naturally occurring and therefore scientifically reproducible event. Miracles do not happen. There has never been any actual evidence of miracles and holy scripture does not count as evidence.

What's being contested is the miracles, not the supplementary social commentary on Judea during the Roman occupation.

I love referring to everything outside of the miracles in the bible as "supplementary social commentary on Judea during the Roman occupation."

It's false to claim that there is no crossover between Christianity and other faiths; the Word exists within all men, irrespective of whether they knew/know Christ's ministry or not. What we see expressed outside of Christianity is an instinctive understanding of God which lacks a knowledge of the specifics. For this reason I would say that the other religions and their miracles (they're still God's miracles) are incomplete rather than incorrect or incompatible. Remember, the Bible does not purport to be a complete anthology of all the miracles in history, but it does inform us all that is necessary.

That's just a ridiculous thing to suggest without providing any evidence at all. It sure sounds really feel goody and nice if you're a Christian but from an outside perspective it's the exact kind of meaningless logic that turns people like me away from Christianity. "the word" does not exist in all men, because that's a concept made up by later Christians to try to explain why there were so many other religions and why they were all wrong. It's the religious version of the "I made that" meme. There's no evidence at all that the christian god is somehow at the center of every religious belief. Well, until they encounter christians, anyway. Then all bets are off and they're apostates and unbelievers. It's something that sounds nice to say, but it's never actually been put into practice.

[Himster]

It's false to claim that there is no crossover between Christianity and other faiths; the Word exists within all men, irrespective of whether they knew/know Christ's ministry or not. What we see expressed outside of Christianity is an instinctive understanding of God which lacks a knowledge of the specifics. For this reason I would say that the other religions and their miracles (they're still God's miracles) are incomplete rather than incorrect or incompatible. Remember, the Bible does not purport to be a complete anthology of all the miracles in history, but it does inform us all that is necessary.

Similar things could be said to support all religions.
Christianity could equally be the instinctive misunderstanding of another god's message.
However, each of these religions are mutually exclusive, ie. if one is right then all others are wrong. Furthermore, they cannot be objectively distinguished as they all operate under the same rough schema of "faith", with similar claims to validity through miracles and so on.
They can't all be right: they can all be wrong.

The salient points of the Bible (lets just stick to the NT for now) are beyond the scope of the scientific method. That's because miracles are, by definition, exceptions to the constants. In other words, your standard of proof immediately and irrevocably disqualifies any possibility that the key claims made in the Bible are true.

A miracle is paradoxical.
It is defined as an impossible event that actually happens. If something actually happens, then it is demonstrably possible and can therefore not be labelled as a miracle.

What's being contested is the miracles, not the supplementary social commentary on Judea during the Roman occupation.

If the Bible is the ultimate source of absolute mores/truth in the universe, yet operates as a list of optional lessons and maxims that an individual may pick, choose, mix and match: then the reader becomes the creator of mores and truth, not the author/god.
And lo, the Christian has made of himself the Alpha and the Omega. Kneel all ye disbelievers and despair for eternal torment awaits.

[Cope]

Well, then the bible isn't true. If you have to throw the scientific method out the window to even discuss the truth of the bible then you have to agree that it's a work of fiction. I'm more than willing to throw the scientific method out the window if we're talking about Harry Potter, because we both have a mutual understanding that Harry Potter is a work of fiction and that our world's typical rules and things like the scientific method may not apply there. If you're asking me to do the same thing with the bible, then we both have to have a mutual understanding that it's a work of fiction and that the scientific method might not work there.

The problem is you're demanding material evidence for a non material truth. It's like asking someone to prove or disprove a moral statement with mathematics.

I love referring to everything outside of the miracles in the bible as "supplementary social commentary on Judea during the Roman occupation."

The commentary aspect of the Gospels isn't a point of contention. Are you going to tell me that Pilate wasn't a real governor of Judea? Or that Herod the Great was a work of fiction?

That's just a ridiculous thing to suggest without providing any evidence at all. It sure sounds really feel goody and nice if you're a Christian but from an outside perspective it's the exact kind of meaningless logic that turns people like me away from Christianity. "the word" does not exist in all men, because that's a concept made up by later Christians to try to explain why there were so many other religions and why they were all wrong.

To put it simply (perhaps a little too simply) the Word or Logos refers to the code or the framework of all existence. The word was in the beginning, was with God and is God. Atheists say that the Word came from nothing, was given by no one and has no reason to exist. Even so, they acknowledge (usually) its existence. Scientists, philosophers and theologians try to learn about the Word using different methods, but no single approach can provide all the answers. And as I said above, the insistence that different religions are "mutually exclusive" from one another is an anti-theist talking point; the other faiths aren't "wrong", they're just less refined.

It's the religious version of the "I made that" meme.

No, it's the "God made that" meme.

There's no evidence at all that the christian god is somehow at the center of every religious belief. Well, until they encounter christians, anyway. Then all bets are off and they're apostates and unbelievers. It's something that sounds nice to say, but it's never actually been put into practice.

Once again, your a priori materialism has already made any relevant evidence inadmissible in your perception.

[Akar]

The problem is you're demanding material evidence for a non material truth. It's like asking someone to prove or disprove a moral statement with mathematics.

Well, it's a bit of a stretch to call it truth. If god's existence has material effects on the world, then I should have no issue demanding material evidence. The bible doesn't only claim to make moral statements, it makes statements of fact about the creation and origins of the world that we know to be false. As well as the lack of evidence for many parts of the early bible like Exodus. If the bible makes a claim about the world, then it should be able to back it up with evidence found in the world

The commentary aspect of the Gospels isn't a point of contention. Are you going to tell me that Pilate wasn't a real governor of Judea? Or that Herod the Great was a work of fiction?

No I genuinely enjoyed the way you phrased that.

To put it simply (perhaps a little too simply) the Word or Logos refers to the code or the framework of all existence. The word was in the beginning, was with God and is God. Atheists say that the Word came from nothing, was given by no one and has no reason to exist. Even so, they acknowledge (usually) its existence. Scientists, philosophers and theologians try to learn about the Word using different methods, but no single approach can provide all the answers. And as I said above, the insistence that different religions are "mutually exclusive" from one another is an anti-theist talking point; the other faiths aren't "wrong", they're just less refined.

Well, no atheists don't claim that. Atheists don't believe in the concept of "the word" at all because it's a purely biblical idea. If you're talking about general morality then that's a result of altruism being evolutionary beneficial for both the recipient and the giver. If you're talking about just the existence of the universe in general then again, no. We don't believe that it came from nothing, we just know that given the current limitations of our technology and just the way light and time works we cannot ever know what happened directly before the Big Bang. We can, however, observe everything that happened directly afterwards and all the way until now. I challenge you to find me any mainstream atheist scientist who acknowledges "the word" as a concept. If religions aren't mutually exclusive, then why bother proselytizing? If they're just less-refined versions of the real religion then are they going to heaven? Or do they only go to heaven if they believe that specific refined version of the same religion? When you're talking about god you're either right or wrong, there are no degrees to it. Believing in Zeus isn't a less refined version of christianity outside of the sense that christianity blatantly stole elements of paganism.

No, it's the "God made that" meme.

Except, he didn't.

Once again, your a priori materialism has already made any relevant evidence inadmissible in your perception.

I would have to see relevant evidence in order for me to dismiss it, as long as the "relevant evidence" isn't just a quote from the bible.