Bible's accuracy/truth

Is the Bible reliable

  • No. I'm not a christian

    Votes: 5 18.5%

  • Yes. I am a christian

    Votes: 6 22.2%

  • No. I'm a christian

    Votes: 2 7.4%

  • Yes. I'm not a christian

    Votes: 2 7.4%

  • Uncertain

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Parts of it. I'm not a christian

    Votes: 12 44.4%

  • Parts of it . I am a christian

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    27
There are some true things in the bible. You know, like the Romans who
were written down by name. The locations also exist....

The spiritual and religios part? Who knows? I don´t believe that is true.
 
My stance has always been: It contains truth, but isn't all true. The basic ideas of be good to your fellow man and the general "guide to life" aspects have varying degrees of truth to them. I do believe that the man Jesus walked the Earth.There is plenty of nonBible historical evidence to that. Anything else that sounds/reads like folklore/myth/legend/fairytale/fable/parable (The Flood, Creation in six days, blowing a horn causing the collapse of a giant stone wall, etc.), most likey was either just that and meant to be read as such, to help teach a lesson, much as the tales of Aesop and others, or it was simply an unscientific means of explaining the unexplainable.
 
It is historically and spiritually infallible. The Gospels of Luke have been scrutinized and tested numerous times and have been NOTED to be historically accurate and precise.
 
NOTED by hypocritical apologists.

What has, in fact, been noted is:
  • NO evidence of the Exodus/Conquest
  • NO evidence of Herod's infanticide
  • NO evidence of a virgin birth
  • NO evidence of a crucifixion/resurrection
  • NO evidence of zombies walking around Jerusalem
It is a story, hovering between fable and fraud, absurdly rationalized by arguments that are as disingenuous as they are laughable.
 
If the bible would be true, more people would believe in it.

If it would not be so boring, I would ask SouthStar again why he believes that everything, including god, that is written in the bible is true. But the argument never bears fruit...
 
The Bible is true because it is the directly dictated word of God. It says so in the Bible.

Oh wait .....

Something .....circular ......in that .......logic.......
 
chunkylover58 said:
The Bible is true because it is the directly dictated word of God. It says so in the Bible.

Oh wait .....

Something .....circular ......in that .......logic.......
Click to expand...

That is a baseless, foolish claim and I would advise you to gather your "facts" from a different source.

The Bible is NOT "the directly dictated word of God". If it says so in the Bible, show me. Either that or stop making a fool of yourself ;)
 
"NO evidence of the Exodus/Conquest
NO evidence of Herod's infanticide
NO evidence of a virgin birth
NO evidence of a crucifixion/resurrection
NO evidence of zombies walking around Jerusalem"

That is why it takes FAITH to believe.
 
§outh§tar said:
That is a baseless, foolish claim and I would advise you to gather your "facts" from a different source.

The Bible is NOT "the directly dictated word of God". If it says so in the Bible, show me. Either that or stop making a fool of yourself ;)
Click to expand...

Totally agree..
The Christians said the Bible was revealed through "God's spirit". Not to mention the history, what was written in there are somewhat contradicting (to me.) And when someone told me what really happened during the history, it was very depressing. Kinda like "Wake up!!"
Dun get me wrong though. Personally I still learn a lot values from the Bible.. but no, it is not realiable... :m:
 
The Bible is NOT "the directly dictated word of God"
Click to expand...
Well that's the point, isn't it? It's the most powerful propoganda machine ever... not the 'word of God'.
 
The Bible is NOT "the directly dictated word of God"

Yes it is, if you believe what the Bible says is true.
II Timothy 3:16
"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teachimg, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness."
II Peter 1:21
"For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God"
 
II Timothy 3:16
"All scripture is inspired by God
Click to expand...
Congrats! You jsut defeated your own argument.

1) Um, so who is Timothy.. one of the names God decide to write with?
2) The Biography of Abraham Lincoln was "inspired by" Abraham Lincoln. That doesn't mean they are his words (or even 100% true).

The FACT that the Bible contradicts itself (within the same version and between different versions) shoots down your argument even further.
 
I honestly don't see how I defeated my own argument.
Timothy was a pastor in the years following the death of Christ. II Timothy is actually a letter written by Paul to Timothy.
"inspired" comes from the Greek word theopneustos meaning "God breathed."
Revelation relates to origin and giving of truth
Inspiration relates to recieving and recording the truth.
It also reveals that the writing of the Bible was a supernatural event, something we can't fully understand
 
I see no way at all that the Bible as we know it today could have anywhere NEAR the same meaning it did 2000 to 5000 years ago. It has gone through so many interpretations from one language to the next, much of that through word of mouth. Ever play the game where you whisper something like "There are fourteen ways to smother a house cat" to person number one, and by the time it gets back to person number 10 it's now become, "Three or four tons of mustard fell from the bay onto my hat?" Imagine intricate stories with many characters and names of specific areas and events, being passed via word of mouth over thousands of years. You can't tell me that today's King James or NIV Bible is anywhere near what was originally written in Hebrew and Greek. For that reason alone, the Bible cannot be considered an absolute true and completely factual piece of historical literature.

As Obi Wan Kenobi said, "Luke, you are going to find that a great many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on your point of view."
 
I have often wondered the same thing. The way I see it though, is that if God is powerful enough to inspire the writing of the Bible, then He is also capable of ensuring it is translated properly.
 
No, I don't think so. Gold generally isn't just laying aroung, you have to go looking for it. The same is true of God's truth. Translasions into English is a start, but to find the real meaning you have to study the word, which includes looking at the original Greek/Hebrew texts or use a comentary.
 
§outh§tar said:
It is historically and spiritually infallible. The Gospels of Luke have been scrutinized and tested numerous times and have been NOTED to be historically accurate and precise.
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: There are so many discrepancies in the Bible that they are too numerous to list here. This subject has been rehashed many times on this forum. Even if some events may have been historically true, how does one determine that the spiritual truths are infallible? There's no way to do that. Paul commissioned Luke to write a gospel. Luke and Paul were close associates. In fact, the gospel of Luke does not mean it was written by Luke. Paul also had Luke write the Acts. There is no proof of any of it. Please explain what you mean by "scrutinized and tested numerous times and by whom?
 
I saw an article from some way out there zealot discussing the whole 666 mark of the Beast on the hand thing ... you may not buy or sell save you have the number of the beast in your hand or forehead. The Bible clearly states, "...And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads." This fellow did some studying and he decided that it would just be too much effort for everyone to be fitted with some sort of implant, and that a tattoo or stamp would be more feasible. He had problems with this because Revelations clearly says "IN" the hand or forehead. Well, it just so happens that the words for "in" and "on" are quite similar, so perhaps the Bible really meant to say "on" instead of "in." If this were the case, then his stance re: the tattooing of the 666 would be right on target. This made me wonder if he realizes that he may very well have rendered the miracles of Christ completely meaningless, at least one of them anyway. Perhaps he only walked "in" the water and not "on" it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top