Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Valethem

The Reliability Of The Bible

Recommended Posts

Yes, certain things in the bible can be verified. And that seems silly. It doesn't make it unreliable at all. If God didn't exist, then it would make it unreliable. Who says that the story of Creation is false? You are falsely making the assumption that God does not exist because his existence is not proven.

Who says the story of creation is false? Most scientists, and I believe that the current Pope has said that evolution does not conflict with Catholicism.

 

BTW I AM CATHOLIC

Catholics. :aware: I'm just kidding. I know some people who are Catholic, and they are really nice. However, I still think that the Catholic church is wrong on more than one count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, so I personally believe the Bible is 100% true

Do you go out murdering homosexuals and non-believers? The Bible tells you to do that. Do you not murder your fellow man? The Bible also tells you to do that. How do you believe in both sides of the hypocrisy in the Bible?

 

Do you believe in giants, unicorns, and cockatrices? The Bible claims they all exist.

 

The Bible is not reliable in the slightest. It is a work of fiction.

The bible also says you aren't allowed to shave. But thats the old testament. I'm not sure but I think we just do what the new testament says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, certain things in the bible can be verified. And that seems silly. It doesn't make it unreliable at all. If God didn't exist, then it would make it unreliable. Who says that the story of Creation is false? You are falsely making the assumption that God does not exist because his existence is not proven.

Who says the story of creation is false? Most scientists, and I believe that the current Pope has said that evolution does not conflict with Catholicism.

 

BTW I AM CATHOLIC

Catholics. :aware: I'm just kidding. I know some people who are Catholic, and they are really nice. However, I still think that the Catholic church is wrong on more than one count.

Define "wrong". Certain aspects of a religion do not make any religion "wrong". Why is your interpretation right and EVERYONE ELSE'S "wrong"? My views are that much of the Bible is crap. Another way to make it unreliable is that it claims to have the word of God in its pages, but who decided that it was the word of God? A HUMAN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, so I personally believe the Bible is 100% true

Do you go out murdering homosexuals and non-believers? The Bible tells you to do that. Do you not murder your fellow man? The Bible also tells you to do that. How do you believe in both sides of the hypocrisy in the Bible?

 

Do you believe in giants, unicorns, and cockatrices? The Bible claims they all exist.

 

The Bible is not reliable in the slightest. It is a work of fiction.

The bible also says you aren't allowed to shave. But thats the old testament. I'm not sure but I think we just do what the new testament says.

The New Testament is built upon the foundation of the Old Testament.

 

Yes, certain things in the bible can be verified. And that seems silly. It doesn't make it unreliable at all. If God didn't exist, then it would make it unreliable. Who says that the story of Creation is false? You are falsely making the assumption that God does not exist because his existence is not proven.

Who says the story of creation is false? Most scientists, and I believe that the current Pope has said that evolution does not conflict with Catholicism.

 

BTW I AM CATHOLIC

Catholics. :aware: I'm just kidding. I know some people who are Catholic, and they are really nice. However, I still think that the Catholic church is wrong on more than one count.

Define "wrong". Certain aspects of a religion do not make any religion "wrong". Why is your interpretation right and EVERYONE ELSE'S "wrong"? My views are that much of the Bible is crap. Another way to make it unreliable is that it claims to have the word of God in its pages, but who decided that it was the word of God? A HUMAN.

A message that is based on a falsehood; a message falsely leading people into a false sense of security, when there is no security; a message that tells us we are saved when we are not... This message of falsehood is common. It is the spirit of compromise. We are to be the church of God, not man. In fact, we are to foresake the wisdom of people, and depend upon the word. In other words, Jesus. "If you love me, keep my commandments."

 

I have never claimed to be always right. Most of my beliefs are based upon what has been explained to me by other people who are older and wiser than I am. I have never claimed to be a great follower. However, I feel that certain things are true and I have been given at least a basic knowledge of the bible. If the bible is crap, then it is completely worthless to me. It is based on a falsehood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where can you read a historical account of something that has happened hundreds of years ago? I've always been interested in this, but I'm not really sure where you can find a reliable source. To cut to the chase, where did you find this information. This certainly isn't common knowledge.
Romans had a knack for recording their history, and Titus Flavius Josephus (37 AD - sometime past 100AD) did quite an excellent job at recording the history of Judea in the 1st century A.D. and earlier.

 

Some of his works can be found, translated, here: http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/JOSEPHUS.HTM

 

Also censuses of Roman citizens were made by Augustus three times: sometime around 30 BC, 8 BC and 15 AD (going by memory here, may be wrong. Been a long time since they explained the Res Gestae in school.)

 

As you can see...there's a discrepancy. Also, we can find such historical accounts as much as we can find accounts of American colonisation and such, because the Romans, having dreadfully little to do beside conquering and stuff, were interested in history and culture. Most of what we know of Europe since the 5th century BC is from Roman history. If we didn't have that, we would know almost nothing about all the people that lived in Europe. Celts would be regarded as minor tribes while they were quite the power a millennium B.C.

 

The cockatrices and unicorns are not in the Bible i checked the verses and i got bulls instead of unicorns, and vipers instead of cockatrices, please state your source next time. please mine was http://www.biblegateway.com/ NIV version (the most common used)
In this debate the KJV version has been used. Just the fact that there are AT LEAST two contradicting versions in the same language is an indication of reliability being <99.9%.

 

 

Sorry i forgot to reply to this, don't think it slipped by me though. Ah yes, this is pretty controversial, but in truth its true. The Catholics wrote their own version of the Bible called the King James Version Bible, and in it some things were distorted slightly just by a common slip in interpretation. And also Catholics really emphasized poeticalness, and descriptiveness, and even sometimes exaggerations in the their translations. The Catholics are much better today. But back in the middle ages, they became more of a cult, and didn't follow all the teachings of Christ. Such things that happened during the crusades, and the killing of French Huguenots was not the will of God. Then the protestant reformation came in, and even they were persecuted but prevailed in places such as Germany. And Queen Elizabeth really put a rise to the protestant belief by becoming a world power and representing that faith over Catholicism. Yes Catholicism did prevail, and over time their teaching and actions became more docile, and now a Catholic is considered a Christian. I have no problem with most Catholics.

 

As for the idea that people can't shave their beards, yea thats ludicrous. The only person who couldn't shave his beard was Sampson the Nazarite in which to be a Nazarite you couldn't shave your beard. A Nazarite was a true follower of God, and by cutting his beard he broke away from God thus God broke his power away from Sampson

 

Many teachings were revised in New Testament, but still many things stand from the Old Testament

Edited by Valethem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Catholics wrote their own version of the Bible called the King James Version Bible
...actually I'm very sure that it was commissioned by the Church of England and subsequently used by the Founding Fathers and is still used by a sizeable chunk of Protestant churches throughout the US. Might need verification on this last one though...but I'm very sure that it was King James I of England to sanction that Bible, and as leader of the Church of England (a.k.a. Anglican)... :)

 

As for the rest of your post, can't really disagree with anything. :)

 

The Catholics are much better today.
[insert obvious Darth Sidious image] :aware:

 

To Adam?- You can't prove Genesis wrong, or any other method of creation, thus you can't write off the rest of the Bible as unreliable.
The main point of contention is that believers say that things that can't be proven are true, and evil barbaric infidels (:)) say the exact contrary, and I'm pretty sure that there's nothing to be done about this clash - which is why I say 'to each his own'. ;)

 

I know some people who are Catholic, and they are really nice. However, I still think that the Catholic church is wrong on more than one count.
ya catholics evil :)

 

:) (I live in a country where 87% of the population defines itself as Catholic. :P) I've noticed that, in areas where one particular faith is particularly radicated, such as a big part of Europe, religious tolerance is always high. As an example I can bring, people don't mind me being Agnostic/Atheist and I don't mind believers, I don't mind going to Church in certain occasions, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, but that's probably because, even if I don't actually believe in such rituals and such, they are still part of my culture no matter what. Few 'unbelievers' would say 'no' to a religious marriage, including myself. Sometimes, belief and culture mix and they can't be separated.

 

I have never claimed to be always right.
omg common ground

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Catholics wrote their own version of the Bible called the King James Version Bible, and in it some things were distorted slightly just by a common slip in interpretation.

 

*Facepalm* :aware:

 

NO! NO NO NO!! The King James Edition is the Protestant photo copy of the Holy Book! WE DID NOT WRITE IT! We follow the original work written by the apostles and prophets. Repeat after me. The Catholics did NOT change the Bible K? :)

 

Just out of curiosity, wat branch of the faith are u from. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in what the Bible says but alot of the stuff in the old testament was written by people with a very different view on life. They thought everything that hasppened came from God. Stuff like Uzzah being struck by lightening after touching the ark shoul be taken with a grain of salt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone please explain why the Bible is any more important than any other piece of literature in history?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could someone please explain why the Bible is any more important than any other piece of literature in history?

Because it is the written word of God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

But that can't be proven or disproved, so it's unreliable. :aware:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Arianna- Maybe this quote from good'ole Wikipedia should clear things up

The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Bible begun in 1604 and first published in 1611 by the Church of England. The Great Bible was the first "authorized version" issued by the Church of England in the reign of King Henry VIII. In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans.[/b] The Puritans were a faction within the Church of England.

 

King Henry VIII was a Catholic for 99% of his life, and had the interpretation KJV written. King James I only authorized it. And then just as I have stated that the Puritans (Anglican) found errors in it.

 

Could someone please explain why the Bible is any more important than any other piece of literature in history?

Because it is the written word of God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

But that can't be proven or disproved, so it's unreliable. :aware:

 

well if it can't be disproven, you can't write it off as unreliable yet. All the facts point to reliability. All the historical events that happened in the Bible are true. Such as the rise and fall of the empires.

 

 

As for Phoenix- The most i said is that the KJV lost some things in the interpretation, just by how they worded it. I'm not exactly sure how it was written, but I know it is a lot harder to study, due to its poeticalness, and exaggerations facts are distorted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well if it can't be disproven, you can't write it off as unreliable yet. All the facts point to reliability. All the historical events that happened in the Bible are true. Such as the rise and fall of the empires.

That's like saying any historical fiction is reliable, since the events took place in real historical times. :aware:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well if it can't be disproven, you can't write it off as unreliable yet. All the facts point to reliability. All the historical events that happened in the Bible are true. Such as the rise and fall of the empires.

That's like saying any historical fiction is reliable, since the events took place in real historical times. :aware:

 

Well unlike historical fiction stories, there is proof that there are Israelites, there is proof of the crucifixion, there is proof of Paul's missions.

 

Historical fiction is usually a story of someone who was part of history, but played a minor role and was made up (lets say a story of a soldier during the civil war era) yes the civil war did happen but no proof of the soldier. The Bible is different, thus you can't write it off under those grounds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well if it can't be disproven, you can't write it off as unreliable yet. All the facts point to reliability. All the historical events that happened in the Bible are true. Such as the rise and fall of the empires.

That's like saying any historical fiction is reliable, since the events took place in real historical times. :aware:

 

Well unlike historical fiction stories, there is proof that there are Israelites, there is proof of the crucifixion, there is proof of Paul's missions.

 

Historical fiction is usually a story of someone who was part of history, but played a minor role and was made up (lets say a story of a soldier during the civil war era) yes the civil war did happen but no proof of the soldier. The Bible is different, thus you can't write it off under those grounds

Yes I can. You are substantiating things like Jesus being the son of God because the crucifixion happened. In the sense of non-religious historical benefits, the Bible is accurate. Otherwise, unreliable and cannot be proven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
King Henry VIII was a Catholic for 99% of his life, and had the interpretation KJV written.
You are thinking of the now-disused "Great Bible", issued by Henry VIII right after the Anglican Schism to have a Bible specific for the Church of England and differentiate it from the Latin Vulgata in use by the Catholic Church.

 

The Anglican Schism happened in 1534 by the famous Act of Supremacy and by the lesser known Treasons Act (which prescribed death to those who did not recognise the nature of the King/Queen of England as the head of the Anglican Church. Lovely!), 70 years before the KJV was started, in 1604. Henry VIII shuffled his mortal coil in 1547. OMG ZOMBIE HENRY VIII BRAAAAAAAAAAINSSSSSS. :aware:

 

The ones who poked around to get a new translation of the Bible due to perceived mistranslations in the Great Bible were the Puritans: notably, the Mayflower sailors belonged to that branch of Christianity.

 

Read more about the Henry VIII's Great Bible (which is NOT the KJV - not even close) here: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol...icle3040191.ece

 

Curiously, in the UK the KJV is still under copyright protection. :)

 

Well unlike historical fiction stories, there is proof that there are Israelites, there is proof of the crucifixion, there is proof of Paul's missions.
So Philip Dick's "The Man In The High Castle" (1962), an alternate history book that answers the question "...and if the Nazi (or, to use a pretty hilarious term seen on a few comic wartime covers, "Japanazis") won the war?", is completely right because WWII, which is cited in the book, as much as Pearl Harbour and all pre-1942 facts, happened? I'm NOT seeing San Francisco as the Japanese American Headquarters nor the entire Eastern part of the USA under direct Nazi administration! :)

 

Also, with the same reasoning, Tom Cruise is advertising Scientology, but that does NOT mean that Scientology is 100% correct!

 

In the sense of non-religious historical benefits, the Bible is accurate.
...almost. :) Edited by Arianna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, with the same reasoning, Tom Cruise is advertising Scientology, but that does NOT mean that Scientology is 100% correct!

 

You pay them to say that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A prophecy is given

 

 

We've got hundreds of those :)

 

 

 

How can it be proven that it was because of a god?

It can't be proven. However, I do not doubt that God could do something like that. Therefore, I see no reason to doubt the events as described in the book. I was not there, so I can't vouch for it even occuring. We do know that certain poisons are extremely deadly. I think it is fair to say that surviving a poison with no adverse side effects is incredible. Shortly before this, they had tested the poison on a dog, and it killed the dog in an instant in the book.

The poison could have been another substance that wasn't poisonous, the poison could have been a poison that isn't life threatening, etc. I'm not willing to believe that just because somebody says they survived a poison because of a god, that it was in fact because of the god.

 

Also, why do that to a dog? ;)

 

Because it was an unbeliever :P.

 

You all know the definition of a Miracle: An act beyond human power.

That basically explains it all. So what conclusion can we draw from this?

 

I'm sorry, I should have said Muslim extremists you are right, most muslims (especially in America) are ordinary people. But the Koran does say that he who dies in holy battle will obtain many virgins... Mohammad led raids against Jewish caravans, and promised his followers if they died they wouldn't regret it.

 

Also i learned last year a lot about Roman history, including the fact that they took censues often, i can not prove that right now, thats just what i remember. So maybe i'll find that info later

 

To Adam?- You can't prove Genesis wrong, or any other method of creation, thus you can't write off the rest of the Bible as unreliable. A hand in the sky making a universe at least makes sense and is possible to follow. Unlike existence poofing into existence (big bang theory)

 

Umm my challenge still stands. Somebody said that we have tons of prophecies, but you know all of the Bible's has come true except for Revelation, but that is to come. Thanks everyone for not turning this into a flame war! :aware:

 

Apology accepted :D.

I don't get why people use the word 'virgins' for the houri (damsels) in Heaven, it doesn't make sense :). It's meant to be one of the rewards of Heaven by the way, along with the servants, luxuries and all the ballyhoo theologians speak about :)

 

As for those who were guaranteed Heaven in war, that's totally true as well (provided they don't kill minor children, women, the elderly, burn or chop down a tree of any kind, molest worshippers, kill those who are not attacking and those paused in the war due to severe wounds).

 

Aye, Muhammed (pbuh) did lead raids against Jewish caravans/gatherings. There were quite alot, due to many peace treaties being broken. At the time of Muhammed, the Jews tried on many occasions to assassinate the Prophet by every means (you'll notice that when you read the Prophet's biography), and Muhammed seemed to keep pardoning and forgiving them every time. Some went too far out the box and were expelled from Medina (the city of our Prophet). Then there were those who were judged by their close associates according to the Torah and were totally obliterated from existence by the Muslim armies (this only occured once though). But there are a few who apparently converted to Islam, including well-known rabbis. It's a long story, and i'm sorry if I didn't fully satisfy your requirements :)

 

There are pretty much thousands of Prophecies in the Bible as I believe (I wouldn't dare deny that). Some of 'em proved very useful to my desires, and I gotta thank the good book for that.

 

 

 

Also, with the same reasoning, Tom Cruise is advertising Scientology, but that does NOT mean that Scientology is 100% correct!

 

 

You pay them to say that.

 

:)

Edited by Ameer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, so I personally believe the Bible is 100% true

Do you go out murdering homosexuals and non-believers? The Bible tells you to do that. Do you not murder your fellow man? The Bible also tells you to do that.

You sir, are an incompetent fool who forgot how to read.

 

That, or you supremely suck at translation.

 

The Bible never speaks directly on those subjects--any references to revenge are from God's point of view. Therefore, he is not ordering humans to commit acts of violence.

 

"Justice/revenge (depends on your translation) is mine, says the LORD".

 

Hello. Wake up, please try to read.

 

Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leviticus says that a man who lies with another man as with a woman should be killed. :aware: Perhaps you are the incompetent fool who just picks and chooses what to read and what not to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Bible never speaks directly on those subjects--any references to revenge are from God's point of view. Therefore, he is not ordering humans to commit acts of violence.

...WHAT?

 

And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

 

And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

 

For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves today to the LORD, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day.

And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.
And they turned and went up by the way of Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan went out against them, he, and all his people, to the battle at Edrei.

 

And the LORD said unto Moses, Fear him not: for I have delivered him into thy hand, and all his people, and his land; and thou shalt do to him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon.

 

So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land.

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

 

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

 

Read for yourself.

 

Hello. Wake up, please try to read.
...hypocrite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Bible never speaks directly on those subjects--any references to revenge are from God's point of view. Therefore, he is not ordering humans to commit acts of violence.

...WHAT?

 

And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

 

And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

 

For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves today to the LORD, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day.

And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.
And they turned and went up by the way of Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan went out against them, he, and all his people, to the battle at Edrei.

 

And the LORD said unto Moses, Fear him not: for I have delivered him into thy hand, and all his people, and his land; and thou shalt do to him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon.

 

So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land.

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

 

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

 

Read for yourself.

 

Hello. Wake up, please try to read.
...hypocrite.

 

Ouch, that last part hurt :).

 

Perhaps these verses are only referring to war and not general? Otherwise, this is the first time I ever see the Torah/Old Testemant/Bible speaking of such words.

 

 

You sir, are an incompetent fool who forgot how to read.

 

I dare say :aware:

 

 

EDIT: I think the term 'lying' means lying in bed with the opposite sex illegally (i.e fornication or adultery); I doubt it'd be that extreme (that is, if you took the other meaning). Personally I don't have much of a problem with a death penalty for adultery.

Edited by Ameer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps these verses are only referring to war and not general?
I think they do: but war itself is an act of violence, and wiping out populations is genocide.

 

Personally I don't have much of a problem with a death penalty for adultery.
I personally have a problem with anyone that assumes powers of life and death over another person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bible says that humans have only been around for a 6,000 years but we know its been much longer. So no its not entirely reliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Bible says that humans have only been around for a 6,000 years but we know its been much longer. So no its not entirely reliable.

I don't know that the earth is older.:aware: Anyway... The bible doesn't specifically state that the earth has been around for 6,000 years. Some bible scholars have calculated that it is 6,000 years by going through the genealogies of the people in the bible. It amounts to pretty much the same thing, though. But it is semantically false to say that the bible says that the earth has been around for 6,000 years.

Edited by mormril

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps these verses are only referring to war and not general?
I think they do: but war itself is an act of violence, and wiping out populations is genocide.

 

Personally I don't have much of a problem with a death penalty for adultery.
I personally have a problem with anyone that assumes powers of life and death over another person.

 

I meant just wars when the opposing army initiates the attack (wasn't that what Prophet Moses preached?). About the population bit, I guess that's no misnomer then.

 

Pertaining to the punishment for adultery, how so? It wouldn't be like saying 'eat my dog and i'll kill yer!'. Indeed we are speaking about humans, but doesn't that raise the seriousness of the matter? If we leave fixed wedlocks to let loose and allow adultery, the possibilities of diseases as a consequence would become uncomprehendable. Some may say 'you're stopping the killing itself', consequently sterilising the society. Wedlocks exist for a reason and aren't taken as as a joke just to leave your spouse and allow your dangerous passions to flourish in the community, resulting in diseases, hatred and possible killings. Such dangerous consequences need to be warded off with powerful laws that need not even take place if this heinous crime was never committed from genesis. To say 'assuming powers of life and death over another person' is giving the impression of killing anyone you please without reason at all. That is what I have a problem with :aware:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.