The Bible is literally true.

[Nighthawk 0]

There was a second post after that one.

[Guest Nanks]

But you can see what's happened... you've got Nanks in here scoffing at the idea that scientists date geological strata by the fossils in them (which really is what they do... look it up) and saying that carbon dating throws it out the window, when carbon dating had nothing to do with it. Croweater had similar thoughts, though he worded it less foolishly.

Well if I had said that then I'd agree with you. As it happens, that's not what I said at all. The point I scoffed at was your assertion that dinosaurs and humans shared the Earth based on an extremely obscure line in the Book of Job, and to explain away the fact that dinosaur fossils and human fossils are found at the same geological strata, which they're not, you claimed that when they are scientists simply declare them to be from different eras. Which is patently absurd. At no point in time did I ever use the existance of dinosaurs as proof for evolution, I have no idea where you've got that from.

 

Overall, the biggest problem I have with the vast amount of The Bible, is that every time something totally inexplicable and fantastic happens, a wizard did it, and that's supposed to be explanation enough. I have no problem with The Bible being used as a reference for morals and such, well apart from the bits where slavery, denigration of women and murder are declared righteous. But The Bible is not a history book.

[Jingus 0]

Literal interpretation is bullshit.

 

As that link handily proves. 330, count 'em, three hundred and thirty factual contradictions within the Bible are listed there. The different books can't even agree with each other on simple shit like how many sons Abraham had, or how Judas died, or how long the great flood lasted. These are PROVEN FACTUAL ERRORS IN THE BIBLE. Look them up in your own copy, if you don't believe me. Anyone who claims that the Bible is a literal and infallible telling of history is full of shit.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

This is an incredible thread.

 

Okay IDRM...

 

How do you explain Enuma Elish and Gilgamesh?

 

Catholic paganisms: the transubstantiation was pagan.

Can you elaborate or point me to some links?

 

Go to a Catholic church sometime and see them bring flowers and kiss the feet of a statue of Mary. This is idol worship. Not only because Mary is unworthy of praise, but any reverence to a, to use Biblical terms, graven image, is idolatry, regardless of the symbolism.

Throw in saints here as well ... Most of these people are ASKING Mary to pray for them, not PRAYING to her or worshipping her.

 

Also, I don't know if you're aware of this, and if you're not will probably make it even more difficult for you, but people at the time lived 8 or 9 hundred years.

I thought the calendar year at the time was shorter.

 

...because Jesus believed in the ark literally.

You sure?

 

Theistic evolution is also foolishness, and I'll explain why if anyone so desires.

Please do.

[Guest SP-1]

Literal interpretation is bullshit.

 

As that link handily proves. 330, count 'em, three hundred and thirty factual contradictions within the Bible are listed there. The different books can't even agree with each other on simple shit like how many sons Abraham had, or how Judas died, or how long the great flood lasted. These are PROVEN FACTUAL ERRORS IN THE BIBLE. Look them up in your own copy, if you don't believe me. Anyone who claims that the Bible is a literal and infallible telling of history is full of shit.

Ah, verses taken out of context.

 

*sniff*

 

It's a beautiful, if retarded, attempt to discredit the Bible.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

I agree.

[Guest Nanks]

Aside from everything else, just as a matter of curiousity, why exactly should anybody look at The Bible as anything more than an elaborate work of fiction?? Just because it was written a very long time ago doesn't make it credible.

[Jingus 0]

"Out of context" hardly matters with obvious, blatant contradictions like some of these.

 

For example: the case of, How Many Sons Did Abraham Have? In Genesis 22:2 and Hebrews 11:17 it clearly states that Isaac was the only one. But then Genesis 25:1-2 mentions no less than six other children he had with another wife, and that's aside from the kid he had with a servant girl according to Genesis 16:15. And to make everything even more confusing, Galatians 4:22 says he had two (and only two) sons.

 

There are plenty of examples like this. Matthew and Mark's list of the names of the twelve apostles don't match those listed in Luke and Acts. (So which one was really there, Lebbaeus Thaddeus or Judas brother of James?) All four Gospels can't agree on if Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, a colt, or both. John says that Jesus bore his own cross to his execution, while the other three say Simon of Cyrene carried it for him.

 

David apparently killed Goliath twice, because 1st Samuel 17:50 says David "slew him" with a slung stone, but then one verse later claims David "slew him" with his own sword. If every living human being was descended from Eve, then where the hell did Cain's unnamed wife come from? (Anyone who makes a Lita joke here can go straight to by-gawd hell.) Matthew and Luke both have vastly different geneologies for showing how Jesus was a direct descendent of David, not even agreeing on which of David's sons was his ancestor. Genesis at one point claims that animals were made before man was, and then promptly says the opposite just one chapter later.

 

Even more contradictions, mistakes, and blunders: Genesis and Revelations disagree on the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. Jesus is repeatedly said to have been descended from David through his father Joseph, which completely contradicts the whole "virgin birth" story. Did Judas hang himself, or did he suddenly fall down and explode for no reason? Was Lot the brother or the nephew of Abraham? Which of the THREE different identities given for Moses's father-in-law was the real one? Did Noah enter the ark the day the rains started, or did he wait a week first? Did Jesus immedietly go into the wilderness following his baptism, or did he hang around in Galilee for a few days?

 

And finally, let's not forget that all four gospels tell completely, and I do mean COMPLETELY different stories about Christ's resurrection. Considering that this is one of the most important parts of the entire book and that a good deal of the Christian religion is based upon the idea of resurrection through God, you'd think they'd at least make sure that their own field manual didn't contradict this part, but I guess little things like making sure we known exactly who witnessed his rebirth (was it Virgin Mary, Mary Magdalene, Cleopas, Cephas, or an anonymous stranger?) just weren't all that important to the original authors.

 

These are not just verses taken out of contexts. These are mistakes in the written word of the Bible, plain and simple.

[Guest T®ITEC]

Well, obviously, but some people need a crutch. Fuck those people.

[Guest Nanks]

You just don't listen do you J*ingus?? A wizard did it.

[Guest SP-1]

"Out of context" hardly matters with obvious, blatant contradictions like some of these.

 

 

I'm going to start taking your posts out of context one day and see how long it takes for you to start flaming me for it.

 

There's a saying at my school, especially in the bible classes: CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING. Context is everything when it comes to understanding the Bible.

 

Those things you quoted? Amateur. Way amateur. If I weren't typing from my bed right now I'd discredit them right now. Give me a couple of days to get other stuff out of the way and I will.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

After having religion shoved down my throat for the first 15 years of my life by my overly-christian dad and stepmom and then moving to live with my mom and having numerous shitty things happen to me in life, i've come to severly question the reality of God...you know the good old, "if there is a God why does he let bad shit happen?" thinking...the general answer from christians on that is that God is testing our faith, but when you're praying and praying and believing and believing and bad shit continues to happen, you can't help but question the faith...now having been instilled with a deep fear of being condemed to a pit of fire for eternity, I have not renounced God/Jesus, but the skepticism is definently at an all time high for me these days...

What he said.

 

I come from a Catholic family, but my mom hasn't pressed it on me once I turned 16 years ago. That seemed to be the magical age where she decided I didn't have to go to church anymore unless I wanted to. Needless to say, I've been there maybe three times that wasn't Christmas or Easter since then; twice was because my girlfriend forced me to go.

 

I'd like to believe in a higher power and to some extent, I do. I'm just at the point where too many good questions are answered with BS answers from the religious folk (i.e. the one Lushus mentioned).

 

I think way too many people take the Bible and religion too seriously. To each their own, but I don't think anyone has the right to force religious beliefs on anyone. Ever. I've often found that some of the craziest people I've ever met in my life have been extremely religious. I don't think that's a coincidence.

 

To those extremely religious people--stop telling everyone how they're going to burn in hell for their sins. Nobody dwells on how you're a nut for living your life to the dictation of something that may or may not truly exist.

[Highland 0]

I love how people make excuses like "mistranslations" or "human fallacy" whenever someone points out any inaccuracies in the Bible.

[NoCalMike 0]

I read some article in one of those "don't believe what they tell you" books, that 75% of the major points of the bible is nearly an exact replica of some sun god religion practiced 3000 years earlier, and that the scholars who wrote the bible, kind of just made substitutions where necessary......

[NoCalMike 0]

I still never understood, where the people of "nod" or "nan" or whever, came from when I thought Adam & Eve were the only two, along with their sons, and there is no mention at all of god creating another human population on the side.

[Jingus 0]

That's the problem, Highland: the errors are mistranslations and similar mistakes, borne out of human fallacies.

 

Go into any bookstore, and you'll find at least a dozen different versions of the Bible. Nobody can even agree on what the Bible means in English, much less in Latin, Greek, Aramaic, or any of the other older languages which it was originally written in. We're talking about a "book" which is a compilation of dozens of books, scrolls, letters, and various scraps of literature that have been piled together somewhat arbitrarily.

 

And aside from all that, it was a group of plain, ordinary mortal men who compiled, revised, and edited all the books that went into the Bible. A council of Christian leaders and scholars sometime in the 200's (the Council of Nicea maybe? Can't remember the exact name, been a little while since I studied all this) decided what writings were Holy Writ and which ones weren't worth squat. I'm sure it will come as a surprise to many of you that there was a Gospel of Mary Magdalene, which you can still find today with a bit of searching, that the council decided (not surprisingly) not to include.

 

In conclusion, the Bible is a work of men. Men wrote it, men put the separate works together, men copied and translated it a hundred times until hardly anyone knows what the original scriptures actually said.

 

Those things you quoted? Amateur. Way amateur. If I weren't typing from my bed right now I'd discredit them right now. Give me a couple of days to get other stuff out of the way and I will.

 

Anyone else getting Marney flashbacks? Well, at least this won't be boring.

[Guest SP-1]

I read some article in one of those "don't believe what they tell you" books, that 75% of the major points of the bible is nearly an exact replica of some sun god religion practiced 3000 years earlier, and that the scholars who wrote the bible, kind of just made substitutions where necessary......

Considering scholars didn't write the Bible, I'd say that's pretty funny.

[Guest Nanks]

Nobody has shown me precisely why I should look at The Bible as anything more than a work of fiction.

 

What specifically makes the Torah wrong and The Bible right??

 

Why is this account of "history" more correct than, say, the accounts given in Greek Mythology (to use a topic on which I am well versed)?? Why shouldn't I believe that there weren't 14 Major Gods and many Minor Gods?? Doesn't particularly seem any less probable than stories about a resurrected man, a virgin mother and various other fairy tales.

[Guest croweater]

Well,

As a work of fiction the bible is just a compilation of stories about morality, love, right and wrong and God.

 

As a work of truth the bible is just a compilation of stories about morality, love, right and wrong and God.

 

Should it matter which way you look at it? Does it make the ideas and phillosophies of the bible less true if it is a work of fiction?

 

The choice you make as to whether you look at it as fact or fiction is one that is based entirely on faith. The problems stemming from this is that both sides believe that they are smarter, more intellegent and less naieve than the other side.

 

Nanks, the fact that there is no proof doesn't disprove the bible. Just like because there is no deffinitive evidence that the bible is false doesn't make it true.

 

but, to answer your last question it should hold more truth to ancient mythology, because to believe in multiple "Gods" is quite opposing the definition of God which is a supremely perfect, omnipotent being. There can't be two Gods because then He isn't supremely perfect, He has an equal. However, it doesn't mean that there aren't any beings on a higher plane of existance than us but still below God, which is possibly where Greek mythology could come into it.

[Guest Nanks]

I have no real need for a perfect, omnipotent being, why must there be one?? I see nothing wrong with having several different Gods being responsible for different facets of, well, everything.

 

And no, I have no problem with The Bible being accepted as fiction and a set of guidlines for how to live. Well except for how it promotes slavery & denigration of women of course. But that's another subject for another time. What does get to me is trying to be convinced that every word of it is unassailable truth and a description of history. Which has been the subject of this whole discussion.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

This is not a shot at anyone here, as I feel this discussion has been carried out exceptionally considering religion is the topic, but there is not any concrete evidence available or that has ever been collected (outside of the Bible) that suggests Jesus Christ even existed. However, this is a topic in which I'm sure all of us could write for days about, and I've had a long, hard week teaching, so I won't go into it now.

 

UYI

[Guest Nanks]

That's my favourite one too, UYI, but I was quite interested in hearing the explanations behind the rest of the stories.

[Guest croweater]

I have no real need for a perfect, omnipotent being, why must there be one?? I see nothing wrong with having several different Gods being responsible for different facets of, well, everything.

 

And no, I have no problem with The Bible being accepted as fiction and a set of guidlines for how to live. Well except for how it promotes slavery & denigration of women of course. But that's another subject for another time. What does get to me is trying to be convinced that every word of it is unassailable truth and a description of history. Which has been the subject of this whole discussion.

I was just defining God. You can't have several different Gods because by deffinition there is only one. You can have multiple God-like beings though and no one supreme God, but they can not be called "Gods".

[Jingus 0]

From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:

 

Main Entry: 1god

Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

3 : a person or thing of supreme value

4 : a powerful ruler

 

So, captialized (God) there can only be one, but with a small "g" you can believe in as many as you want.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

You're an idiot.

 

Really.

 

UYI

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Well considering that I can't say one way or another if there IS some "thing, being, GOD" that created everything. I can vouch for my disfavore of the bible being legit. Translated too many times, through too many languages, through too many MEN. I can see why somebody would take a leap of faith if for no other reason then to provide themselves with an ANSWER to at least SOME of lifes mysteries. I'm just skeptical of having the foundation of my faith being a book thats 1000s of years old.

[Guest croweater]

Are you skeptical about maths because it was mainly derived from the ancient Greeks over 2000 years ago?

Seriously, some of the formulae could have gotten quite mixed up between then and now the meanings of certain symbols ect.

 

Why do we assume that the bible has been messed up by the translations. There are different editions of the Bible, yes, but does that actually mean that it can be taken less litterally? Has the meaning changed much at all? Keep in mind that we don't know if let alone howmuch translations have effected the content of the bible. They didn't have village idiots doing the translation you know, and back then they probably knew more about the ancient Roman empire than we do now. Everyone's just assuming that people interjected things into the bible for their own good and use that as an argument against it.

Where's the proof?

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Are you skeptical about maths because it was mainly derived from the ancient Greeks over 2000 years ago?

Seriously, some of the formulae could have gotten quite mixed up between then and now the meanings of certain symbols ect.

 

Why do we assume that the bible has been messed up by the translations. There are different editions of the Bible, yes, but does that actually mean that it can be taken less litterally? Has the meaning changed much at all? Keep in mind that we don't know if let alone howmuch translations have effected the content of the bible. They didn't have village idiots doing the translation you know, and back then they probably knew more about the ancient Roman empire than we do now. Everyone's just assuming that people interjected things into the bible for their own good and use that as an argument against it.

Where's the proof?

Yeah, its an assumption for sure on my part. Is it so hard to imagine the translators having an agenda when writing it out?

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Math theorems can be proven through application.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

I'm sensing some of the same questions as usual from the nonbelieving group. I hope those in that camp know that not everyone who believes in God, Jesus, etc also believes everything in the Bible to be literally true.

 

I mean parts of the Bible were lifted from Enuma Elish and Gilgamesh. It says that it's sinful to grow two crops in the same field or wear clothes containing two fibers. The Old Testament is important really for establishing a line to King David, and that is important only to cultures that believe royalty is essential for divinity, i.e. not ours.

 

What's actually important is the message of Jesus. Obviously, there are four different gospels written at four different times. Differing numbers of Apostles and differing descriptions of the Resurrection aren't detrimental. The important thing is the fact that he had followers and the fact that he resurrected.

 

And again, the Bible has flaws. But this takes us back to YPOV's point of why Catholicism works for some of us. The claim of an apostolic church allows the religion to not pin itself on proving the entire Bible to be literally true. As long as Mary, Jesus, and Peter are in there, we're ok.

 

This is continuing to be a great thread, btw.