Hi, Blee, I guess I missed your introduction thread.
Yes we all know it's a collection of books by different authors or groups of authors, some zanier than others. What it is emphatically not, is a historically accurate account. Most of the OT is simply impossible and much of the rest of it improbable. The NT is not much better. Much of it is also improbable, or in the case of the nativity story contrary to the historical evidence.
The existence of some people, places and things mentioned in the Bible does not suggest it is true. Greek and Roman myths also name real people places and things. So do most novels. Besides there's plenty of evidence that certain bits, like Noah's Flood, the order of the creation of the world, Exodus, conquering the promised land, the census that brought Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem, etc. are factually incorrect.
The lack of evidence in the form sediment, available water, and destruction of all cities on earth is more than plenty of proof there never was a world wide flood.
Really?
Since there is plenty of contextual evidence that the synoptic gospels were all copied from the same source, I don't find their similarity astounding any more than I find the similarity of multiple stories taken from the same AP wire astounding. Nevertheless, the gospels do contradict each other about historical facts.
Yes, the Bible has some common themes. And yes it makes some attempts to explain suffering among other problems. But I don't see how it explains god's part in it in any really useful way.
I'm about as skeptical of Biblical prophecies as I am about any other prophesy, and the Bible does not deliver. There are several thread discussing Biblical prophecy here that you might consider reading before weighing in, but just for starters name one verifiable fulfilled prophecy in the Bible. Choose the best one.
The Biblical accounts of Jesus were written a full generation after his death. That's not early enough to be very reliable. Our oldest copies are not that old. The number of copies authenticates the that the manuscripts existed, not that the events described in them are true.
Yes, but it presents the law as law given from god. That, I would think should be timeless, if really from god.
Martyrs undoubtedly believe. That doesn't make them right. I'm sure the men in the planes that crashed into the twin towers believed the were right.
There's no evidence other than books written a generation later that anyone saw any such thing.
Name one improvement to the quality of life created by Christianity.
(October 15, 2014 at 5:02 pm)Blee Wrote: Why do Christians trust the Bible?
Here is my answer:
1) The Bible is not a single “Book” but a collection of books that were written over a large span of time, by multiple authors, with different literary style and all focused on a similar topic (GOD) and culminated with what is the New Testament. The result is, but not limited to, a historically accurate story with a beginning and an end. The word bibliography describes what the Bible is physically, “a complete or selective list of works compiled upon some common principle, as authorship, subject, place of publication, or printer.” [Thanks Google, dictionary.com]
Yes we all know it's a collection of books by different authors or groups of authors, some zanier than others. What it is emphatically not, is a historically accurate account. Most of the OT is simply impossible and much of the rest of it improbable. The NT is not much better. Much of it is also improbable, or in the case of the nativity story contrary to the historical evidence.
(October 15, 2014 at 5:02 pm)Blee Wrote: o As a Christian, I believe that this list or collection of literature is what God has ‘picked’ to be what I need to know about God’s nature, my purpose, and history, and all issues of life.So your trust is based on faith in god?
(October 15, 2014 at 5:02 pm)Blee Wrote: The fact that the contents in the Bible span thousands of years suggests that some of the stories in the Bible may be during time periods that have been historically and archaeologically verified by outside sources. Some of the Biblical accounts that have archaeological findings supporting their historical relevance include the Hittities, Solomon’s wealth, Sargon, and King Belshazzar. This suggests that the Biblical accounts of these hold a measure of truth. I’ll go further and say the Biblical accounts are 100% true, since there is not enough evidence or information to conclude that only bits and pieces of the Biblical account are true. I hold this stance until evidence is presented that says otherwise.
The existence of some people, places and things mentioned in the Bible does not suggest it is true. Greek and Roman myths also name real people places and things. So do most novels. Besides there's plenty of evidence that certain bits, like Noah's Flood, the order of the creation of the world, Exodus, conquering the promised land, the census that brought Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem, etc. are factually incorrect.
(October 15, 2014 at 5:02 pm)Blee Wrote: I admit, there are some big events that have NOT been verified (i.e., Noah’s Ark and the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah etc.). This doesn’t mean it’s untrue. It could be true that it didn’t happen, or it could be true that we just haven’t discovered anything to substantiate these Biblical stories. However, at this point I think I’ll defer to the archaeologists and other experts to come up with something more definitive, for or against.
The lack of evidence in the form sediment, available water, and destruction of all cities on earth is more than plenty of proof there never was a world wide flood.
(October 15, 2014 at 5:02 pm)Blee Wrote: The fact that we still have Jews today, I take as a sign that the Bible (at least the Old Testament) is true. The fact that they still hold its teachings (in addition to the Talmud) and practices lead me to think that there is some truth to their history that is laid out in the Old Testament.
Really?
(October 15, 2014 at 5:02 pm)Blee Wrote: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John writing their own accounts of Jesus. Four accounts of the same story written for different audiences. I think Christopher Hitchens, being a journalist himself, was once asked what the likelihood of 4 different journalists reporting on the same story and writing similar accounts of the story would be difficult, if not impossible. The fact that the four gospels are similar but different gives me a sense of purpose for each book.
Since there is plenty of contextual evidence that the synoptic gospels were all copied from the same source, I don't find their similarity astounding any more than I find the similarity of multiple stories taken from the same AP wire astounding. Nevertheless, the gospels do contradict each other about historical facts.
Quote:
Yes, the Bible has some common themes. And yes it makes some attempts to explain suffering among other problems. But I don't see how it explains god's part in it in any really useful way.
(October 15, 2014 at 5:02 pm)Blee Wrote: Beginning and End. Also in the OT are prophecies from the major and minor prophets. These would include Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekial and the minor prophets. These are relevant because in my opinion, they are the glue that binds the Old and New testaments together. The argument from most Christians about the authenticity of Jesus' claims is that Jesus satisfied or fulfilled a number of the prophecies written by these prophets hundreds of years prior. I will admit that at this point, there are verses that are interpreted subjectively. Depending on your stubbornness and skepticism, it’ll take more than just a few fulfilled prophecies to PROVE that Jesus was in fact the prophesied. Fair enough, but I encourage anyone to go through them with open-mindedness and honesty and come to a conclusion themselves. At this point, I think most people would just say “you are using the Bible to prove the Bible”, which is illogical. Remember, the Bible is a COLLECTION of books. When Matthew wrote his account of the gospel he was not writing a section in the Bible, he was writing his account of the life of Jesus that BECAME part of the Holy Bible. Paul was writing a LETTER to the churches, if you read them, they are indeed formulated as letters. From my understanding, the Bible is made up of the OT, the beginning, and concludes with the NT, the end, which suggests that Jesus is coming back a 2nd and final time. Based on how the books span thousands of years, written by multiple authors with differing purposes, that create an all-encompassing story with a beginning and an end, I am lead to believe that the Bible is true.
I'm about as skeptical of Biblical prophecies as I am about any other prophesy, and the Bible does not deliver. There are several thread discussing Biblical prophecy here that you might consider reading before weighing in, but just for starters name one verifiable fulfilled prophecy in the Bible. Choose the best one.
(October 15, 2014 at 5:02 pm)Blee Wrote: 2) Another reason why I believe the Bible to be true comes from historiography, which determines the reliability of an ancient document. One of the tests of reliability is the bibliographical test which looks at authenticity as a function of the following:
o The time gap between the earliest copy of a story and the date it was supposedly written (based on content and relation to historical events).
o The number of copies of a story (they call it a manuscript) that are available
o Essentially, the more copies of a story there are, the more authentic it is AND the closer the earliest copy of a story is to the actual date it is supposedly written, makes that copy more authentic.
o For example, if I write about the history of Jesus in 2014… it is less authentic than someone who wrote it in 90AD.
o To put things into perspective, the NT has over 25,000 manuscripts. The OT goes much further back into history. Prior to the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the earliest version was a 900AD copy. That is why the finding of the DSS was such a major archaeological find for Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It helped to CONFIRM the validity and consistency of the OT versions that we do have today. Anyway, lots of data available for this.
The Biblical accounts of Jesus were written a full generation after his death. That's not early enough to be very reliable. Our oldest copies are not that old. The number of copies authenticates the that the manuscripts existed, not that the events described in them are true.
(October 15, 2014 at 5:02 pm)Blee Wrote: It is always important to read the Bible in its context. When it shoots down the rights of women, we must remember that they were written during a time that was primarily male-dominant. That is a PART OF OUR HISTORY, not a teaching that is demanded of all Christians. It really brings life into the Bible when you read it and even critique it as the documents that they are, instead of just critiquing bits and pieces assuming the entirety is a guideline for proper Christian living similar to Judaism’s Talmud, Islam’s Quran and Hadith, and most Buddhist teachings. When I say the Bible is Holy, I believe that not only are they stories, accounts, lyrics, lessons and letters, but they also have a bit of God's essence embedded in it, making it relevant and alive even today.
Yes, but it presents the law as law given from god. That, I would think should be timeless, if really from god.
(October 15, 2014 at 5:02 pm)Blee Wrote: With regards to the OP’s comments about accountability and divine relevations, I will add this situation for thought. IF we assume that all of these ‘fantastic claims’ were only that, a fabrication/lie/fantasy/made-up story, then why would it have perpetuated into what is now one of the world’s largest religions? When Christianity was young, it was a persecuted sect. The Christian religion did not grow up in a region friendly to Christian ideals until Constantine came along 300 years after Christ died. There was no Christian ARMY before then, and yet the religion flourished. Why then, in that hostile environment, would anyone follow a teacher that was KNOWN to be false and based off lies? The punishment for being a Christian and asserting opposition to the Roman occupation was persecution and death. The punishment for being a Jew and following Christ was to be stoned to death. Paul WAS himself a devout Jew and guilty of murdering Christians, he confesses himself. He even had a reputation as a person to fear. Eventually, Paul and Peter and many following Christians were executed for their crimes of encouraging dissention in the empire (this is my own assumption, and isn’t based on anything except what I think is logical).
Martyrs undoubtedly believe. That doesn't make them right. I'm sure the men in the planes that crashed into the twin towers believed the were right.
(October 15, 2014 at 5:02 pm)Blee Wrote: Furthermore, if a room full of people claim to have seen a body risen from the dead (mass hallucination is rare with the exception of drugs. I'm not aware of any drugs available back at that time.), all the authorities needed to do was to produce the body that was buried at a known location by a known person. Easy fix, no?
There's no evidence other than books written a generation later that anyone saw any such thing.
(October 15, 2014 at 5:02 pm)Blee Wrote: However, it is also fulfilling and purposeful as evidenced by the quality of life improvements that have happened over the course of history, and are happening all over the world.
Name one improvement to the quality of life created by Christianity.
(October 15, 2014 at 5:02 pm)Blee Wrote: Anyways, this is my first post ever and I hope I did a fair enough job of addressing the OP’s original post. Cheers,It's traditional in most forums to introduce yourself in the introductions thread.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
