Benevolent Creator God?

[gracerutherford]

"The Bible is an Unreliable Source of Information... Let Alone Fact"

This is a premise several people on this thread have mentioned or would generally agree with, considering their conclusion (God is not a benevolent Creator). However, I beg to differ. 

There is insurmountable evidence proving the validity of the Bible. Consider any historical document that someone wants to prove to be inaccurate. What do they do? They look for other documents that are completely unrelated to the original text to see if claims (events, people, places, etc.) are being contradicted or supported. This is not only done with the Bible, we could take any historical document and analyze how it aligns with other texts. 

The New Testament's events, people, places, and much more have been mentioned and confirmed numerous times by non-christian writers. For example, Jesus, Caesar Augustus, Herod Philip, Tiberius Caesar, and countless others-- at least 32-- have been thoroughly analyzed for proof of existence and discussed by non-religious authors and historians. These authors and historians have in fact confirmed the truth of the people recorded in the Bible. 

This is only a small reason as to why we should trust the Bible. At the very least, the New Testament is very reliable with stating historical figures, events, and words.

[Silver]

Incorrect.

---

There is insurmountable evidence proving the validity of the Bible.

[gracerutherford]

I have some questions that need to be answered. Your claims are that the Bible is unreliable. Now, if it is a true source completely, then of course we would have to come to the conclusion that God is a benevolent Creator. Because that is not your conclusion, it means that this is one of your supporting premises. 

What aspects of the Bible are false? Can you name any example in which there is a contradiction between the contents of the Bible and another verified historical source? Some people mention mistakes or conflicts within the Bible. Here's a reminder: We, as people, are imperfect and do not know everything. It is always very possible that our interpretation of something (like the Bible) is wrong and not what it actually means. So, if there is a "contradiction" in the Bible between a couple things that it says... prove to me that the said contradiction isn't just your misinterpretation.

[Fake Messiah]

What aspects of the Bible are false?

All of them. There is no archeological evidence that any of the events in the Bible happened.

For example

The Exodus is so fundamental to us and our Jewish sources that it is embarrassing that there is no evidence outside of the Bible to support it.

Stephen Gabriel Rosenberg
Senior Fellow - W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Jerusalem

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/op-ed-cont...say-348464

Or take for example the frequency with which the number forty recurs in biblical history.

Moses was forty years in Egypt, forty years in Midian, and forty years in the desert of Sinai. Othniel judged Israel for forty years. Barak gave Israel peace for forty years as did Gideon. The Philistines oppressed Israel for forty years and Saul, David, and Solomon reigned forty years each. It rained forty days and forty nights at the time of the Flood and Moses fasted forty days and nights, as did Jesus. And according to Acts there was an interval of forty days between the Resurrection and the Ascension.

This clearly indicates that the Bible is dealing with mythology and numerology, not historical reality.

[brewer]

I have some questions that need to be answered. Your claims are that the Bible is unreliable. Now, if it is a true source completely, then of course we would have to come to the conclusion that God is a benevolent Creator. Because that is not your conclusion, it means that this is one of your supporting premises. 

What aspects of the Bible are false? Can you name any example in which there is a contradiction between the contents of the Bible and another verified historical source? Some people mention mistakes or conflicts within the Bible. Here's a reminder: We, as people, are imperfect and do not know everything. It is always very possible that our interpretation of something (like the Bible) is wrong and not what it actually means. So, if there is a "contradiction" in the Bible between a couple things that it says... prove to me that the said contradiction isn't just your misinterpretation.

Doin the apologist two step.

[Ahriman]

God isn't really "benevolent", just powerful, with a strong preference for order. If you're familiar with the D&D alignment system, God would be Lawful Neutral. He doesn't prefer good over evil, or evil over good. He listens to the prayers of good and evil people alike, and answers them according to how much the person deserves to have his/her prayer(s) answered.

[pocaracas]

"The Bible is an Unreliable Source of Information... Let Alone Fact"

This is a premise several people on this thread have mentioned or would generally agree with, considering their conclusion (God is not a benevolent Creator). However, I beg to differ. 

Hi Grace. Welcome to the forums!

In your bio, it says that you are a biblical Christian... I guess that means you follow the letter of the bible to guide you through Christendom.
I wonder if you know anything about how Christianity arrived at the present day bible that you cherish?
How many letters and gospels were flying around at the time and the criteria used to select the ones that made it to the last cut?

There is insurmountable evidence proving the validity of the Bible. Consider any historical document that someone wants to prove to be inaccurate. What do they do? They look for other documents that are completely unrelated to the original text to see if claims (events, people, places, etc.) are being contradicted or supported. This is not only done with the Bible, we could take any historical document and analyze how it aligns with other texts. 

This is true.
However, do note that only mundane events are considered trustworthy on all those other texts.
Supernatural events are... let's put it... less reliable.

The New Testament's events, people, places, and much more have been mentioned and confirmed numerous times by non-christian writers. For example, Jesus, Caesar Augustus, Herod Philip, Tiberius Caesar, and countless others-- at least 32-- have been thoroughly analyzed for proof of existence and discussed by non-religious authors and historians. These authors and historians have in fact confirmed the truth of the people recorded in the Bible. 

True true. Many people and places in the Bible are factual people that existed more or less at the times reported in the Bible.

However, you must take into consideration that this may be a literary trick.
Spider-man stories take place in New York. You will find it hard to find someone who would claim that New York is not a real place... spider-man, on the other hand...

Harry Potter was born and raised in London.
Capt. James T. Kirk is from Iowa.
Forrest Gump shook Kennedy's hand at the White house.
Mr. Bean bowed to the Queen of England at Buckingham Palace.
Godzilla keeps attacking Tokyo and New York.
Achilles joined the army of Agamemnon, king of Mycenae, to attack Troy.
Santa Claus lives in the North Pole.


Can you see the pattern?

This is only a small reason as to why we should trust the Bible. At the very least, the New Testament is very reliable with stating historical figures, events, and words.

Some things you can trust, some things you can't.
I've heard that some texts in the Bible disagree with other texts in the same bible in certain details that may or may not be important, but the mere existence of such disagreements does taint the trustworthiness of the Bible as a whole.

I know that, if you're used to trusting that text, it is difficult to shift focus and assume it's somehow not trustworthy. As such you will often shuffle around and try to find interpretations that allow you to keep your trust.
But the reality is, if it was a god inspired text, it should be self explanatory and require no interpretation.
Sure, "it's god inspired, but human written, so it does need interpretation because it was written by period-humans, not present-day-humans"... therein lies another fault which hints at it not even being god inspired in the first place, but rather the product of human inspiration.
When you understand the biblical texts as products of some of the beliefs that were floating around in the region, at that time, then you see how it is all man-made.
It doesn't detract from some actually good messages in it, but that doesn't mean that those messages came from the divine plane.

[Fake Messiah]

So, if there is a "contradiction" in the Bible between a couple things that it says... prove to me that the said contradiction isn't just your misinterpretation.

First of all, which Bible are you talking about? Protestant Bible has seven books less than the Catholic Bible.

Catholic Bible has Tobit, Judith, Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, Maccabees 1 and 2, plus additions to Daniel and Esther. None of these books are in the Protestant Bible.

Then the Orthodox Bible has even more books. On top of those books that are in the Catholic Bible, it also has Esdras 1 and 2, Manasseh, Psalm 150, Maccabees 3.

I mean, that's a big difference between the Bibles and contradictions.

So what is this shit "your misinterpretation"? I don't need to "misinterpret" it because from the point of view of Christian from one denomination, all other denominations are misinterpreting the Bible.

Why do you think some Christians allow contraception and divorce while others don't? Or why do some celebrate Sunday, while others celebrate Saturday? Or why do some accept Trinity while others don't?

[brewer]

[The Grand Nudger]

I have some questions that need to be answered. Your claims are that the Bible is unreliable. Now, if it is a true source completely, then of course we would have to come to the conclusion that God is a benevolent Creator. 

You might, I wouldn't.  Have you read it?  God gets up to some pretty nasty stuff. I have trouble knowing what to do, or how to have a convo with a person who believes both that magic book is historically accurate, and that the character it describes is benevolent. Two wildly false things there - and that's assuming that there is a benevolent god, even.