Bible-fact, fiction,or mythology?

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by T.Rex

Let's talk about a Math or Physic book providing a new theory:
- If the Math theory fails for some examples, the theory is wrong.
- If the Physic theory fails for some examples, the theory must be improved.

Now, let's open a book talking about the god of Christians:
- If some examples are true, then everything in the book is true (for Christians, not for me).

Do you see your mistake ?

I would suggest that your suggestion about Math and Physics also apply to the Bible.

A few things to think about.

• The Bible speaks of a universal flood that effects all of man. Such a story appears to be nearly universal throughout all cultures.
• The "law of Moses", the dietary, sanitation, etc. are consistant with modern medicine and public health, despite the fact the society that they had left was far from this.
• Archeology has again and again proven the Bible to be true. A few examples:
  1. The elimination of straw from the bricks in Egypt at the time of the Exodus.
  2. The existance of Pilate was debated, but he is now been shown to exist and his birth place is known.
  3. The use of a specific word to describe local politians in Acts. This specific word was found to be exactly right for that city (only after centuries of it appearing in the Bible).
  4. Earthquakes mentioned in the Bible have been verified to have happened.
• Long before plate techtonics and seismology, the Bible refered to a future the spliting of the Mount of Olives, with displacement toward the north and the south, along with a corresponding elevation of Jerusalem. It is now known that the Jordan sits in a rift valley and that a perpendicular fault splits the Mount of Olives and that runs into a ring of faults that run around Jerusalem.
• The prediction of what would happen to Jerusalem in AD70 (the utter demoltion of the temple).
• The 2 points that I listed before.

Can you show me any place where the Bible fails? I know that some that profess that they believe the Bible do things that are against it. The same can be said oh the jihadists.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

May I elucidate Unwilly[sic] what you actually mean.

This is what Uncwilly has pointed out and please take trouble to refer to it

Please don't think to speak for me. If you wish, say, "I think that what he is trying to convey is..."

Your referencing of modern miracles does not fit with the NT teaching.


I heard a gentleman say that to be an atheist, one must assume that they have sufficient knowledge to exclude the possiblity of a Diety.

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by smh

Didn't he make himeself clear?
Go Away with this BS

:surprised
I'm afraid you have missed the point by a light year.
I used a metaphor by which I'm afraid you caught the bull by the tail.
Anyway if you are offended by my testimony I'm sorry, but let me tell you it is based on truth and TRUTH will prevail.

Oh! by the way bear in mind
"Sticks and stones might break my bones,
But words can never harm me "

The Word is eternal!

here's a quote I read in the papers today.

"Our Earth is degenerate in these latter days; bribery and corruption are common; children no longer obey their parents; and the end of the world is evidently approaching"

Is this about conditions rampant today?

You will be surprised. It was written on an Assyrian clay tablet 2800 B.C.

I can see living proof of this here. The world on the rules of life hasn't changed one bit and so accordingly we need a rule book which is eternal.

BTW: Please dont confuse B.C. with BS. as you seem to mince your words readily.

Regards'

Mally

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by retina

To me a book is just a book. Regarding the bible in particular, it is just a work of people. There is no way to either prove or disprove anything written there.

The rule book we are talking about needs no proof. It needs to be lived NOT proved.
Mally

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Please don't think to speak for me. If you wish, say, "I think that what he is trying to convey is..."

Your referencing of modern miracles does not fit with the NT teaching.


I heard a gentleman say that to be an atheist, one must assume that they have sufficient knowledge to exclude the possibility of a Deity.

Uncwilly; I'm sorry if you take it that way.

I tried to elucidate and thats different from speaking for you and what I referred to is the URL you gave and not what I said after that or what you said before.

I dont agree with that gentleman pal of yours whoever he is.

The person who excludes the possibility of the existence of a Deity
is a plain common fool for even atheists believe in design and order.

Mally

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Ah, the irony of that statement ... we can just as easily

If there's a chapter or commandment in either the old or new testament that basically says "We are all equal in the eyes of God, whether we choose to believe in him/her/it or not, as long as we show kindness to our fellow humans and respect for the planet" by all means do let me know, because I must've overlooked that one somehow.

If you believe in history then you must believe that Jesus Lived.

He made it very practical and boiled the 10 commandments down to just two

1) Love God with all your mind and soul

2) Love your neighbour as your self

Both these commandments are in the NT one after the other. There are no others as they embody all the 10 given in the OT.

I dont think there is any need for further clarification.

If the human race followed these two commandments to the letter the world would be an Utopia dreamed off by all the sages and philosophers and athiests too.

Mally

[Mystwalker]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Archeology has again and again proven the Bible to be true.

I think nobody argues that the bible is an amazing source of information when it comes to events of the time it was written (and before). But can we conclude from this that the religious aspects are equally reliable? When I write a paper about computer technology and a paper about pregnancy complaints and mix it, would you trust both parts to the same extend?

Can you show me any place where the Bible fails?

This is about as easy/difficult as showing errors in other documents thousands of years old.
The troublesome situation with bible, koran etc. is that most of them describe a deity (or more) and often forbid believing in other deities. Now, there are two possibilities:

1. At most one of them is correct - but which?
2. There is a meta-deity that uses different representations for the diverse groups. But why should it forbid believing in its other forms? Ok, I don't claim to understand the thoughts of divine beings.

But even without spiritual aspects, sources of information should always be considered subject to individual opinions, which e.g. interpret facts in a pleasant way.

Originally Posted by mfgoode

If you believe in history then you must believe that Jesus Lived.

Why?
Sounds to me like "If you love cookies, you also love snow-boarding."
Alternatively, there's "as the bible states" missing behind "history".

The rule book we are talking about needs no proof. It needs to be lived NOT proved.

I'm fine as long as this is your personal opinion (and concerning the "be nice to others" aspect, I'm completely for it). But you also have to understand that there a people who have a less believing nature. After all, I can see no reason why an assumed god should be the way a single religion describes him/her/it. Why should one religion be right and the others wrong?

In addition, an important source of scientific progress is doubt, not belief. Even apparently obvious thing don't have to be as they seem. A lot of important theories have been found at least partly incorrect, which resulted in a hand of amazing breakthroughs...

[xilman]

Say: 'Unbelievers, I do not serve what you worship, nor do you serve what I worship. I shall never serve what you worship, nor will you ever serve what I worship. You have your own religion, and I have mine.'

[jinydu]

Originally Posted by Mystwalker

Why should one religion be right and the others wrong?

I would like to highlight this argument because it is one that is less frequently heard; I think this is its first appearance in this thread.

To reiterate it:

There are many religions (and different sects within the religions) in the world today whose adherents insist that their religion is the one unique truth and that all others are false. Clearly, at most one of these religions can be true. Believers of one religion may claim that belief in their religion is necessary in order to have an eternal and universal standard of morality, but there are dozens of other religions that could make the same claim. There are few, if any, objective measures with which to distinguish them, so why should a neutral observer choose one instead of the others?

One measure that one could use is number of adherents, perhaps reasoning that religions with the largest number of adherents are least likely to be wrong. But on closer scrutiny, this method just doesn't make sense; the popularity of religions can rise and fall over the centuries, varies widely with geographical location, and in all likelihood has far more to do with historical accidents than with the accuracy of their beliefs.

[brunoparga]

Just to add to jinydu's point about the many religions that are out there.

The opinions and beliefs of (almost) everyone may be the same regarding some subjects e.g. (almost) everyone knows pi to be 3.14159..., (almost) everyone knows that if you raise, say, a pencil over your notebook and release it it'll fall, (almost) everyone knows that if you put your hand on the water it'll get wet and so on. These are truths; it's surprising that, when it comes to the Truth, the Big One, the one which has to do with what is supposedly the most important thing one can think of (what the hell will our Souls do eternally after they Die, fry in Hell or play harp in Heaven?), it's surprising that there's not the slightest amount of consensus on this point.

Specially when one considers the quite coincidential fact that the vast majority of people have the same religion of their parents, or else the major religion of wherever they live in. I mean, since all religions are equally likely to be true (the strongest point a believer in any of them can have is, "I *know* this is the Truth, believe me", which is ridiculously weak), how can we know that the true one isn't a traditional belief of the early Mayas which revered the Big Yellow-with-black-dots-all-over Jaguar?

Bruno

[Zeta-Flux]

I like where this thread has turned. When it started out, I wasn't so sure it would end well, but people seem to have discussed the issues pretty calmly.

Mystwalker asked: Why should one religion be right and the others wrong?

My belief is that every religion has some light and truth. But I also believe that God has given to some people authorization, authority, and revelation to preach His will in more completeness. For example, prophets.

jinydu asked: There are few, if any, objective measures with which to distinguish them, so why should a neutral observer choose one instead of the others?

I think this is a great question. I think one must use common sense, and test the claims of the church. "Will snake handling make me a better person?" "They say that if I forgive, I'll be happier. Is this true? Is it worth trying?" Ultimately, there are questions we cannot answer, and must act on faith. But once that seed of faith has been planted, we can see if a tree sprouts up, and whether or not the fruit is good. Since I believe that God wants us to grow and progress, I also believe He will answer sincere prayers and direct our lives as much as we allow Him to.

The reason I'm in the church I am is because I prayed about, and received answers to, my questions.

Best,
Zeta-Flux