• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do the numerous mistakes in the Bible play a part in driving people away from religion?

rational experiences

Veteran Member
The book Bible is stated to be read only by the highest conscious spiritual realisation, for it was first written by verbal application of storytelling by an innocent, very spiritual, highest form of human male to first live on Earth, as first scientists.

The verbal recorded story telling is the first natural verbal account of speaking and inferring/referencing and detailing words and named information of already existing form, to give it a name. You cannot name any body unless that body is existing.

Original human known, human taught self aware history, the first words and advice science in storytelling, was a verbal accounting.

Science then had to write a thesis, give it scientific symbolism, which was never natural, it was artificial for the intent was in science to change God.

God originally the STONE body did not talk, the human science male self did, innocence in person. He then was converted/attacked for his choice....artificial science, the Temple and pyramid. Fake mountain theme of his squaring PHI blocks of stone built on the ground line, base, with mountain mass theme beneath the ground.

Fake mountain theme...based on false Sun conversion, a one of only event.

So the theme science and word of God originally is totally fake.

Verbal, the WORD did not give the word ownership of anything given a name if you want to argue human logic, human presence in life, life existing, life pretending it knows everything, science. Which is only applied storytelling by living humans on and for humans living as a storyteller and reasoner why a natural life supported by the whole cosmology as a natural self was changed.

Consciousness in a human natural memory first says the cosmology all existed and was formed. All bodies natural and present, and my highest first original form was supported by that presence historically.

And you could not and cannot argue about that history as any form science self.

Who by the use of his own science design/invention of artificial forces, changed the body he named as God the ONE O the circle, the mass in the circle, the entombed powers of the spirits of gases, in stone. The ONLY body that he personally can manipulate to force it by causes to attack and destroy his life.

His first spiritual worded science thesis, spiritual. Then when his brain mind/chemical burnt, he became a nasty and irrational male self, who said, and now I will destroy you all...for I hate you. As the scientist, in a rational explanation about the occult causes......male and human conjured.

Therefore as creation is first perfection in its natural form, if you change it then so does the information and it then becomes evil.
 

Rival

Diex Aie
Staff member
Premium Member
Look...... several of my Muslim colleagues were passive Muslims. Most of my colleagues were passive or ex Christians.
Unfortunately I find this is very common in the U.K. People just not bothered about religion anymore :(
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I am in agreement with you that the Christian writings contain errors because I am not a Christian, but most Christians are not going to accept that and certainly not the people who put the Bible together. The Catholic Doctrine and Anglican Articles of Faith say that scripture is sufficient for salvation. I find it hard to believe that they could think G-d could write a book necessary for one's eternal welfare yet not keep His story straight or get His facts right.
It's rather more subtle than that. The Catholic position seems to be this: ""The books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation." (c.f. wiki article on biblical inerrancy). That does not mean there cannot be any errors of any kind in the bible, just that can't be errors in the spiritual message.
 

Rival

Diex Aie
Staff member
Premium Member
It's rather more subtle than that. The Catholic position seems to be this: ""The books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation." (c.f. wiki article on biblical inerrancy). That does not mean there cannot be any errors of any kind in the bible, just that can't be errors in the spiritual message.
Yes, I understand this, but it still doesn't negate my point. Why would G-d allow His books to be riddled with errors at all? Why is it that G-d would write a book sufficient only in one respect and not in any other, especially as He knows that humans by the millions would turn away because of these 'errors'? It's just a terrible plan overall.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I am in agreement with you that the Christian writings contain errors because I am not a Christian, but most Christians are not going to accept that and certainly not the people who put the Bible together.

Ah........... are you the Noahide? I forgot! Sorry.
No. Most Christians today (imo) do accept that there are errors in the bible, especially the NT, which is how Revision and Progression have gained a hold on many Churches who now accept sexual individuality, gender equality, and more.

The Catholic Doctrine and Anglican Articles of Faith say that scripture is sufficient for salvation. I find it hard to believe that they could think G-d could write a book necessary for one's eternal welfare yet not keep His story straight or get His facts right.
And look what has happened with them over two millenia...... Popes with children and secret wives, murders, simonies..... the lot.
If I want to look for foundation in something I don't judge it by my standards but try to find out what its own standards are, and then look to see how they keep with them.... or not.
Bingo! Then things can become more clear. :)
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
Do ex-Christians or "Christians by name" tend to think that since the Bible is flawed, religion is false?

Peoples interpretation and understandings are flawed.

Other than that, the bible is the Word of God and reliable spiritual guidance.

Regards Tony
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Unfortunately I find this is very common in the U.K. People just not bothered about religion anymore :(
Yes...... that is true.
But the JWs, who do definitely believe in all of the bible, they are growing quite fast. And the Progressive Churches are growing fast as well. The huge painting outside the Riverside Church where I live has the painting of a Rainbow right across it. And it is full up for services...... Christians are moving across to it from all around.
 

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Do ex-Christians or "Christians by name" tend to think that since the Bible is flawed, religion is false?
Yes, since the bible, quran and various other holy books are flawed i think religions based on them are not 100 percent true
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Yes, I understand this, but it still doesn't negate my point. Why would G-d allow His books to be riddled with errors at all? Why is it that G-d would write a book sufficient only in one respect and not in any other, especially as He knows that humans by the millions would turn away because of these 'errors'? It's just a terrible plan overall.
God didn't write it, obviously. Men did, even if (supposedly) divinely inspired. And men make mistakes, are only able to express ideas according to the culture of their time, and so on.

I don't think there's much evidence that "millions turn away" because of these errors, or perceived errors. People leave the faith for all sorts of reasons, but nearly always they are more profound than because readers of the bible think they've found a mistake in it.
 

Rival

Diex Aie
Staff member
Premium Member
God didn't write it, obviously. Men did. And men make mistakes.
A lot of people believe G-d did write it, including the early Christians about whom I'm talking.

I don't think there's much evidence that "millions turn away" because of these errors, or perceived errors. People leave the faith for all sorts of reasons, but nearly always they are more basic than because readers of the bible think they've found a mistake in it.
Across Europe millions are turning away and have turned away from religion. Obviously not all for the same reason, but these so-called Rationalist principles do have a very strong part to play. Most of the non-religious folks I know say it's because the Bible and science don't mesh and that's that for them.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
That's just totally untrue.
You were not mentioned in my post!
I belong to that group that you mentioned in your post.
And I posted here in the thread as one of those who hold that the Bible is inerrant.
So I take it as personal.
You don't get it but you are the member who made this personal, now.
this was a personal attack, as I see it. You wrote..
These folks won't listen to, let alone hear of any examples.
I am part of these folks.
It's like posting a racist remark when you know that people of colour are present. Or posting a detrimental view about "all Germans" when you know that these Germans or some of them are present indeed. Just two comparisons. I know that you didn't say anything against people of colour nor Germans.

but I'm not posting anything against you as a person here. I'm just criticising what you've said.

It's OK...... you don't have to come back on that.
why not.
So let me give you an example of you reading contradictions in scripture that aren't there as I see it.
Did Jesus take his last supper on the first day of the passover? YES/NO

Did Jesus get convicted and executed on the first day of the passover? YES/NO

Clues:​
John {18:28}
Mark {14:12}

Which is right, and which wrong?
Good point. Mark and John both say that Jesus was executed on Greek Concordance: παρασκευή (paraskeuē) -- 3 Occurrences (please click on the link to see that both gospels use the same word to indicate the day of the crucifixion.)
So the gospels don't contradict each other as I see it.
Mark 14:12 may seem a little odd. It may indicate that they had another preparation day, even before the day called Greek Concordance: παρασκευή (paraskeuē) -- 3 Occurrences.
Maybe the festival week was so important back then that they made preparations for it before it even started.

Thomas
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
A lot of people believe G-d did write it, including the early Christians about whom I'm talking.


Across Europe millions are turning away and have turned away from religion. Obviously not all for the same reason, but these so-called Rationalist principles do have a very strong part to play. Most of the non-religious folks I know say it's because the Bible and science don't mesh and that's that for them.
Are you in Europe? You sound American to me.

The views of the early church on the bible were quite nuanced. I am fond of quoting Origen on the subject of how to interpret Genesis. He and his contemporaries realised perfectly well that this story was a myth, an allegory. So, even though they thought it contained truth, it was not all be read literally. This was in about 200AD.

Almost nobody I know who is not a Christian attributes it to a perception that the bible and science don't mesh. Practically none of them has ever opened a bible.

In my experience, the people who get their knickers in a twist over science and the bible are mainly Americans, thanks to the baleful influence of extreme Protestantism in the Bible Belt.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
this is getting personal. This is not fair. Of course I listen to your examples. I just don't agree with you. I kindly stay with my opinion: no flaws in the Bible.
You are one of the "extreme" Christians he is talking about, apparently.:D
 

Rival

Diex Aie
Staff member
Premium Member
Are you in Europe? You sound American to me.
I am British.

The views of the early church on the bible were quite nuanced. I am fond of quoting Origen on the subject of how to interpret Genesis. He and his contemporaries realised perfectly well that this story was a myth, an allegory. So, even though they thought it contained truth, it was not all be read literally. This was in about 200AD.
I'm not saying that they believed the Bible is literally true and cannot be read as allegory or otherwise. I mean that if you are a Christian and you believe the Bible contains factual errors, contradictions in narration and so on. I am saying why would those who put the Bible together believe that G-d made errors such as completely contradictory accounts in the gospels and be alright with that?

Almost nobody I know who is not a Christian attributes it to a perception that the bible and science don't mesh. Practically none of them has ever opened a bible.
I know plenty. I guess we jive in different circles.

In my experience, the people who get their knickers in a twist over science and the bible are mainly Americans, thanks to the baleful influence of extreme Protestantism in the Bible Belt.
In the U.K. most of the people in my age group (I'm 25) think science and religion are at odds and they seem to think you pick one or the other. It seems to be a 'that was their way of explaining it back then but now we have science' thing.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I am British.


I'm not saying that they believed the Bible is literally true and cannot be read as allegory or otherwise. I mean that if you are a Christian and you believe the Bible contains factual errors, contradictions in narration and so on. I am saying why would those who put the Bible together believe that G-d made errors such as completely contradictory accounts in the gospels and be alright with that?


I know plenty. I guess we jive in different circles.


In the U.K. most of the people in my age group (I'm 25) think science and religion are at odds and they seem to think you pick one or the other. It seems to be a 'that was their way of explaining it back then but now we have science' thing.
That's interesting.

I'm a lot older (65). In my age group, most people who are not Christian either once were and left it because they lost faith in the existence of a loving God (I've been down that road myself), or were never were brought up Christian and thus never learnt what it teaches.

I suspect most non-Christians you know have never learnt much about Christianity and may have swallowed the falsehoods about it, regarding science, put forward by people like Dawkins.
 

Rival

Diex Aie
Staff member
Premium Member
I suspect most non-Christians you know have never learnt much about Christianity and may have swallowed the falsehoods about it put forward by people like Dawkins.
Sadly yes. I even knew a strong Christian who eventually swallowed his muck.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Do ex-Christians or "Christians by name" tend to think that since the Bible is flawed, religion is false?
I don't personally know.

But I suspect it would largely depend on the way their minister or denomination has sold it to them, and the extent of their appetite for independent thought.

Certainly for an onlooker, an error accompanied by a claim that there are no errors tends to make a negative impression.
 
Top