• 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 you accept the Bible? If not, explain why.

MysticSang'ha

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
I was going to play an early April Fools joke here, but that would be waaaaaayyyyyy too easy.

Short answer to the OP, no.
 
LuisDantas

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Biblestudent_007 said:
I did answer your question.

I assume these "fallacies" are cherry picked by atheists/agnostics/and skeptics? . . :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

In other words, you don't agree that they do exist? You gave the opposite impression a while ago.

"Cherry picking" is very much an euphemism for the serious contestation that the Bible suffers when tested for the truth of its contents.

Besides, it seems to me that someone who takes some scripture as a source of truth owes it to himself to go and "cherry pick" it more than anyone else.
 
Last edited:
Biblestudent_007

Biblestudent_007

Active Member
angellous_evangellous said:
Well, there are amateurs, students, and scholars who notice the fallacies.

To be honest, they aren't that difficult to find if one has a meager education and some level of curiousity.
Click to expand...

If you ask a scholar, he or she would would probably say it has "fallacies" . .

However, one could be reading it with a modernist perspective. :no:

Its probably the most famous and highly regarded collection of books in history.

Not to mention tons of Patristic writings and commentary which were the fruits of the study of the biblical texts.
 
Last edited:
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Biblestudent_007 said:
If you ask a scholar, he or she would would probably say it has "fallacies" . .

However, one could be reading it with a modernist perspective. :no:

Its probably the most famous and highly regarded collection of books in history.
Click to expand...

No? Would you prefer the pre-Enlightenment perspective? :eek:

Why on earth would we read the Bible from a dead perspective? We're not even in the modern age anymore. Jeez.

From the textual critic alone we know that there are SIX errors on every page of the Greek NT, and that's far lower than what scholars had expected. Six. That's quite a few errors for the biblical inerrantist to swallow, and that's even before reading and interpreting the text. That means that one can see and count the errors in the text before reading it from any perspective - it's a matter of comparing words.

The pre-moderns, of course, wouldn't know of all the textual errors because they had not been compiled. Codex Vaticanus wasn't even read by Protestant scholars until Tichendorff was allowed access to it for a few months and he memorized it (a miracle in modern Christian scholarship).

That's nothing next to historical errors and textual contradictions.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Biblestudent_007 said:
Sounds spurious. Care to explain a little further?
Click to expand...

You bet. Here's a slightly edited post from another thread.

angellous_evangellous said:
No city has ever been excavated in the Near East or the Levant that indicates that there was a Hebrew Conquest as described in the Bible. Such a massive and devastating event would leave some record, particularly when the cities mentioned have been thoroughly investigated.

And biblical literalists completely screw the pooch with Jericho. There's a fallen wall, but it's insignificant and the city wasn't destroyed at that time, and of course it can't be dated to the time of Joshua.

That's why students from many fundamentalist schools aren't allowed anywhere near the digs - they are known for destroying, fabricating, and lying about evidence.

Such blatant, unashamed dishonesty is expected but nevertheless shocking every time that I see it.
Click to expand...
 
I

Ilisrum

Active Member
Biblestudent_007 said:
Primarily, because the Koran gives a different account of the biblical/historical Jesus.
Click to expand...

So does the Bible. The portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of Mathew and the Gospel of John are too at odds and can't be reconciled. They give two completely different depictions of his character. Was Jesus an inspired teacher of Torah, a new Moses, like in Matthew? Or was he a Hellenistic-style God-man who descended from heaven as a sacrifice to mankind, was beyond the trappings of human emotion, and only talked about who he was and where he came from, like in John?

As literature, I have a deep appreciation for the Bible. As a spiritual guide, I don't find much of value in it.
 
David69

David69

Angel Of The North
if the bible is meant to be taken literally then no but it is not meant to be taken literally. hidden meanings are meant for those who have eyes to see!!! The truth is there but needs decoding!
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
David69 said:
if the bible is meant to be taken literally then no but it is not meant to be taken literally. hidden meanings are meant for those who have eyes to see!!! The truth is there but needs decoding!
Click to expand...

whoooot!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top