How reliable is the Bible?

[Lightkeeper]

I have lived a full life, not always pleasant but now peaceful, because of my faith. I have seen and talked to many learned people. I have followed mostly a logical path to this faith. But I have never ceased to be amazed by ignorance which is embraced with such aplomb. It is the duty of every Christian to teach every unbeliever of Jesus Christ. That is a fact undeniable from His own mouth. There is no such thing as opinions about Jesus Christ. He was what He says He was or He is the biggest liar who ever lived. One must choose for onesself. There are only opinions on how man chooses to interpet Jesus Christ Words. To spend ones time with usless chatter about trivial philosophical punities is totally illogical. Why do you all waste your lives? It really is very short , you know. I assumed that Christians came here to discuss dogma. Now I find this site populate by unbelievers seeking to distort and twist and proport false doctrine. You all should get a life. Oh and Credwin, the fact that you say you are a female does not prove that you are.( I know its a cheap shot but not any less than yours)

****MOD POST****

Martha, we need to keep the peace here. We need not use terms like ignorance for people who don't believe as we do. We are here to debate, discuss and learn, not to convert. Please do not belittle people who are here for these purposes.

 

[anders]

Considering the age of the Bible, it would have been very interesting if there were any facts at all that were possible to believe, but for a few historical mentionings. Even most of those in the OT seem improbable. Archaeology and other sources (fortunately) make it highly improbable that, for example, the Israelites wandered in the deserts for forty years, and then invaded Palestine, committing one genocide after the other. I don't want to believe that the first recorded suicíde attack was an Israelite killing hundreds of Palestinians (Samson). The Bible is not a history book or a science manual.

And Martha, don't call all of us with views contrary to yours "unbelievers". We do belive, and that is why we discuss our beliefs. We just don't accept what others tell us, but prefer to make up our own minds.
I recall your referring to yourself as "an old woman". Nonsense! We are not older than what we allow ourselves to be. My mother (87) is as young at heart as anyone, and still takes active part in the community, and is open to other people´s views. I was well over 50 when I finally began questioning my beliefs and views and study religions in what I hope is a serious and tolerant way. For example, I don't accept all the Buddhist tenets, but I am convinced that if all the world were Buddhist, there would be no wars, and I have found much sound (and outright funny!) advice in the Taoist writings. I am much happier now than when I thought that my beliefs were described in the official Lutheran documents of the Church of Sweden.

Love thy neighbour!

Anders
(retd.)

 

[Ardhanariswar]

like most of all religious scriptures, they should not be take literally. rather, it should be looked upon as a historical and religious document, taking into fact who wrote it, who it was written for and such. but alas, spirituality is the opposite of reason, and thus if you try and try and try to reason out the bible in any possible way, you will be fruitless.

the truth is written between the lines. it is the metaphorical meaning by which God has been delivered to us.

 

[LCMS Sprecher]

Pardon my drop in on this discussion, but I believe there is a point that no one has touched on as to the validity of Holy Scripture. This is primarily speaking to the fact that the Bible is backed up time and time again by its authors. Multiple times in scripture, biblical writers make references to real world events and leaders (i.e. the reference to the reign of Caesar Augustus in Luke 2). This reference and many others in Scripture maintain that the events of the Bible did occur as they are stated. Furthermore, there is scientific evidence as to the Bible and such events as the Great Flood. So to dismiss the Bible's validity on the grounds of science or historical error is pure folly. However, when you move to the realm belief in the bible, the bible may either be discarded in complete unbelief or embraced in total belief. This would be based on your religious affiliation. If you are an atheist then you would probably say that the Bible is pure rubbish. Islam, there might be a little validity. So, as far as the spiritual aspect is concerned, you can believe it or you can choose not to believe it. However, Christian theology would then say that you must believe the very validity of the Bible. To do otherwise would be to compromise the saving story of Christ death and resurrection for our sins.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Martha,

I really hope that I havn't offended you in any way, because that is not my intention at all. I believe what I believe, and you believe what you believe. Our beliefs differ, but that's ok-- its what keeps these forums alive! Neither of us is a posessor of the ultimate truth-- no one is. We must search for it our entire lives. I am open to hear your point of view, I only ask that you would do the same for me.

Oh and Credwin, the fact that you say you are a female does not prove that you are.

You are absolutely right! That is circular reasoning through and through, but you see, there is a difference here. I can be scientifically and objectively analyzed to determine whether what I say is true or not. The bible cannot, and so we must use objective reasoning to the best of our abilities to come to any conclusions, however there will never be proof.

There is no such thing as opinions about Jesus Christ. He was what He says He was or He is the biggest liar who ever lived. One must choose for onesself.

If there can be no opinions, then what must one choose?

I have always seen the bible as being in the same category as the Constitution: open to much interpretation.

To spend ones time with usless chatter about trivial philosophical punities is totally illogical. Why do you all waste your lives?

I would rather waste my life seeking the truth, than waste it believing in a lie. You can't just accept the big stuff without looking to the details as well, any more than the Empire State building could stand without it's foundation. If the details all matched up in the bible, there would be nothing to worry about-- we wouldn't be having this conversation; but the fact of the matter is that they don't, and that calls all of the 'big stuff' into question.

I assumed that Christians came here to discuss dogma. Now I find this site populate by unbelievers seeking to distort and twist and proport false doctrine.

If you would like to discuss Christian Dogma, there is a special forum dedicated to just that, where you won't have to worry about people questioning your beliefs. Here in these forums, however, the specific purpose is to debate.

As far as twisting and distorting false doctrine, could you please name the instances where you think I've done this so I may investigate them further?

 

[Ceridwen018]

Hello and welcome LCMS Sprecher!

Multiple times in scripture, biblical writers make references to real world events and leaders (i.e. the reference to the reign of Caesar Augustus in Luke 2). This reference and many others in Scripture maintain that the events of the Bible did occur as they are stated.

Any fictional story which takes place in historical times that was ever written will have references to real life events and geography. I have read probably a dozen or more Holocaust books, each one following a different fictional character as they traveled through those historic times. Just because those same books mentioned real life people, battles, towns, etc., does not make their storylines factual.

I fully realize that the bible is often very historically accurate, but I would say that that is an absolute baseline requirement for something that I would even consider taking seriously.

This would be based on your religious affiliation. If you are an atheist then you would probably say that the Bible is pure rubbish. Islam, there might be a little validity. So, as far as the spiritual aspect is concerned, you can believe it or you can choose not to believe it. However, Christian theology would then say that you must believe the very validity of the Bible.

I totally respect that. Believe what you want. I am simply here to present my case and to listen to yours, as well as toss around ideas.

 

[quick]

The bible supposedly proves the existence of god

the Bible doesn't (on the surface at least) set out to prove the existence of God. the existence of God is presupposed throughout. Reading the Bible Doesn't prove the existence of God. I read it over and over and it failed to have the slighted effect on me. Going to Church doesn't prove the existence of God. A thousand miracles doesn't prove the existence of God. A million Christians proclaiming the existence of God doesn't prove the existence of God. studying all the major (and 'minor') religions doesn't prove the existence of God. If God's not in your heart you won't find him anywhere. You've got to open your heart.

In a tangential way, you are correct. Until the Holy Spirit opens your eyes, you are blinded by sin and cannot see the truth of the Bible; when the Spirit acts, you'll wonder why you doubted so long. God's call is efficacious and powerful.

Many good books have been written about the veracity of the Bible. There is no other ancient text even close in reliability. The Jewish scribes who kept the older books from generation to generation were some of the most careful and accurate scriveners the world has ever seen. The entire Bible was codified and carefully preserved by the Roman Emperor Constantine in the 3d Century, A.D.

I personally took a course offered by the Wesminster Theological Seminary comparing our modern translations of the book of Galatians to Papyrus #37, one of the Dead Sea scrolls that dates to about 80 A.D., maybe 40 years after Paul wrote the letter. It is essentially verbatim to the modern Greek Bible except for articles (a, an and the). Amazingly accurate.

That said, if you haven't been called, you can find many reasons not to believe; if you have been called, you'll marvel at the accuracy and perception contained in the Word.

Perhaps the best argument for its truth, at least for me? All other major religions purport to offer some benefit from studying hard or trying hard to comply with rules given to us by some deity (ies), or discovered by someone who is enlightened who had special insight into the deity(ies); only Christianity argues that you are saved not by your own works or efforts, but by God's grace and gift to us--salvation through faith in the risen Christ. No man could have conceived of such an idea, as all men (and all other religions) use the usual yardstick--work hard, earn some benefit. The concept of a gift of salvation because the Almighty chose to cause his own death (at least in part) and later resurrection to pay the debt for your transgressions or sins is so radical, and so unusual, it must be of God himself.

 

[true blood]

Let it be known that the New Testament was mostly written in Greek and translators have made grave errors translating scripture. The original manuscripts didn't use punctuation or capitalization. I'm working on several translations that seem to contridict the Word of God however everything that pertains to salvation is accurate and reliable. The Word itself even states to study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Because of the host of different beliefs in Christendom taught today it is evident that not all doctrine is from the rightly-divided Word. Therefore it is a responsibility of every true believer to testt to see whether the various doctrines orginated in the right or wrong dividing of God's Word. That is the quest.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... I have never ceased to be amazed by [the] ignorance which is embraced with such aplomb.

****MOD POST****

Martha, we need to keep the peace here. We need not use terms like ignorance for people who don't believe as we do. We are here to debate, discuss and learn, not to convert. Please do not belittle people who are here for these purposes.

Dear Lightkeeper,

Let me begin by noting that I appreciate the difficulties associated with moderating such a site. I am impressed by the integrity with which you carry out the responsibility of moderator.

I do, however, differ with you in this case.

There is a marked difference between calling someone stupid, and calling someone ignorant. The former addresses a persons ability to acquire knowledge, while the latter characterizes the extent to which knowledge has been acquired. There is a further difference between (1) characterizing a person as ignorant, and (2) characterizing a persons susceptibility to errant claims. In fact, neither constitute ad hominem: the 1st is a claim (accurate or inaccurate) of a person's knowledge base, while the 2nd is a criticism (justified or unjustified) of a persons discernment and methodology. Neither the 1st nor the 2nd constitute ad hominem, and both can be relevant.

For example, I might well assert that you are fairly ignorant when it comes to Ugaritic mythology, and you might argue that I am entirely ignorant of the difference(s) between Lutheran and Presbyterian theology. I suspect that both claims might be more or less accurate. Were I to then note that a gained my understanding of these differences from a Scientology website, it would be more than fitting for you to note 'the ignorance embraced by me with such aplomb'. Of course, it would be encumbant upon you to demonstrate that the position embraced was, in fact, ignorant.

So, I believe that martha dodge has every right to say what she said. I also believe that she has a responsibility to substantiate what she said, and that any attempts on her part to do so will fail miserably. Given that she is capable of such mind-numbing lines as "There is no such thing as opinions about Jesus Christ", it seems pretty clear that she has distanced herself from anything remotely resembling Biblical scholarship or rational discourse.

I, for one, am perfectly willing to let her expose her own ignorance and defective methodology.

 

[LCMS Sprecher]

What is to say that the Bible is not true by the way? I could read a copy of British History and likewise say that certain events didn't take place or that Henry VIII didn't exist. I would agree with quick's statement on the matter. As far as errors in Biblical translation, all pastors in the LCMS are required to learn both ancient Greek and Hebrew. I even know a few of them that only use texts for scripture readings. While I am not an LCMS pastor, my dad is, and he hasn't found any errors in Scriptural translations other then a few sections that were translated out of context.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., there is scientific evidence as to the Bible and such events as the Great Flood. So to dismiss the Bible's validity on the grounds of science or historical error is pure folly.

Good evening, LCMS Sprecher.

I'm afraid that your statements are flawed. I know of no scientific evidence for a Biblical, i.e., global Flood, nor any reason to believe that the Flood narrative is traceable to any single event. Over a sufficiently long period of time Floods are pandemic and all primitive culturals, being tied to fresh water resources, would have experienced catastrophic disasters beyond there ability to comprehend.

There are any number of reasons to dismiss much of the Bible on historical grounds, the first example to come to mind being the Exodus/Conquest narrative. The list of other candidates is a relatively lengthy one.

 

[Ceridwen018]

quick,

There is no other ancient text even close in reliability.

If that be true, we've got problems.

The Jewish scribes who kept the older books from generation to generation were some of the most careful and accurate scriveners the world has ever seen.

You are talking about ancient people performing ancient actions here. Were you there in ancient times? How do you know the scribes were careful? Because you figure they probably were? I'm not saying out and out that the scirbes were not careful, it is probable that they were. However, due to lack of evidence, it is just as probable that they were not careful.

The entire Bible was codified and carefully preserved by the Roman Emperor Constantine in the 3d Century, A.D.

Here is another ancient event which you claim to have special knowledge of. I would have to say that I directly disagree with this statement. I think that Constantine had extreme motivation to alter the bible, and definately the power to do it.

I personally took a course offered by the Wesminster Theological Seminary comparing our modern translations of the book of Galatians to Papyrus #37, one of the Dead Sea scrolls that dates to about 80 A.D., maybe 40 years after Paul wrote the letter. It is essentially verbatim to the modern Greek Bible except for articles (a, an and the). Amazingly accurate.

Fabulous. Now if we could only get such verification on the documents pertaining to what Jesus said and did, not Paul.

That said, if you haven't been called, you can find many reasons not to believe; if you have been called, you'll marvel at the accuracy and perception contained in the Word.

Aka, If you believe badly enough, you'll make it fit. Whereas if you do not believe, you will be able to analyze the information from an objective point of view and come to the most logical conclusion.

All other major religions purport to offer some benefit from studying hard or trying hard to comply with rules given to us by some deity (ies), or discovered by someone who is enlightened who had special insight into the deity(ies);

This is because all religions originated from the same 'primary religion'. That is why all religions have the same basic structure and principles.

only Christianity argues that you are saved not by your own works or efforts, but by God's grace and gift to us--salvation through faith in the risen Christ.

This idea was started by Catholics in the Middle Ages, so they could charge their parishoners money in order to acheive said 'grace'.

The concept of a gift of salvation because the Almighty chose to cause his own death (at least in part) and later resurrection to pay the debt for your transgressions or sins is so radical, and so unusual, it must be of God himself.

The concept of the main diety sending down his/her son to mingle with the people, and then that son dying in some ultimate sacrifice is actually very common, and not at all exclusive to Christianity. I think I've mentioned this elsewhere in this thread, but we have Hercules, son of Zeus; Horus, son of Isis; the list goes on.

 

[true blood]

There is no other ancient text even close in reliability.

If that be true, we've got problems.
WHY QUESTION SOMEONES CONVICTION?

The Jewish scribes who kept the older books from generation to generation were some of the most careful and accurate scriveners the world has ever seen.

You are talking about ancient people performing ancient actions here. Were you there in ancient times? How do you know the scribes were careful? Because you figure they probably were? I'm not saying out and out that the scirbes were not careful, it is probable that they were. However, due to lack of evidence, it is just as probable that they were not careful.
THEY WERE AND STILL ARE VERY CAREFUL. THEY TOOK IT VERY SERIOUSLY

The entire Bible was codified and carefully preserved by the Roman Emperor Constantine in the 3d Century, A.D.

Here is another ancient event which you claim to have special knowledge of. I would have to say that I directly disagree with this statement. I think that Constantine had extreme motivation to alter the bible, and definately the power to do it.
ITS NOT SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE. MOST OF THE PRECEEDINGS ARE DOCUMENTED IN MOST ENCYLOPIDIAS ALONG WITH THE CHANGES THAT WERE ESTABLISHED

I personally took a course offered by the Wesminster Theological Seminary comparing our modern translations of the book of Galatians to Papyrus #37, one of the Dead Sea scrolls that dates to about 80 A.D., maybe 40 years after Paul wrote the letter. It is essentially verbatim to the modern Greek Bible except for articles (a, an and the). Amazingly accurate.

Fabulous. Now if we could only get such verification on the documents pertaining to what Jesus said and did, not Paul.
ALOT OF IT IS DOCUMENTED IF YOU TOOK THE TIME TO LOOK

That said, if you haven't been called, you can find many reasons not to believe; if you have been called, you'll marvel at the accuracy and perception contained in the Word.

Aka, If you believe badly enough, you'll make it fit. Whereas if you do not believe, you will be able to analyze the information from an objective point of view and come to the most logical conclusion.
YOU'RE CLOSE BUT I THINK YOU HAVE TO BE IN THE MIDDLE, NOT THE FAR LEFT OR FAR RIGHT

All other major religions purport to offer some benefit from studying hard or trying hard to comply with rules given to us by some deity (ies), or discovered by someone who is enlightened who had special insight into the deity(ies);

This is because all religions originated from the same 'primary religion'. That is why all religions have the same basic structure and principles.
HISTORICALLY RELIGIONS WERE BASED ON POLYTHEISM HOWEVER A PEOPLE CAME UP WITH THE BELIEF OF MONOTHEISM

only Christianity argues that you are saved not by your own works or efforts, but by God's grace and gift to us--salvation through faith in the risen Christ.

This idea was started by Catholics in the Middle Ages, so they could charge their parishoners money in order to acheive said 'grace'.
THE FELLOW SAID CHRITIANS NOT CATHOLICS AND IT STARTED AT PENTECOST "THE AGE OF GRACE" ALTHOUGH I AGREE ON YOUR ASSEMENT OF THE CATHOLICS

 

[true blood]

Why do atheist get so jumpy when someone displays their strong conviction? Thomas Edison was a completely apatheic student, according to his biographers. What made him America's most versatile and successful inventor? Albert Einstein was also a backward student with very little formal education. What made him an intellectual explosion? Henry Ford had only a few years of a one-room public school. what made him a success? Al Smith was a 4 term governor of NY who also ran for the presidency yet he never went beyond the 7th grade. Ezra Cornell, founder of Cornell University and organizer and originator of the Western Union Telegraph Company, never graduated from any school whatsoever. George Bernard Shaw, one of the world's greatest modern writers, only went through the fifth grade. Grandma Moses never took one lesson in painting. What made these people successful? THE ENERGY OF THEIR CONVICTION. Whether I feel someone here is right or wrong I salute anyone who is strong in their conviction no matter what.

 

[Lightkeeper]

... I have never ceased to be amazed by [the] ignorance which is embraced with such aplomb.

****MOD POST****

Martha, we need to keep the peace here. We need not use terms like ignorance for people who don't believe as we do. We are here to debate, discuss and learn, not to convert. Please do not belittle people who are here for these purposes.

Dear Lightkeeper,

Let me begin by noting that I appreciate the difficulties associated with moderating such a site. I am impressed by the integrity with which you carry out the responsibility of moderator.

I do, however, differ with you in this case.

There is a marked difference between calling someone stupid, and calling someone ignorant. The former addresses a persons ability to acquire knowledge, while the latter characterizes the extent to which knowledge has been acquired. There is a further difference between (1) characterizing a person as ignorant, and (2) characterizing a persons susceptibility to errant claims. In fact, neither constitute ad hominem: the 1st is a claim (accurate or inaccurate) of a person's knowledge base, while the 2nd is a criticism (justified or unjustified) of a persons discernment and methodology. Neither the 1st nor the 2nd constitute ad hominem, and both can be relevant.

For example, I might well assert that you are fairly ignorant when it comes to Ugaritic mythology, and you might argue that I am entirely ignorant of the difference(s) between Lutheran and Presbyterian theology. I suspect that both claims might be more or less accurate. Were I to then note that a gained my understanding of these differences from a Scientology website, it would be more than fitting for you to note 'the ignorance embraced by me with such aplomb'. Of course, it would be encumbant upon you to demonstrate that the position embraced was, in fact, ignorant.

So, I believe that martha dodge has every right to say what she said. I also believe that she has a responsibility to substantiate what she said, and that any attempts on her part to do so will fail miserably. Given that she is capable of such mind-numbing lines as "There is no such thing as opinions about Jesus Christ", it seems pretty clear that she has distanced herself from anything remotely resembling Biblical scholarship or rational discourse.

I, for one, am perfectly willing to let her expose her own ignorance and defective methodology.

We don't agree with you and cannot have belittling on this forum.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

THE ENERGY OF THEIR CONVICTION. Whether I feel someone here is right or wrong I salute anyone who is strong in their conviction no matter what.

Well then, hail Hitler! :lol:

I salute anyone who, in confronting new evidence, is humble enough to admit he is wrong, even if it was a strongly held conviction.

Lightkeeper--I agree with Deut. I do not think Martha said anything inappropriate, nor do I think she was trying to convert people. She was just expressing her opinion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Jewish scribes who kept the older books from generation to generation were some of the most careful and accurate scriveners the world has ever seen.

If that be true, we've got problems.

WHY QUESTION SOMEONES CONVICTION?

This is rubbish. We know nothing of scribal accuracy before the 4th century BCE. What we do know, however, is that there exist multiple variants among the DSS reflecting various degrees of care in transcription. The famous attention paid with regards to the Masoretic text (a) evolved centuries later, and (b) was deemed necessary precisely because of the disrepare of the soferim.

The entire Bible was codified and carefully preserved by the Roman Emperor Constantine in the 3d Century, A.D.

Here is another ancient event which you claim to have special knowledge of. I would have to say that I directly disagree with this statement. I think that Constantine had extreme motivation to alter the bible, and definately the power to do it.

ITS NOT SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE. MOST OF THE PRECEEDINGS ARE DOCUMENTED IN MOST ENCYLOPIDIAS ALONG WITH THE CHANGES THAT WERE ESTABLISHED

More nonsense. First of all, Constantine was 4th century, not the 3rd. Secondly, there exists no verifiable copy of a codified text (whatever that means). Thirdly, all 4th century exemplars of your Bible differ from the one you have at home.

Before talking about the textual history and transmission of the Bible, it would help to actually read something substantive on the subject. :roll:

 

[true blood]

I should of been more careful with my statement :lol:

I'd never hail hitler as Spinkles. Cute spin.

I'd base my thoughts of conviction that are the result of steadfastly applying principles that can be found in God's Word. Believing equals action.

 

[true blood]

Deuter, THE DIDACHE was written in 80 AD. One can read this and conclude that scripture had been altered based on the text. Irenaeus (second century), Terullian (third century) Cyprian (third century) also corrupted orginal text. Eusebius quoted in the early part of the fourth century verses in Matthew that had to of been from earlier documents Irenaeus, Terullian, Cyprian used. The Ebionites and the Gnostics by the half of the the first contury two major sects had made in-roads into Christianity. The Greek Justin Martyr wrote in the mid second century.

 

[Ceridwen018]

True blood,

With all of those people that you mentioned, Grandma Moses, Henry Ford and the like, I would have used the word 'determination' rather than 'conviction'. In truth they often go hand in hand, but they have the potential to be very different.

I do not admire conviction in a person, because conviction alone is not enough. Blind conviction gets people hurt-- from innocent women burned at the stake, to modern day estrangement of daughter and father.

I do however, admire someone who is able to present a strong case for their conviction, proving that they do not follow blindly. Whether or not I agree with the 'evidence' which is laid before me, I recognize when someone has put a lot of genuine thought into an issue, and salute them for their efforts in this quest for truth.