Is the Bible Credible?

[LionDog1]

...Which of course is circular logic. "I believe it because the Bible tells me to believe it."

Do you believe in "sin"?

 

[kai]

Is the Bible's claim of divine inspiration credible (worth believing), based on any facts?

not any facts i know of?

 

[McBell]

Do you believe in "sin"?

define sin?

I define sin as: going against the wishes/will of your chosen deity.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

not really.

It sounds to me as though you are merely saying "You have to already believe it to believe it."

The questions is do you want to believe. If you don't want to believe than you probably won't.
Relly not that hard to understand.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

(if it is true, and it says it's divinely inspired, then it must be).

I think you made a common mistake. You see you can't say it is true unless you verify all claims it makes. If it makes the claim to be divinely inspired you must check that FIRST before you can (after checking the other claims) conclude it is true.

Your ordering of the sentence suggests a common behaviour of "believers". Many come to the conclusion that it is true after checking or believing in some selected claims and then jump to the conclusion that you state above. Something the like of "If it is true then it is true in all it says."

 

[fantome profane]

The bible is only as authentic as your heart allows it to be. Really meditate on that for a while.

The Bible is also as poisonous as you allow it to be.

Don’t misunderstand me, I am not an anti-Bible person. I think the Bible is a wonderful fascinating book. I stand in awe at the real Biblical scholars who extract incredible wisdom about life and the human condition from this book. And I respect those who simply take the positive loving messages that can be found in the Bible and make them part of their lives.

But I have also seen people poisoned by this book. Intellectually and emotionally damaged, being reduced to lunatics or bigots by this book.

Meditate on that for awhile.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

The Bible is also as poisonous as you allow it to be.

Don’t misunderstand me, I am not an anti-Bible person. I think the Bible is a wonderful fascinating book. I stand in awe at the real Biblical scholars who extract incredible wisdom about life and the human condition from this book. And I respect those who simply take the positive loving messages that can be found in the Bible and make them part of their lives.

But I have also seen people poisoned by this book. Intellectually and emotionally damaged, being reduced to lunatics or bigots by this book.

Meditate on that for awhile.

Well as profound as your response tries to be, you have just pointed out the obvious about human nature.
Irrelevant to the OP.
Nothing really to meditate on. Humans pervert and **** a lot of things fo their own selfish reasons.
And?

 

[Storm]

I simply cannot understand how anyone can believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God when it makes basic errors like claiming hares chew cud.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I simply cannot understand how anyone can believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God when it makes basic errors like claiming hares chew cud.

Hey Storm I am only replying because I have never studied the reference to rabbits you are making. So I did a quick google to see what was out there. I quickly found long drawn out debates about what constitutes "cud" and what doesn't.

I found the following excerpts interesting and thought you might too.
I don't think it is as simple as you make it sound, then again what in the bible has ever been resolved simply ??? hope you have a great day!

SYMBIOSIS WITHIN THE VERTEBRATE DIGESTIVE SYSTEM
Bacterial Digestion of Cellulose Within Animals - Vertebrates lack enzymes to digest plant material. Some bacteria can do so and are harbored by animals... Rats and rabbits redigest cellulose another way. [They] eat feces and literally redigest them a second time. Efficiency approaches that of ruminants.
In a more detailed version, Margert "Casey" Kilcullen-Steiner, (M.S., L.A.Tg) writes:
http://microvet.arizona.edu/Courses/MIC443/notes/rabbits.htm

Rabbits are sometimes called "pseudo-ruminants"... The rhythmic cycle of coprophagy of pure cecal contents practiced by all rabbits allows utilization of microbial protein and fermentation products, as well as recycling of certain minerals. Whereas the feces commonly seen excreted by rabbits are fairly large, dry and ovoid, excreted singly, and consist of fibrous plant material, cecotrophs are about half that size, occur in moist bundles stuck together with mucus, and are very fine textured and odiferous. They are seldom seen, as the rabbit plucks them directly from the anus as they are passed and swallows them whole. Normal rabbits do not allow cecotrophs to drop to the floor or ground, and their presence there indicates a mechanical problem or illness in the rabbit.
​

And Janet Tast, D.V.M. notes:
RCN | Digital Cable TV, High-Speed Internet Service & Phone in Boston, Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C. and the Lehigh Valley.

Cecotrophy by Janet Tast, D.V.M. "Cecotropy is the process by which rabbits will reingest part of their feces directly from the rectum. This should not be confused with the term coprophagy (eating fecal material) since rabbits only ingest the soft "night" feces or cecotrophs."
​

Caryl Hilscher-Conklin (M.S. in Biology, University of Notre Dame) also makes this claim:
Rat & Mouse Gazette: Coprophagy: Rattus Biologicus: Healthy Behavior For Your Rats

"One may not give much thought to the lazy chewing of the cud that we observe cows doing all the time, but this behavior is analogous to coprophagy. The only difference between cud chewing and coprophagy is the point in the digestive tract at which nutrients are expelled and then placed back into the mouth."
​

Now, we must also remember that artiodactyls were first defined as a separate order in 1847 by Richard Owen and the behavior of cecotropy was first recognized in 1882. Deuteronomy, however, was written approximately 1500 BC in an ancient Hebrew. It would be intellectually dishonest for someone to claim that a 3500 year old writing is contradictory because it doesn't match with a scientific classification invented only about a hundred years ago. Further, if the ancient Hebrews defined 'cud-chewing" as that process where half digested vegetation was re-chewed by an animal for easier re-digestion ( and that is a very specific and scientific definition), I would say the hare fits here fine.

 

[Storm]

Hey Storm I am only replying because I have never studied the reference to rabbits you are making. So I did a quick google to see what was out there. I quickly found long drawn out debates about what constitutes "cud" and what doesn't.

I found the following excerpts interesting and thought you might too.
I don't think it is as simple as you make it sound, then again what in the bible has ever been resolved simply ??? hope you have a great day!

I'm sorry, but it is. Rabbits eating their own excrement is not chewing cud.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I'm sorry, but it is. Rabbits eating their own excrement is not chewing cud.

As I have said I have never really looked into this. You seem pretty comfortable with the topic, so please explain to me the difference?

Thanks...

 

[Storm]

Well, basically, cud is food that's regurgitated to be re-eaten. From the Wiki:

Cud is a portion of food that returns from a ruminant's stomach in the mouth to be chewed for the second time. More accurately, it is a bolus of semi-degraded food regurgitated from the reticulorumen of a ruminant. Cud is produced during the physical digestive process of rumination, or "chewing the cud".
​

Cattle do this. Hares do not.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Well, basically, cud is food that's regurgitated to be re-eaten. From the Wiki:

Cud is a portion of food that returns from a ruminant's stomach in the mouth to be chewed for the second time. More accurately, it is a bolus of semi-degraded food regurgitated from the reticulorumen of a ruminant. Cud is produced during the physical digestive process of rumination, or "chewing the cud".
​

Cattle do this. Hares do not.

I guess Storm, but I think you are splitting hares/hairs. The point was God was pointing out unclean animals, and classified them as chewing cud.

Quoting again:

Cecotrophy by Janet Tast, D.V.M. "Cecotropy is the process by which rabbits will reingest part of their feces directly from the rectum. This should not be confused with the term coprophagy (eating fecal material) since rabbits only ingest the soft "night" feces or cecotrophs."

This may not be the same identically as a cow, but it is certainly in the realm and family of subject matter the bible was concerned with.

anyway no big deal...

 

[Storm]

I guess Storm, but I think you are splitting hares/hairs. The point was God was pointing out unclean animals, and classified them as chewing cud.

God should know better than to make such an error, don't you think?

This may not be the same identically as a cow, but it is certainly in the realm and family of subject matter the bible was concerned with.

No, it really isn't. Excrement is not cud.

anyway no big deal...

Unless you believe the Bible is inerrant.

 

[Autodidact]

Christian apologists do this all the time. For all I know Muslim apologists might do it too. First they assert that the Bible is perfect, correct, true, accurate, and gets your whites whiter and your brights brighter. Then you point out some idiotic error like rabbits chewing cud, bats not being birds, or there being no 4-legged insects, and they twist the text like a challah to tell you what it really meant, which turns out to be quite different from what it says.

If the text is so unclear that you need an expert to tell you what it really meant, then it's so poorly written that it's useless, and we should toss it on that basis.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

God should know better than to make such an error, don't you think?

I supopse if you are going to be hardlined about it, you then have to prove that God only meant the way a cow chews cud, and prove that it was not a phrase that encompassed other possibilities.

You see when I saw you first comment on this, I thought when I looked it up I would see an obvious error, but instead I found that rabbits do have interesting and very dirty eating habbits. So the hardline view went out the door for me.

So really the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that God did not intened this type of redigestion the rabbit does.

This is the first time I have looked into it, and once again am finding you hold to a position that is on one foot at best. If you are comfortable with that, than so am I.

simply cannot understand how anyone can believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God when it makes basic errors like claiming hares chew cud.

My point is you act as if it is like looking at a bike and calling the bike a telephone. when in fact after looking into it, we are talking about digestive traits of animals, and it is not "that" different in the sense that they both cow and rabbit re-eat parts of their food. Hardly a bike and a telephone.

 

[Autodidact]

No, more like a bike and a trike, or a telephone and a telegraph.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Christian apologists do this all the time. For all I know Muslim apologists might do it too. First they assert that the Bible is perfect, correct, true, accurate, and gets your whites whiter and your brights brighter. Then you point out some idiotic error like rabbits chewing cud, bats not being birds, or there being no 4-legged insects, and they twist the text like a challah to tell you what it really meant, which turns out to be quite different from what it says.

If the text is so unclear that you need an expert to tell you what it really meant, then it's so poorly written that it's useless, and we should toss it on that basis.

Dear Auto, I simply responded to say it was not as clear cut as Storm made it out to be. If you want to use that as a pedistal to pound on me, than so be it. Don't put words in my mouth though, as a lawyer you should be better than that.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

For the record, in any post on this thread in responding to Storm, did I say she was wrong or that the verse is not in error. I simply said it was not as clear cut as her original post claimed it was.

 

[Storm]

I supopse if you are going to be hardlined about it, you then have to prove that God only meant the way a cow chews cud, and prove that it was not a phrase that encompassed other possibilities.

You see when I saw you first comment on this, I thought when I looked it up I would see an obvious error, but instead I found that rabbits do have interesting and very dirty eating habbits. So the hardline view went out the door for me.

So really the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that God did not intened this type of redigestion the rabbit does.

This is the first time I have looked into it, and once again am finding you hold to a position that is on one foot at best. If you are comfortable with that, than so am I.



My point is you act as if it is like looking at a bike and calling the bike a telephone. when in fact after looking into it, we are talking about digestive traits of animals, and it is not "that" different in the sense that they both cow and rabbit re-eat parts of their food. Hardly a bike and a telephone.

itwillend, it's the definition of the word. "Cud" is very specific, and does not include excrement.

Now, *I* actually have no problem with this, because *I* don't believe the Bible to be inerrant. You do, and have to resort to exactly what Auto is calling you on.