The problem with the bible.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

For example, I said that I feel like I can always rely on the Bible. Could you give a personal experience or a theoretical example of a situation that would contradict this?

As much as I hate to say it there is some teachings in the bible that seems to be bad advice. For instance "bless those that curse you". As a Christian I've found that if you do that, you're just asking to be a doormat. Bullies will take advantage of you.

Example:
As a child (8 years old), I had a class mate who was a bully who sat next to me in class. He often had no paper to write with and being a good Christian lad, I would give him sheets (remembering the teachings that we should bless our enemies). One day I decided that I really wanted to show him Christian kindness and handed him my writing pad, telling him he could look after it and I would get sheets of paper from him when I needed it. The next day when I asked for a sheet of my paper he turned around and told me "No! That's my writing pad!"

I've had other examples of this and I learnt pretty quickly that just because the bible says it, doesn't always mean we can always rely on it. There are other teachings in the bible that I find dubious too, but that's just one.

 

[Quiddity]

Or at least my problem with it.

The bible is some 2,000 years old so then is not telling just how long those who found it had it in their possession. It is believed that the bible is the inspired writings of God written by man. So how do you know that those who had the original text in their possessions did not alter it in some way?
After all, are you not putting your trust in man & not the Christian God?
What about the translations in the bible? One word can have multitude meanings depending on how it is used. Besides why would God relay on a book to get his message out?

Good question. As I am not a bible-only christian, this is really no issue for me.

 

[McBell]

Look, I'm going to nip this convo in the bud before it tapers off.

My original response was an attempt to dissuade you from pursuing an argument, because it's my personal experience against your logic (which means you could never 'win'), but you persisted anyways.

Look at it this way, if there is a room full of people at your grandmother's death bed, and she claims to "see Jesus" before finally dying, exactly what would be the value in arguing whether or not she really saw Jesus? Obviously, everyone already understands that it's possible that she didn't actually see Jesus. But the person who insists upon dwelling upon the idea that she was wrong is the only one in the room NOT considering the possibility that she did. It's kind of like when the only thing skeptics fail to be skeptical of is skepticism itself.

General rule of thumb: NEVER argue against someone's personal experience. There's just no point (unless you were there too).

So, you think I'm either delusional or unobservant. So what? First, why is it so important to you? Second, why can't you even accept the possibility that I'm correct in my observation of my OWN experience? I didn't need anyone to throw some "Effect" at me or tell me that I could be mistaken. You're not enlightening me this way.

I don't know if you've ever actually believed in God before, but I'll tell you something very important about faith: it REQUIRES that you confront your own skepticism. If you ignore skepticism, it's not faith, it's blind devotion (two different things). Faith is an action, not a lack of action.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that you're not telling me anything I haven't already asked myself. I appreciate your thoughts, but I'm trying to let you know that they're not necessary. I have no intention of proving you "wrong" in your own beliefs, so I would appreciate if you would accept my own statements about the Bible as being my own and argue more about the Bible itself. I think the debate would progress better that way.

For example, I said that I feel like I can always rely on the Bible. Could you give a personal experience or a theoretical example of a situation that would contradict this?

What I fail to understand is why you took my posts so personal in the first place.

 

[Mr. Hair]

So how do you know that those who had the original text in their possessions did not alter it in some way?

Actually, we're pretty sure they did exactly that, significantly and continually. Now, this is only a problem if:

• We subscribe to a very modern view of the Bible that a small minority of Christians hold.
• We also assume that a different group of people, separated by thousands of years and miles and immersed within an entirely different society and culture from our own, just happened to hold that exact same view.

EDITING-EDIT-OF-EDITATION* Just realised I didn't specify that I'm talking solely about the OT; a slight mind-fart occured and I thought this thread was just about that. I honestly don't know enough about the NT to comment.

Oh, and this is my first post in about three months. Go me!

 

[Big_TJ]

The same reason, historians, explorers, and others wrote journals and history books it was the only source that told us that they had made a discovery. All we have are the claims they made that they really did a certain thing at a certain time, on a certain day and at a certain place...Why should we believe these men and not believe the prophets?..What makes a history book right and the Bible wrong? I'm sure there are flaws in both...Anything handed down for years and translated into different languages will have some errors.

Great question!
The major difference, IMHO, is that if an historian claims that he discover something, he must be able to satisfy at least two conditions before his claim is accepted : Firstly, he must show verifiable evidence of the discovery and secondly, there should not be a conflicting view on the discovery, i.e. there shouldn't be someone else claiming that they discovered it or that it wasn't discovered at all.

The problem I have with someone being the only source of "singing their praise" is that there is no way to verify this.

You mentioned "believing the prophets" but, again, it is THEY who claim that they are prophets (much like Joseph Smith, Charles Russsell, Ellen G White, et al claim that they were profits). So, a simple question is: Why believe the Prophets of the bible and not believe the present day prophets?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Theres the problem with the bible right there IMO

And this makes sense because?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Why not?



We have the science of textual criticism, which has traced every possible change in every extant copy we have of the New Testament. We find 99.5% agreement. Of course, there's a short gap between the first extant copy and the actual first copy (the autograph). However, to posit radical revisions in that period when none appear in the copies we have stretches credulity a tad.[/font]



If the action of God was to preserve his written word as penned by men, then there's little distinction between putting faith in God and faith in men.



That's why professional translations are done in committees at the hand of scholars who are widely regarded as competent. These same professional translations will put alternative renderings in the footnotes so readers can see where the tricky bits are. And by comparing multiple translations, we can see the range of meanings possible. So I just don't see why people should have a problem with translations.



Who says he has? The existence of the bible doesn't mean that God is "relying" on it overmuch. There's also the church's living witness to Christ's redeeming presence in the world.

Good answer. I'm just too lazy to state all of that.

 

[3.14]

to make it simple the bible is a to old book to never have had alterations in it, that doesn't mean that it suddenly is a bad book it just means you have to take a grain of salt on what is said,
the art of war for example a great book any of its tactics are still used in current day warfair because they work and even though there have been slight alterations its still mostly very usefull for getting strategy and tactics from it, the bible equevelent is still getting morals and insights from it

 

[Kcnorwood]

Why not?



We have the science of textual criticism, which has traced every possible change in every extant copy we have of the New Testament. We find 99.5% agreement. Of course, there's a short gap between the first extant copy and the actual first copy (the autograph). However, to posit radical revisions in that period when none appear in the copies we have stretches credulity a tad.[/font]


Says who? Something tells me that the only ones who believe that are Christian scientist.




That's why professional translations are done in committees at the hand of scholars who are widely regarded as competent. These same professional translations will put alternative renderings in the footnotes so readers can see where the tricky bits are. And by comparing multiple translations, we can see the range of meanings possible. So I just don't see why people should have a problem with translations.


The Jewish people argue which translation is right is what makes you think that anyone else got it right?

 

[d3vaLL]

The same reason, historians, explorers, and others wrote journals and history books it was the only source that told us that they had made a discovery. All we have are the claims they made that they really did a certain thing at a certain time, on a certain day and at a certain place...Why should we believe these men and not believe the prophets?..What makes a history book right and the Bible wrong? I'm sure there are flaws in both...Anything handed down for years and translated into different languages will have some errors.

"Those who control the past now, control the future, those who control the present now, control the past." - Rage Against the Machine

Sorry, even contemporary atheists question the validity of history books. I'd be surprised if anyone studied ANY form of history after high school and didn't find that the most heated debates in the subject are about an author's bias or distorted interest.

The problem with this is that the only source that tells us that these men were "inspired by God" is THEM!!! it is in their own writings that these claims exist. Sort of like taking a murderer's statement as the only premise to decide that he is not guilty...

I agree! And since no one else has found a way to directly combat this logic (besides criticizing something else), so far everyone else agrees too. I'm sure the atheists are happy that tomspug was kind enough to point out that the reason (and the only viable one presented so far) he believes in the Bible is because he can identify with it morally! It helps him out! Thus the relationship it has with the supernatural is now void. Belief or not, we have to assume that God has relied on the word of man to carry his message.

But...

Who says he has? The existence of the Bible doesn't mean that God is "relying" on it overmuch. There's also the church's living witness to Christ's redeeming presence in the world.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're referring to miracles. Sorry, but I think we can also all agree that not everyone who has died has witnessed them. Therefore, that logic is also moot. If your referring to the teachings of Christ having an impact in the world, then explain to me how they are his property? Explain how you believe in the God of the Bible by the Bible's ability to agree with your ethical standards if Christ was the originator in the first place.

If the Bible is holy because of its quality and quantity of ethical advice (which I'm not going to deny), that still doesn't explain how or why it MUST be supernaturally conceived.

And if anyone is going to insinuate that the Bible's popularity is a testament to its holiness, you're opening up a can of worms...i.e. violent proselytizing or using reward and punishment (happiness in heaven and pain in hell) as baiting tactics. Or the fact that it generally was the religion of the most powerful forces during the age of imperialism.

Furthermore, I have just concluded that even answering the question of why you believe is impossible to answer logically. The paradox forms a circle through Faith, Proof, and Ethics. There is no end. What a *****.

And now to the feud...

The problem with the Bible is that it is TOO AWESOME!

If it wasn't God-inspired, then I'm going to have to come up with a better reason for it always helping me in every situation every time I make the choice to read it for advice/guidance, every time.

Helping you? I am going to assume that you are referring to the fact that you identify (by meaning of 'agreeing with') with the Biblical stories' moral ALL of the time.

Pending you don't believe in a universal ethical code, then the Forer Effect should suit your experience just fine (at least to the limited degree that it does). Why? As long as you believe the Bible (depending on the degree of its provision) provides sound ethical advice (and this is NOT what Mestemia was arguing against), then that advice should apply to EVERY one of your moral dilemmas.

You mentioned that you thought Mestemia was implying that you were tricking yourself with the Forer Effect? The trick of the Forer effect is that positive advice (whether ethical or how to run your life) affects everyone and not individuals specifically. By using words like "you" to reference the reader (which the Bible never does and is the limitation of the Forer effect that I described earlier), the brain unconsciously decides that the informative party is "I" and there is a 1 on 1 conversation, thereby applying the illusion (or trick) that it is personal. What, you don't believe in a universal ethical code?...

I don't know if you've ever actually believed in God before, but I'll tell you something very important about faith: it REQUIRES that you confront your own skepticism. If you ignore skepticism, it's not faith, it's blind devotion (two different things). Faith is an action, not a lack of action.

And here's some advice for you! Take note on how someone's response applies to yours. Or at least point out the discrepancy the opposing party presented instead of ignoring it and spreading confusion...or just admit you were wrong when you admit:

Dude, the Forer Effect doesn't apply.

Confront your own skepticism? That's exactly what Mestemia did for himself with the Forer Effect, and you hold this against him? I mean this guy has done nothing BUT confront his skepticism. I guess he's just got more than you. Faith is harder for some of us, we can't help it...but we do CONFRONT IT! If we didn't care about faith, we wouldn't be taking any interest in this topic. If you mean you have to confront skepticism (suspended judgment) by way of realizing its there and ignoring it anyway for the sake of obtaining faith, then we can conclude that faith is an illogical act (by definition of skepticism). Therefore, by your definition, faith is an illogical action.

I guess I have a hard time believing in God because I keep making sense all the time.

 

[sojourner]

Sorry, even contemporary atheists question the validity of history books. I'd be surprised if anyone studied ANY form of history after high school and didn't find that the most heated debates in the subject are about an author's bias or distorted interest.

Once again, the Bible isn't a history text.

I agree! And since no one else has found a way to directly combat this logic (besides criticizing something else), so far everyone else agrees too.

The ones who made that claim were the community out of which the scriptures arose, not simply the authors, themselves. Remember, these things had been orally transmitted for a very long time, through many cultures, before they were ever written down. They are not written (or originally accepted) as fact, but as story -- legend -- wisdom. They are accepted as a transmission of truth (not fact -- we mustn't confuse the two) of the mythology.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're referring to miracles. Sorry, but I think we can also all agree that not everyone who has died has witnessed them.

that's not what he's saying. He's referring, not to miracles, but to the witness of the Church to abundant life.

If the Bible is holy because of its quality and quantity of ethical advice (which I'm not going to deny), that still doesn't explain how or why it MUST be supernaturally conceived.

It's not holy because of those things. It's holy because it is set apart from all other writings as being specially revelatory. You are mistaken in thinking that we think it "must be supernaturally conceived. We don't think that. We think it must be a human product.

And if anyone is going to insinuate that the Bible's popularity is a testament to its holiness, you're opening up a can of worms...i.e. violent proselytizing or using reward and punishment (happiness in heaven and pain in hell) as baiting tactics. Or the fact that it generally was the religion of the most powerful forces during the age of imperialism.

the Bible has lasted throughout history because it is able to be interpreted in a variety of ways.

Furthermore, I have just concluded that even answering the question of why you believe is impossible to answer logically.

why would you think that it should be possible, any more than it is possible to logically answer why you fall in love with whom you fall in love?

Helping you? I am going to assume that you are referring to the fact that you identify (by meaning of 'agreeing with') with the Biblical stories' moral ALL of the time.

big mistake to assume! That's not what he means. The Bible isn't a lesson in morality. It's a lesson in spirituality.

You mentioned that you thought Mestemia was implying that you were tricking yourself with the Forer Effect? The trick of the Forer effect is that positive advice (whether ethical or how to run your life) affects everyone and not individuals specifically. By using words like "you" to reference the reader (which the Bible never does and is the limitation of the Forer effect that I described earlier), the brain unconsciously decides that the informative party is "I" and there is a 1 on 1 conversation, thereby applying the illusion (or trick) that it is personal. What, you don't believe in a universal ethical code?...

The ethics apply to the community of believers. We believe that those ethics could (and should!) apply across the board: Love God, love neighbor, show compassion, be selfless, forgive others, etc.

I guess I have a hard time believing in God because I keep making sense all the time.

guess again.

 

[McBell]

the Bible has lasted throughout history because it is able to be interpreted in a variety of ways.

Yes.
The Bible is a most excellent study of the Forer Effect.

 

[sojourner]

Yes.
The Bible is a most excellent study of the Forer Effect.

I'm not familiar with that term. What is it, and in what way is the Bible a "most excellent study"of it?

 

[McBell]

Forer effect

 

[d3vaLL]

Once again, the Bible isn't a history text.
The ones who made that claim were the community out of which the scriptures arose, not simply the authors, themselves. Remember, these things had been orally transmitted for a very long time, through many cultures, before they were ever written down. They are not written (or originally accepted) as fact, but as story -- legend -- wisdom. They are accepted as a transmission of truth (not fact -- we mustn't confuse the two) of the mythology.

I understand. I brought this up because the argument was actually about why people question the Bible's historical accuracy vs. historical textbooks. Apparently, you and me agree, the stories aren't true they're supposed to represent the transmission of truth. I agree.

that's not what he's saying. He's referring, not to miracles, but to the witness of the Church to abundant life.

I actually agree, I believe abundant life could be the proof of God as well, or existence itself even.

big mistake to assume! That's not what he means. The Bible isn't a lesson in morality. It's a lesson in spirituality.

You want to define spirituality please? If you're going to refer to something supernatural than:

It's not holy because of those things. It's holy because it is set apart from all other writings as being specially revelatory. You are mistaken in thinking that we think it "must be supernaturally conceived. We don't think that. We think it must be a human product.

Human Product? I also agree! (Wow closet agnostic/atheist here?) So if I were to invent something that is especially revelatory (after all I am human, and that's the highest requirement according to you) then it would be holy? Is holiness just a man-made concept? (Man, you are a different kind of Christian)

The ethics apply to the community of believers. We believe that those ethics could (and should!) apply across the board: Love God, love neighbor, show compassion, be selfless, forgive others, etc.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Where did God come from? So far, all of this stuff has been a human product. Are you saying they made God up?

the Bible has lasted throughout history because it is able to be interpreted in a variety of ways.

I agree it is able to be interpreted in a variety of ways. I don't see how that makes it last.

why would you think that it should be possible, any more than it is possible to logically answer why you fall in love with whom you fall in love?

Because I think it is logically possible to answer why you fall in love with whom you fall in love, it's probably just as mysterious as why people fall out of love to you. Scary dilemma. What a rip. eHarmony.com is my love through logic and it works.

guess again.

I don't have a better guess, do you have a suggestion as to why I have a hard time?

 

[sojourner]

Forer effect

I read the article. The Bible seems to work backwards from the Forer Effect. the Forer Effect takes sweeping, general statements that can be applied to anyone. The Bible makes very specific statements that can be interpreted in a variety of different ways. Biblical wisdom is not the same thing as astrological "reading."
Sorry. Try again.

 

[sojourner]

I actually agree, I believe abundant life could be the proof of God as well, or existence itself even.

Then why did you bring up miracles, if that wasn't what he was talking about?

You want to define spirituality please?

The state of humanity, it is in relationship with God.

Human Product? I also agree! (Wow closet agnostic/atheist here?) So if I were to invent something that is especially revelatory (after all I am human, and that's the highest requirement according to you) then it would be holy? Is holiness just a man-made concept? (Man, you are a different kind of Christian)

One does not have to believe in the divine origin of scripture to be a Christian. One does have to doubt or disbelieve in God to be an agnostic/atheist. Since I don't doubt/disbelieve, your jab, disguised as an assessment, is woefully mistaken. (Perhaps you're a closet Christian, and just don't know it yet?)
Look up the word "holy." It has nothing to do with "higher," or "purer." It means "separated out." The Bible is holy, because, even though it was written by human beings (there can be no real debate about that), we believe it was written by God's inspiration, which renders it separate from any other literature. The "highest requirement" to which you refer must mean that it was divinely inspired, and set apart from other literature as specially revelatory of God. I don't think you're capable of "inventing something specially revelatory," since you doubt the existence of God. At any rate, the canon is closed, so there can be no more scripture. You make a moot point. All concepts are "man-made" in a sense, because the human brain has to understand. But concepts can also have a Divine origin. It is this divine origin that we believe renders the Bible "holy."

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Where did God come from? So far, all of this stuff has been a human product. Are you saying they made God up?

God didn't "come from" anywhere. God has always been. We come from God. Human product of Divine origin, yes. Since Jesus was God in human form, it makes sense that human beings who are reconciled to God can, indeed, reveal God in special ways.

I agree it is able to be interpreted in a variety of ways. I don't see how that makes it last.

Because as humanity grows and our understanding changes or increases, the Bible does not become obsolete. Rather, it speaks in new ways that help to inform us as we grow and change.

Because I think it is logically possible to answer why you fall in love with whom you fall in love, it's probably just as mysterious as why people fall out of love to you. Scary dilemma. What a rip. eHarmony.com is my love through logic and it works.

Love -- that great thing for which we live and work and stay alive -- has been reduced to a ".com." Wonderfully uplifting. Wonder what people did for the thousands of years that e-harmony didn't exist? Or about the millions of people who have never seen e-harmony? They must not have really been "in love." Must have been their imagination. I'm sure e-harmony is a great tool for some folks, but, unfortunately for your argument, there's a whole lot more to love than compatibility factors that can be computer-generated and matched.

I don't have a better guess, do you have a suggestion as to why I have a hard time?

I don't have to guess. It's because you spend more time looking in the mirror than you do looking toward God.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's because you spend more time looking in the mirror than you do looking toward God.

Which, by the way, is precisely what one does when one looks to the Bible or, for that matter, any other religious tradition.

 

[sojourner]

Which, by the way, is precisely what one does when one looks to the Bible or, for that matter, any other religious tradition.

In what way, then, can the scriptures be said to be revelatory, if all we're doing is looking at ourselves? I disagree with your assessment.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In what way, then, can the scriptures be said to be revelatory, ...

An interesting question ...