• 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!

What makes the Bible so believable for people?

Audie

Veteran Member
It's kind of the ultimate cultural appropriation. .

"Cultural appropriation= bad"
One of the stupidest things that even PC
has come up with.

As if civilization would have gotten past crudely
chipped stones, if nobody ever shared ideas!

But still, your point in this is one I've often
thought about.

How exactly, does one adopt the tales of those
people as if it were your own history?
All that Babylon and water from a rock stuff
has nothing whatever to do with me.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
Please have the decency to allow others the same freedom to practice their beliefs that you expect. I am rather much of a Biblical Literalist, and find the explaining away of key elements of Christianity to be insulting.
That's your problem, not mine. I do allow everyone the freedom and respect to believe whatever, but it's always going to puzzle me as to why people read The Bible literally, after all, there are such things as metaphors.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
That's your problem, not mine. I do allow everyone the freedom and respect to believe whatever, but it's always going to puzzle me as to why people read The Bible literally, after all, there are such things as metaphors.

Nope. Them hiss is by God gonna up and clap their hands!
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
That may be true for some, but I've seen far too many Christians who say the scriptures are the only way to know God and if God told them the scriptures were lies, they'd go with the scriptures. Too many Christians don't have a relationship with God and choose a book instead, because unlike a deity, they can hold that in their hands.
Perhaps you misunderstood the application or, perhaps, they communicated wrongly since I have never found a Christian that limited their relationship to just what is written.

It would appear to me, with what you said, they are sharing that you can't separate the person from the words from that person. If I want to "know my wife", it is more than just the physical aspect but every word that she says becomes who she is.

So, "choosing the Book" is more like "Hey, the book are His words and I know who He is by the words that He has spoken". A true statement.

If you knew someone whose word promises were never fulfilled, you know him by his words and actions. His words now become meaningless. But if his words always ring true, then you know the person by his words.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Those are just the hard facts about it. The Bible is just not something you could take seriously.

.
There are billions of people that disagree, with me included. I did take it seriously and it saved my marriage and changed the lives of my extended family in the same way as they took it seriously.

Family were delivered from drugs, suicidal thoughts, divorces et al. So to just say "The Bible is just not something you could take seriously." is quite a ridiculous statement for many.

But it can be ridiculous for you.

A famous man said it this way, "To preach the message of the cross seems like sheer nonsense to those who are on their way to destruction, but to us who are on our way to salvation, it is the mighty power of God released within us."

The message released power within us to change our future but you can count it as nonesense.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Science is in constant change. It would not be wise to base world view on it, when after couple of years it may again claim something else than today.

Bible doesn’t really change, so it is better foundation. And that atheists can’t show even one mistake or error in the Bible, I think it is really good. Also, I have seen it to be correct in many things that I think people would not know or understand or even chose without God.
Actually science itself doesn't change. I mean you don't change the laws of physics or thermal dynamics or whatever. What science does do is adjust with new information. It doesn't change what is discoverd and established. You could say science is dynamic.

It's true the Bible is static but that also means it's outdated. It does not suit this day and age. It was primarily written for another time and another group of people.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
..... you know him by his words and actions. His words now become meaningless. But if his words always ring true, then you know the person by his words.

"His"words talk about a fictional flood.
I court, they call it perjury.
 

Audie

Veteran Member

Cute.

But it is not "my opinion" about perjury,
and, there was no such flood.

Fact, not opinion.

But of course, your whole cookie would crumble
if you faced facts, so we will expect you to brush
it away with silly quips, or anything else that
protects you.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Cute.

But it is not "my opinion" about perjury,
and, there was no such flood.

Fact, not opinion.

But of course, your whole cookie would crumble
if you faced facts, so we will expect you to brush
it away with silly quips, or anything else that
protects you.
Well, Audie, we will have to agree to disagree.

It just depends on which facts you are talking about and who is brushing them away. I don't mean to threaten your position of security.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Far from false.

You just cannot establish any reliability accuracy or credibility that way.

Those are just the hard facts about it. The Bible is just not something you could take seriously.

You can certainly enjoy books. However the Bible is akin with Aesop's Fables. An enjoyable fictional literary work that's memorable.

There's no Divinity in anonymity. Clearly by such it further establishes there is no God there to protect them, if that's the case, I understand why people don't know who thought the words up and wrote it down as a result. However it does nothing for establishing any kind of truth except for blind belief born out of low standards of believability.

The thing about the schisms and conflicts among sect and denominations convincingly demonstrates there is no divine communication much less divine inspiration. Christians well demonstrate that it's all left up to their own particular interpretations. If there was a Collective consensus across the board that would be impressive , but clearly that's impossible and clearly is not going to happen.

Whenever you have a redacted collection of books made into a single compilation where nobody knows when it was written who wrote it, where it was written, it's not hard to see how it could be put together and altered to make it "harmonious" and making chronological events "fit" into the narrative. Even as the Bible exists today it's not done a good job in conveying to people how harmonious it is and it's claims that one author could not have known what another author had written down beforehand. Much less again knowing who the author's even are .
Have you ever read any literature? Dickens? Orwell, maybe? Or the Odyssey? Or attended a play by Shakespeare, or Arthur Miller?

If you have, you should be able to concede that such things, fictional or mythical though they may be, have power to give us insights into the human condition, take us out of ourselves and make us think. Or do you claim to consider such things valueless?
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
By what I know, in 2 Chronicles 36:9, the word “eight” could be translated also “eighteen”.
How do you know this?

So, it may be that the translation is not very accurate,
If a natural number, which is what 8 and 18 are, is less than accurate then it's wrong. This is grade school math, 1213.

but it doesn’t mean the original text has an error. It is interesting question, why it has been translated differently.
So, show us this original text.

.
 

Apologes

Active Member
Nobody knows who wrote it, with any degree of certainty. No names of the original authors,

The question "Who wrote the Bible?" is a naive one. The Bible isn't a single book, it's a collection of dozens of different pieces of literature from different time periods, genres and authors. It makes little sense to talk about the authors of the Bible as a whole as it's too broad of a question to get a substantiative answer. Instead, we need to look at each individual piece found in it.

In doing so we'll move away from the one-sided narrative that you present and see that it's very much a mixed bag. While we don't know who exactly wrote some of the books in the Bible like the Pentateuch, we do roughly know the time period in which it was created and who the authors could've been. Name-dropping would be nice, but it is not necessary as we have a good picture of where and how these texts came to be. Contrast this to works like the Pauline Epistles which we know with nearly absolute certainty to have been written by Paul himself (with several being pseudepigraphical) and your point about the Biblical authors being completely unknowable comes crashing down.

nobody knows who was on the Council of Trent , Council of Nicea Etc.

One might pardon your ignorance on the above issue (though it doesn't take much more than a mere Wikipedia article to defeat it) but your lumping of an early Council of Nicea with the incredibly late Council of Trent (two events with completely different purposes) is both baffling if not revealing.

I'll leave it to you to elaborate further on the relevance of the attendees being unknown to the question of biblical reliability and in the meantime I'll simply point out that it's completely false since we know very well who started the councils, for what reason and what the results were.

It's obviously been redacted , has incomplete information and has gaps in its narratives. Side-by-side variations are noted in each version of the Bible that exist today to substantiate that is indeed the case.

None of these are necessarily reasons to distrust it.

The Bible clearly is not a divinely inspired collection of books either , evidenced by Christianity's vast and varied amount of denominations and sects, who, to this day remain visibly at odds with ongoing issues over interpretation and meaning, making it clear there's no evidence of any type of guiding hand at play to indicate it now or was ever divinely inspired to begin with at its inception.

That's a non-sequitur. Just because Christians disagree on certain doctrinal truths doesn't mean that there are no such truths in the texts.

There's no real support or proofs to the notion of divine harmonization between one author with another throughout the Testaments over significant periods of time to substantiate any type of harmony exists because each subsequent book could be "harmonized" with each proceeding book by simply reading what each proceeding book said and conveniently changing the subsequent book to "fit" each narrative to uphold the claim that the subsequent authors did not know what the preceding authors wrote making such alleged harmony between books a divine proof a Biblical accuracy and credibility.

Even if granted this would at best leave you with a stalemate of not knowing if it is divinely inspired or not. It wouldn't prove it to be fraudulent.

Oral tradition is actually worthless. If it wasn't, it could have been used and demonstrated today as a living testament of reliability and accuracy but it isn't for a reason. Obvious reasons.

Far from obvious. Support your argument.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The question "Who wrote the Bible?" is a naive one. The Bible isn't a single book, it's a collection of dozens of different pieces of literature from different time periods, genres and authors. It makes little sense to talk about the authors of the Bible as a whole as it's too broad of a question to get a substantiative answer. Instead, we need to look at each individual piece found in it.

In doing so we'll move away from the one-sided narrative that you present and see that it's very much a mixed bag. While we don't know who exactly wrote some of the books in the Bible like the Pentateuch, we do roughly know the time period in which it was created and who the authors could've been. Name-dropping would be nice, but it is not necessary as we have a good picture of where and how these texts came to be. Contrast this to works like the Pauline Epistles which we know with nearly absolute certainty to have been written by Paul himself (with several being pseudepigraphical) and your point about the Biblical authors being completely unknowable comes crashing down.



One might pardon your ignorance on the above issue (though it doesn't take much more than a mere Wikipedia article to defeat it) but your lumping of an early Council of Nicea with the incredibly late Council of Trent (two events with completely different purposes) is both baffling if not revealing.

I'll leave it to you to elaborate further on the relevance of the attendees being unknown to the question of biblical reliability and in the meantime I'll simply point out that it's completely false since we know very well who started the councils, for what reason and what the results were.



None of these are necessarily reasons to distrust it.



That's a non-sequitur. Just because Christians disagree on certain doctrinal truths doesn't mean that there are no such truths in the texts.



Even if granted this would at best leave you with a stalemate of not knowing if it is divinely inspired or not. It wouldn't prove it to be fraudulent.



Far from obvious. Support your argument.
You obviously didn't pay attention. I already mentioned earlier it was a compilation. At any rate it's still in the format of one single book for which it can be altered redacted and change to fit. The Book of Mormon and Jehovah Witnesses versions of the Bible are good modern day examples as well as numerous others.

What strikes me as strange is that names throughout the narratives are so important yet for some strange reason or another the dismissal of the names of the very writers of those same books are not viewed as just as important given that anybody could have written anything.

Basically, it's saying that some such and such guy who was apparently inspired but not sure since I don't who the guy is that wrote this book, but rest assured he was inspired from some time awhile back from around such and such a year give or take a few, so you see it's very credible and reliable.

I'll be interested if you could determine the members of the councils by name . I know for a fact you you can't, so clearly you won't be able to provide any names.

I suppose , given that names of authors and such are not necessary, you should henceforth omit every name in the Bible given that it's not so important. You know instead of Jesus it's this guy, or Paul becomes that guy , Mary becomes this girl , Ruth becomes that gal, and so forth.

Heck if names of authors didn't really matter, then certainly the people in the Bible, their names don't matter either. It's still going to be believable for people right?

You certainly have a funny means of logic here when it comes to explaining/defending things like this.
 

Vee

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
2 Timothy 3:16 says that "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness" and that's how I came to see the Bible. Historically speaking, a lot of archaeological findings have confirmed many of the things told in the Bible, and many times the scriptures have been used to establish the locations of ancient sites. But facts and artifacts are one thing. Interpretation, theory and speculation are another. I understand that it is easier to accept the physical aspects than the spiritual ones that our eyes can't see.
I love the good principles and advice I find in the Bible. The values I apply in my life have helped me cope with many things that otherwise I would probably need medication for. I'll take the Bible over anti depressants any day. I love that the Bible features so many people who were deeply flawed and had to face so many of the same difficulties we face today. Many things changed in the last 6000 year but human nature is more or less the same.
I also appreciate that the Bible tells how and why things are the way they are with humankind, but it also gives me "a light at the end of the tunnel"; having hope is such a wonderful thing.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Have you ever read any literature? Dickens? Orwell, maybe? Or the Odyssey? Or attended a play by Shakespeare, or Arthur Miller?

If you have, you should be able to concede that such things, fictional or mythical though they may be, have power to give us insights into the human condition, take us out of ourselves and make us think. Or do you claim to consider such things valueless?
Well that would be alright for inspiration and such as long as it's made with the admission that its not factually a true account that had happened in history, but rather from the mind of the person who wrote it's passages and narratives.

I can certainly see value drawn from that in terms of inspiration and such. But believing such in terms of alleging it's true and factual is a different story. There's no value however in making up and or embellishing things that really never happened.
 

Regiomontanus

Eastern Orthodox
That's your problem, not mine. I do allow everyone the freedom and respect to believe whatever, but it's always going to puzzle me as to why people read The Bible literally, after all, there are such things as metaphors.

Absolutely. Look at the sayings of Jesus, for example. Many parables. And historically people read many parts of the Bible that way (metaphorically); literal reading is a rather new thing. Odd in my view, but hey, to each her own.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I'll be interested if you could determine the members of the councils by name . I know for a fact you you can't, so clearly you won't be able to provide any names.

Since there were several hundred present at the Council of Nicaea it is hardly surprising that all the names are not known. But a simple Wiki search reveals that a lot of names are known. I quote:

"
Constantine had invited all 1,800 bishops of the Christian church within the Roman Empire (about 1,000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted more than 250,[20] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,[11] and Eustathius of Antioch estimated "about 270"[21] (all three were present at the council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300,[22] and Evagrius,[23] Hilary of Poitiers,[24] Jerome,[25] Dionysius Exiguus,[26] and Rufinus[27] recorded 318. This number 318 is preserved in the liturgies of the Eastern Orthodox Church[28] and the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria.[citation needed]

Delegates came from every region of the Roman Empire, including Britain.[29] The participating bishops were given free travel to and from their episcopal sees to the council, as well as lodging. These bishops did not travel alone; each one had permission to bring with him two priests and three deacons, so the total number of attendees could have been above 1,800. Eusebius speaks of an almost innumerable host of accompanying priests, deacons, and acolytes. A Syriac manuscript lists the names of the eastern bishops which included twenty two from Coele-Syria, nineteen from Palestine, ten from Phoenicia, six from Arabia, etc., but the distinction of bishops from presbyters had not yet formed.[30][31]

The Eastern bishops formed the great majority. Of these, the first rank was held by the patriarchs: Alexander of Alexandria and Eustathius of Antioch. Many of the assembled fathers—for instance, Paphnutius of Thebes, Potamon of Heraclea, and Paul of Neocaesarea—had stood forth as confessors of the faith and came to the council with the marks of persecution on their faces. This position is supported by patristic scholar Timothy Barnes in his book Constantine and Eusebius.[32] Historically, the influence of these marred confessors has been seen as substantial, but recent scholarship has called this into question.[27]

Other remarkable attendees were Eusebius of Nicomedia; Eusebius of Caesarea, the purported first church historian; circumstances suggest that Nicholas of Myra attended (his life was the seed of the Santa Clauslegends); Macarius of Jerusalem, later a staunch defender of Athanasius; Aristaces of Armenia (son of Saint Gregory the Illuminator); Leontius of Caesarea; Jacob of Nisibis, a former hermit; Hypatius of Gangra; Protogenes of Sardica; Melitius of Sebastopolis; Achilleus of Larissa (considered the Athanasius of Thessaly)[33] and Spyridion of Trimythous, who even while a bishop made his living as a shepherd.[34] From foreign places came John, bishop of Persia and India, Theophilus, a Gothic bishop, and Stratophilus, bishop of Pitiunt in Georgia.

The Latin-speaking provinces sent at least five representatives: Marcus of Calabria from Italia, Cecilian of Carthage from Africa, Hosius of Córdoba from Hispania, Nicasius of Die from Gaul,[33] and Domnus of Sirmium from the province of the Danube.

Athanasius of Alexandria, a young deacon and companion of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, was among the assistants. Athanasius eventually spent most of his life battling against Arianism. Alexander of Constantinople, then a presbyter, was also present as representative of his aged bishop.[33]

The supporters of Arius included Secundus of Ptolemais, Theonus of Marmarica, Zephyrius (or Zopyrus), and Dathes, all of whom hailed from the Libyan Pentapolis. Other supporters included Eusebius of Nicomedia, Paulinus of Tyrus, Actius of Lydda, Menophantus of Ephesus, and Theognus of Nicaea.[33][35]

"Resplendent in purple and gold, Constantine made a ceremonial entrance at the opening of the council, probably in early June, but respectfully seated the bishops ahead of himself."[5] As Eusebius described, Constantine "himself proceeded through the midst of the assembly, like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which glittered as it were with rays of light, reflecting the glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and precious stones."[36] The emperor was present as an overseer and presider, but did not cast any official vote. Constantine organized the Council along the lines of the Roman Senate. Hosius of Cordoba may have presided over its deliberations; he was probably one of the Papal legates.[5] Eusebius of Nicomedia probably gave the welcoming address.[5][37]"

Doesn't seem badly documented to me, for an event almost 2000 years ago.
 
Top