Who Said the Bible is True?

[Skwim]

And why should we believe them? The evidence?

The Focus on the Family web site tried this tact but failed miserably. It asked "How Do We Know the Bible Is True?" and then went on to answer by essentially saying "because Christians believe it is." Nice, but hardly convincing. Nothing becomes true simply because we believe it is. Of course other characteristics were cited that supposedly confirms the Bible's truth: "it corresponds to reality," it's "internally consistent," and it's "coherent." But as we all know, this can be equally true of a whole lot of BS.

Then they presented a basket full of specious evidence such as, "copies show that the Bible has been transmitted accurately," "the Christian worldview is robust, reasonable and grounded in history," and "making a case for the truth of the resurrection also makes a case for the truth claims of Jesus and, in turn, the reliability and truth of the Bible." and what makes the case for the truth of the resurrection? They say it's Paul's admission that "if the resurrection did not happen, Christian faith "is futile; you are still in your sins."

But perhaps Focus on the Family is simply inept in making a case for the truth of the Bible, and really botched the job. So I ask:,

What rational evidence do you have that the Bible is true?
(No need to bother yourself with things such as the Flood or Jonah in the "big fish." We'll just accept them as tall tails)

 

[George-ananda]

I think calling it 'True' or 'False' are both overstatements.

 

[Cephus]

I don't know, you'd have to define what you mean by "true". Do you mean every word in the Bible? Clearly that makes the book false, there's a load of nonsense in there. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people and religious organizations who figure that if they can find something true, that makes all of it true and that's even worse.

 

[Orbit]

It's not about "truth", it's about wisdom. Many different readings of the Bible are possible, and there are some very valuable things in there. If you are asking if miraculous events that are reported in the Bible happened, no, there is no evidence. But that's not really the point, is it?

 

[JayJayDee]

This is why I believe the Bible is true.....here is an excerpt from the book "What Does the Bible Really Teach".

6 The Bible was written over a 1,600-year period. Its writers lived at different times and came from many walks of life. Some were farmers, fishermen, and shepherds. Others were prophets, judges, and kings. The Gospel writer Luke was a doctor. Despite the varied backgrounds of its writers, the Bible is harmonious from beginning to end.*

7 The first book of the Bible tells us how mankind’s problems began. The last book shows that the whole earth will become a paradise, or garden. All the material in the Bible covers thousands of years of history and relates in some way to the unfolding of God’s purpose. The harmony of the Bible is impressive, but that is what we would expect of a book from God.

8 The Bible is scientifically accurate. It even contains information that was far ahead of its time. For example, the book of Leviticus contained laws for ancient Israel on quarantine and hygiene when surrounding nations knew nothing about such matters. At a time when there were wrong ideas about the shape of the earth, the Bible referred to it as a circle, or sphere. (Isaiah 40:22) The Bible accurately said that the earth ‘hangs on nothing.’ (Job 26:7) Of course, the Bible is not a science textbook. But when it touches on scientific matters, it is accurate. Is this not what we would expect of a book from God?

9 The Bible is also historically accurate and reliable. Its accounts are specific. They include not only the names but also the ancestry of individuals.* In contrast to secular historians, who often do not mention the defeats of their own people, Bible writers were honest, even recording their own failings and those of their nation. In the Bible book of Numbers, for instance, the writer Moses admits his own serious error for which he was severely reproved. (Numbers 20:2-12) Such honesty is rare in other historical accounts but is found in the Bible because it is a book from God.

The Bible—A Book From God — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[Cephus]

It's not about "truth", it's about wisdom. Many different readings of the Bible are possible, and there are some very valuable things in there. If you are asking if miraculous events that are reported in the Bible happened, no, there is no evidence. But that's not really the point, is it?

Sure there are, but you can get those valuable things from another source without having all the absurd nonsense stuffed into the Bible as well. There's a reason I have the sig line I do, nobody has ever given me a single example that violates it.

 

[Orbit]

Sure there are, but you can get those valuable things from another source without having all the absurd nonsense stuffed into the Bible as well. There's a reason I have the sig line I do, nobody has ever given me a single example that violates it.

I would disagree. I use several holy books for contemplation from several traditions, and all give me something that secularism cannot--a window into the mystic experience. Of course being a materialist, you will dismiss that, saying mystic states are just altered brain chemistry. But my experiences and insights are valuable, my growth is valuable, and no, I can't get it from a secular source.

 

[Skwim]

I don't know, you'd have to define what you mean by "true".

My thread here was inspired by Focus on the Family's question, "How Do We Know the Bible Is True?" "True" meaning in accordance with fact or reality.

Do you mean every word in the Bible?

If that's your position, then yes, that's what I mean. If you have some other reading of the Bible then my question is in accord with that.

Clearly that makes the book false, there's a load of nonsense in there.

Agreed.

______________________________________________________

It's not about "truth", it's about wisdom.

You ask your question and I'll ask mine; thank you.

Many different readings of the Bible are possible, and there are some very valuable things in there. If you are asking if miraculous events that are reported in the Bible happened, no, there is no evidence. But that's not really the point, is it?

No it isn't. It's about the claim that "the Bible is true." If you don't feel it is, fine. If you do, then I'm interested in what rational evidence you have to support the claim.

 

[Cephus]

I would disagree. I use several holy books for contemplation from several traditions, and all give me something that secularism cannot--a window into the mystic experience. Of course being a materialist, you will dismiss that, saying mystic states are just altered brain chemistry. But my experiences and insights are valuable, my growth is valuable, and no, I can't get it from a secular source.

There is no demonstrable mystic experience. There is a serious difference between a demonstrable mystical experience and an experience someone just stamps the "mystic" label on. So far, every single case has been the latter. That's why I specify in my sig "demonstrably real". All you're doing is feeding your ego with nonsensical woo.

 

[Orbit]

There is no demonstrable mystic experience. There is a serious difference between a demonstrable mystical experience and an experience someone just stamps the "mystic" label on. So far, every single case has been the latter. That's why I specify in my sig "demonstrably real". All you're doing is feeding your ego with nonsensical woo.

LMAO. How is a mystic experience not demonstrably real? You can hook people up to fMRIs and EEGs and see the brain activity change. You might want to do some more research on that.

 

[Cephus]

If you do, then I'm interested in what rational evidence you have to support the claim.

There is no rational evidence, if there was, people wouldn't have to have "faith".

 

[Cephus]

LMAO. How is a mystic experience not demonstrably real? You can hook people up to fMRIs and EEGs and see the brain activity change. You might want to do some more research on that.

Please demonstrate that there actually is anything mystical. Define your terms. Produce objective evidence to demonstrate it. Let me know when you do. You absolutely can see changes in brain activity. That's biological, not mystical.

 

[Orbit]

Please demonstrate that there actually is anything mystical. Define your terms. Produce objective evidence to demonstrate it. Let me know when you do. You absolutely can see changes in brain activity. That's biological, not mystical.

My experience is not biological--my experience of EVERYTHING is not biological. My experience is phenomenological and has to be understood with the tools of phenomenology (the science of experience). I suppose you are going to say "love" is biological too. Well, my thoughts *produce* the biological response to love, not the other way around. Think about it. You can't reduce the experience of love to biology,

 

[Cephus]

My experience is not biological--my experience of EVERYTHING is not biological. My experience is phenomenological and has to be understood with the tools of phenomenology (the science of experience). I suppose you are going to say "love" is biological too. Well, my thoughts *produce* the biological response to love, not the other way around. Think about it. You can't reduce the experience of love to biology,

And where did you get that information? How did you test it? If you're claiming it isn't biological, how did you demonstrate there is anything else? Where is your evidence? And absolutely yes, you can reduce the experience of love to biology, we've shown how it operates with MRIs. You might not like that fact, it doesn't stop it from being a fact. See, you're just being emotional, not rational.

 

[Orbit]

And where did you get that information? How did you test it? If you're claiming it isn't biological, how did you demonstrate there is anything else? Where is your evidence? And absolutely yes, you can reduce the experience of love to biology, we've shown how it operates with MRIs. You might not like that fact, it doesn't stop it from being a fact. See, you're just being emotional, not rational.

Have you ever been in love? Prove it.

 

[Windwalker]

Please demonstrate that there actually is anything mystical. Define your terms.

Demonstrate mystical experience? Very well, you demonstrate love first. Explain the process, explain the experiment to demonstrate love, or mysticism. What would qualify as evidence to you?

What are your terms that you dismiss the content of other's experiences? Mystical = Pink Bunny Rabbits and Flying Monkeys? Well if that's your definition, you win. But no mystic I know claims such things are real.

Produce objective evidence to demonstrate it. Let me know when you do. You absolutely can see changes in brain activity. That's biological, not mystical.

No, it's a mystical experience that has a physiological correlate, like love does. Your brain is not the experience of love. The experience is. It's really no more complex than simply defining categories of experience, such as a feeling of peace, of love, or a connection with all life as your own. Do you have no experiences of this yourself? Do you think others who do are somehow incorrect in saying they are, because you don't?

Here, allow me to quote a little Einstein for you:

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”

- Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies​

There's your definition of mystical experience. To those who are as Einstein said, "Good as dead," I'm sure they would scoff at those who make claims of standing in "rapt awe", as woo woo. We always hate what we fear, and we fear what is unknown to us. So much for your bloody rationality.

 

[Skwim]

This is why I believe the Bible is true.....here is an excerpt from the book "What Does the Bible Really Teach".

6 The Bible was written over a 1,600-year period. Its writers lived at different times and came from many walks of life. Some were farmers, fishermen, and shepherds. Others were prophets, judges, and kings. The Gospel writer Luke was a doctor. Despite the varied backgrounds of its writers, the Bible is harmonious from beginning to end.

You do know, don't you, that the various writings were chosen for inclusion because they agreed with one another, and those that didn't agree were rejected. It amounted to cherry picking. Moreover, various translations were retouched so as to conform to the theology of the sponsoring agency.

7 The first book of the Bible tells us how mankind’s problems began. The last book shows that the whole earth will become a paradise, or garden. All the material in the Bible covers thousands of years of history and relates in some way to the unfolding of God’s purpose. The harmony of the Bible is impressive, but that is what we would expect of a book from God.

And from any decent fiction writer.

8 The Bible is scientifically accurate.

I know it's a comfort to believe so, but the truth is it's not. It makes a number of factual mistakes about science. Not to say some believers haven't tried to tap dance there way around them, but the fact remains, they've been unsuccessful. The Bible IS NOT always scientifically accurate.

It even contains information that was far ahead of its time. For example, the book of Leviticus contained laws for ancient Israel on quarantine and hygiene when surrounding nations knew nothing about such matters.

You actually think that practicing better hygiene then one's neighbor amounts to science? Does throwing a spear at a quarry by leading them amount to science? That common sense practices may have a scientific basis in no way makes them scientific.

At a time when there were wrong ideas about the shape of the earth, the Bible referred to it as a circle, or sphere. (Isaiah 40:22)

The only references to the earth as a sphere are in Bible versions created since it was determined that's what the earth is, a sphere. Otherwise we can find it referred to in Isaiah 40:22 in different Bibles as a vault, throne, disc, horizon, compass. And, while a circle is the most common description, it should come as no surprise. If we stand in one spot and note each position on the horizon we would soon have as series of positions that form a circle. No biggie at all.

The Bible accurately said that the earth ‘hangs on nothing.’ (Job 26:7)

FYI, the earth doesn't "hang" on anything.

Of course, the Bible is not a science textbook. But when it touches on scientific matters, it is accurate. Is this not what we would expect of a book from God?

Well I suppose it would, but the fact is IT'S NOT. That ancient Israel may have practiced better hygiene then their neighbors is well and good, but it doesn't mean it was a scientific happenstance.

9 The Bible is also historically accurate and reliable. Its accounts are specific.

You probably believe that the great flood took place, beginning in 2348 BC, but the historical fact of the matter is that it did not. According to unbiased historians AND science it never happened.
That the Bible got a lot of stuff right should be expected; after all, it wasn't written in a vacuum, but it also has a lot of goofs in it.

 

[McBell]

It is rather interesting how many times this thread has been told what "mystic" is not.
I wonder if someone will perhaps maybe let it slip what mystic is...?

I will not be holding my breath

 

[JayJayDee]

@Skwim If you say so.....no one is standing over anyone with a big stick forcing them to believe.

We will all know the truth one day, won't we?

Are you a gambler? You must be confident of your odds.....

 

[Windwalker]

It is rather interesting how many times this thread has been told what "mystic" is not.
I wonder if someone will perhaps maybe let it slip what mystic is...?

I will not be holding my breath

It's actually not very hard. It's the experience of the transcendent. There are actually different levels of this, but that definition itself is enough. It's the experience of something beyond the mundane, the ordinary, that opens one's self beyond the typical confines of one's ordinary state of being to that which, for lack of a better word, is timeless. Read that Einstein quote for a hint. It's like the word spiritual. I define that as that which deals with one's absolute concern, to borrow from Tillich. The mystical is the experience of one's being, beyond ones small self-identifications.

Good enough?