502 replies to this topic

[Keen]

I would love to hear your arguements for or against the truth of the Bible.

Remember that there are "shades-of-gray" involved in this issue: Some of the Bible may be historical, while other parts may be allegorical.

What do you believe and why?

Edited by No One, 07 January 2006 - 02:18 AM.

[Bond Extreme]

I belive everything in the Bible. Why? Because I'm a Christian. Right now I'm actually in the middle of this Bible course where you read the Bible in 90 days. But pretty much everything in the Bible makes sense to me and I have been raised as a Christian meaning I belive in the Bible.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

There is currently very little archaeological evidence or historical evidence to prove that the Empire of Solomon as described in the Bible is actually true. This debate goes into the discussion of Biblical Maximists versus Biblical Minimists vs. Biblicial Literalists.

Biblical Minimists state that none of the Bible is true. (These are nearly extinct).
Biblical Maximists state that most of the Bible is true.
Biblical LIteralists state that all of the Bible is true and it is completely literal.

There are holes in the historical evidence that prove the Bible to be true.

Not only that but the Bible is inaccurate concerning Pontius Pilate's role in Jesus' execution. A tyrant like him would have given his right hand to have Jesus executed. The way he is described in the Bible just doesn't make any sense when compared to non-Biblical accounts of Pontius.

[deuterium]

I used to believe in the Bible. I was raised to believe and go to Church or Mass but during my late teens (around 17 or 18) I found no real comfort or even whole truths in the Bible. The Bible seems to harbor our superiority complex. Making it seem that God only cares about us. Then, when watching documentary after documentary I soon realized how twisted the Bible had become. The Church didn't even mention of the Gospel of Mary! The problem also dictates how accurate these accounts are because the Bible was written hundreds of years after the events took place and the translation also poses a problem. Now, do I believe in God? Yes. I just feel that the events in the Bible were twisted.

Edited by deuterium, 07 January 2006 - 10:16 AM.

[Bond Extreme]

^Then you still don't belive in God fully.

But the people that wrote the Bible where inspired by what God has done in their lives. Which since real people saw all this and then wrote it in a book it sounds like it is true.

But for me it is all true because I know it is. But this is what I have to say for myself.

[Selena]

Funny. Toan and I were talking about something like this not too terribly long ago. I guess I can more or less retell what I told him, then. In short, I don't think the Bible in the inerrant word of god. Nor do I think it's complete bull. The two testaments seem to read very differently from one another. The New version sounds like they took a bunch of the stuff Jesus (who I think was a real philosopher, but not divine) did and legend-ed it up a great deal. Its prequel testament reads a lot like mythology.

Alright. New Testament. Like I said, I think Jesus was just a good guy who was spreading a new way of thinking based upon Judaism through an otherwise crappy world. Rome wasn't a nice place to be in unless you were rich, after all. And with a bunch of people looking for some kind of liberation from all the blood and gore and that other fun stuff, it makes sense that the tales of Jesus and his followers were made legendary over time. Like King Arthur and his knights, but without the swords and love triangles. He taught some great things and helped to reshape the world, but I don't think there was any water in to wine, walk on water, resurrection stuff. He just got made into something larger than life after all had been said and done.

I think the Old Testament is more interesting, actually. Godly wrath, smiting, burning. God was a lot more pissed off back then. Anyway. I think the Old Testament sounds quite a bit like mythology, probably due to its age, and I can see some similarities between it and Sumerian myths (Sumer being the big empire at the time). I think it was a similar style of storytelling but altered to suit Hebrew culture. The story of Noah and the Ark, for example, was originally a Sumerian myth (Ziusudra/Atrahasis). And the story about Enki and Ninhursag in Dilmun has some similar elements as Adam and Eve. Well, except in the Sumerian version it was the guy in trouble instead of the girl. I think the two cultures shared a great deal, but the Hebrews just had a different interperetation and clumped all the older polytheistic gods into one monotheistic package. Might explain some of the mood swings god seems to have in the Old Testament. XP

Some good stories with morals on how to live. But just that. Stories. Maybe with some historical value, but with a particular view point.


But that's just me.

[Alakhriveion]

Not only that but the Bible is inaccurate concerning Pontius Pilate's role in Jesus' execution. A tyrant like him would have given his right hand to have Jesus executed. The way he is described in the Bible just doesn't make any sense when compared to non-Biblical accounts of Pontius.

It doesn't jive with any records of any execution, either. Jesus may have been all for peace, but if he got crucefied like the Bible says, he was an insurrectionist. Bad Thoughts wasn't enough to make you an enemy of the state.

And then there are the little details, for example: did three actual historical Asian kings come to Jesus? It doesn't matter. They are never given names. It may only have been one for all we know.

They are never given a number, either. All you've got is a plural.

And with a bunch of people looking for some kind of liberation from all the blood and gore and that other fun stuff, it makes sense that the tales of Jesus and his followers were made legendary over time. Like King Arthur and his knights, but without the swords and love triangles.

Or with them...

[Vazor]

The way he is described in the Bible just doesn't make any sense when compared to non-Biblical accounts of Pontius.

Actually, it's my personal feeling that he didn't want Jesus executed because it wasn't his idea. It's pretty simple; it fits with all other accounts of him perfectly. Had it been his idea, he would've had him crucified in an instant.

It doesn't jive with any records of any execution, either. Jesus may have been all for peace, but if he got crucefied like the Bible says, he was an insurrectionist. Bad Thoughts wasn't enough to make you an enemy of the state.

The High Priests realized that Jesus was contradicting a lot of their beliefs, and then decided to turn the people against him. The Romans didn't really put up much of a fight when the Jewish people came to them (sans Pilot, as explained earlier), as they knew it would be beneficial for them. They basically convinced the people that Jesus was an insurrectionist; all it boiled down to was that they wanted him gone by any means.

I can see some similarities between it and Sumerian myths (Sumer being the big empire at the time). I think it was a similar style of storytelling but altered to suit Hebrew culture. The story of Noah and the Ark, for example, was originally a Sumerian myth (Ziusudra/Atrahasis). And the story about Enki and Ninhursag in Dilmun has some similar elements as Adam and Eve.

It's my feeling that God was influincing the tales of those people so that it would be easier for them to convert to Judaism. Because if you'll notice, many faiths have legends bearing a striking similarity to the old testament. Divine intervention, so that people would have some basis in God's faith even if they were raised away from the Jewish people. Just a thought.

Personally, I believe in the bible as literal truth, except of course for the parables and the like. As for creationism, it should be noted that what would seem like a day to God, having been around for all eternity, would be much longer than our perception of a day. Therefore, he performed each task in one of his "days", and made sure the people knew that, so that they would have a basis for their calendar. As for all the "historical" parts of the bible, those would be true. "Three" was just a number given to the wise men; there may have been three, but since we don't know for sure, it's a nice round number to use arbitrarily when discussing them. Revelation = Symbolism. Duh.

[Doopliss]

Analyzing the Bible objectively, some of its historical information is accurate, but people have been having serious problems with trying to prove the supernatural events true. I, personally, believe everything supernatural in the Bible to be false. Anyway, I believe that a great part of its philosophy can be interpreted and used without paying attention to all the supernatural 'events', such as science fiction or fantasy novels that have a philosophical message. However, even if I believe the Old Testament to have historical value, I believe the gospels to be full of lies and to be far from telling the real story of Jesus, but I appreciate their philosophy. But sometimes I find the bible really boring.

I'm Atheist, by the way.

[Alakhriveion]

The High Priests realized that Jesus was contradicting a lot of their beliefs, and then decided to turn the people against him. The Romans didn't really put up much of a fight when the Jewish people came to them (sans Pilot, as explained earlier), as they knew it would be beneficial for them.

Actually, Pilate was well known for having zero respect for local religions. The odds of him doing the priests a favor was roughly nil, also, if it was a question of heresy they want to kill him over, they could have stoned him without much trouble.

They basically convinced the people that Jesus was an insurrectionist; all it boiled down to was that they wanted him gone by any means.

The Romans didn't nail someone up on a rumor, or for anything but the biggest crimes and, importantly, only for crimes against Rome or Roman authority. If it had been a smaller crime than revolution (Or piracy, which I think Jesus was very unlikely to have committed) a much simpler method of execution would have been used. Also, he wouldn't have been buried or entombed or anything. Taking the body off the cross? Highly illegal.

It's my feeling that God was influincing the tales of those people so that it would be easier for them to convert to Judaism. Because if you'll notice, many faiths have legends bearing a striking similarity to the old testament. Divine intervention, so that people would have some basis in God's faith even if they were raised away from the Jewish people. Just a thought.

Well, I think more likely there actually was a flood in that region so everyone in the area had to explain it. Not too many other people have a myth like that, although a fair number have the world being created in water. The one in the Bible, though, is an almost certain ripoff of the Utnapishtim story out of Babylon herself. I'm sure there's a perfectly good, perfectly theistic reason of that one, though... Gimme a minute.

Edited by Alakhriveion, 08 January 2006 - 12:00 AM.

[Selena]

It's my feeling that God was influincing the tales of those people so that it would be easier for them to convert to Judaism. Because if you'll notice, many faiths have legends bearing a striking similarity to the old testament. Divine intervention, so that people would have some basis in God's faith even if they were raised away from the Jewish people. Just a thought.

Possibility, sure... but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. If God was influencing earlier cultures, why not reveal to them what he revealed to the Hebrew civilization? Why wait until after Sumer had formed and fallen? Well, fallen repeatedly, I suppose. Everyone loved to conquer that place. I know god supposedly works in mysterious ways, but that one's a little strange. Instead of enlightening them, he influences them a bit and tells 'em to wait for a few thousand years for the chosen guys to stop roaming around and form their civilization.

*scratches head* Or, looking at it from a religious perspective, I suppose it could be that god was waiting for 'righteous' people to approach after the flood, and the Sumerians were sort of war-crazy. That whole region (Sumer/Shinar/Babylon) isn't really looked well upon in the Bible, as far as I remember. That or the Hebrews were the only one to truly hear 'the call.' But as I'm not a Christian or Jew and haven't read up on it in a while, correct me if I'm sounding like an idiot here.

But back to a non-spiritual view (sort of), Abraham supposedly came from Ur, an ancient Sumerian citystate, although at his time Sumer had been taken over by the Chaldeans. In Mesopotamia, most of Sumer's culture had been preserved quite well after its decline. The myths in particular were preserves, but altered a bit to suit the new rulers (the addition of Marduk into the pantheon, for example, and changed names kind of like with Greek vs. Roman myths). Because of that, Abraham, if he really existed, was probably raised with those stories. As the front man for the new monotheistic religion forming, it sounds like there would be a good chance that some of those earlier tales might have influenced early Genesis myths. The myths in general probably all stemmed from the same source, but each culture put their different spin on things depending on what kind of religion they had.


....They each probably also thought they were the only 'right ones' and thought the others to be damned fools. Ah well. XP


*cough* I don't suppose anyone can tell I like ancient civilizations at all?

[Korhend]

Bad Thoughts wasn't enough to make you an enemy of the state.

To use the coloquialism Alak, "what have you been smoking?", your brother thinking bad thoughts was enough to make you an enemy of Rome.

Edited by Korhend, 08 January 2006 - 12:00 AM.

[Alakhriveion]

To use the coloquialism Alak, "what have you been smoking?", your brother thinking bad thoughts was enough to make you an enemy of Rome.

They wouldn't crucify you for it. Crucifiction means somebody at LEAST hit a soldier. Of course, it is true that when one person got crucified, EVERYONE did. Remember Spartacus, that scene where they line the Appian Way with crosses? One of the only scenes in the movie we know actually happened. Geesus.

NOTE: Under Nero, you could be crucified, stabbed, and set on fire for thinking bad thoughts or really just because the Emperor felt like it (Seriously). But that was years later.

Edited by Alakhriveion, 08 January 2006 - 12:06 AM.

[SteveT]

It's hard to line the entire Appian Way with crosses if you have to worry about who was ACTUALLY committing crimes against the state.

[Vazor]

They wouldn't crucify you for it. Crucifiction means somebody at LEAST hit a soldier.

Well, technically Peter, in an attempt to save Christ, did slice off the ear of one of the slaves brought with the people arresting Jesus. Though I'm not sure about Roman law regarding the injury of slaves.

Edited by Vazor20X6, 08 January 2006 - 12:15 AM.

[Korhend]

Well specifically what Jesus did was he defied the laws making worship of Ceasar compulsory. The Romans had an agreement with the Jews that they could follow their religion as long as they pledged secular alliegence to Ceasar. However this didn't apply to any other religion, but it was quite a sticking point with the Jews. So when Jesus starts preaching about god, the romans first question obviously is "Is this man Jewish", they went to the Pharisee's with this question, and they obviously got a negative responce. Now Jesus has commited a crime much more serious then hitting a legionaire: he's commited a gigantic act of lesse majeste, something the romans didn't take kindly to.

[Alakhriveion]

It's hard to line the entire Appian Way with crosses if you have to worry about who was ACTUALLY committing crimes against the state.

Well this was during a slave rebellion (BFD), so they wern't. Being there and having nailable wrists was enough.

Well, technically Peter, in an attempt to save Christ, did slice off the ear of one of the slaves brought with the people arresting Jesus. Though I'm not sure about Roman law regarding the injury of slaves.

Small fine.

Well specifically what Jesus did was he defied the laws making worship of Ceasar compulsory. The Romans had an agreement with the Jews that they could follow their religion as long as they pledged secular alliegence to Ceasar. However this didn't apply to any other religion, but it was quite a sticking point with the Jews. So when Jesus starts preaching about god, the romans first question obviously is "Is this man Jewish", they went to the Pharisee's with this question, and they obviously got a negative responce. Now Jesus has commited a crime much more serious then hitting a legionaire: he's commited a gigantic act of lesse majeste, something the romans didn't take kindly to.

He has to be getting attention for that to happen. There's only one recorded incident of peaceful resistance to Roman rule in Judea and Josephus does mention that nobody was killed for it.

[Doopliss]

I've done some reading about this, and some hystorians believe that Jesus was actually a rebel who took violent actions against Rome and that had followers. Romans only crucified people who violently rebelled against the State.

[Vazor]

One thing you learn from historiography is that a lot of historians really don't know what they're talking about, case in point the ones you mentioned. And you don't think there was any corruption going on in the Roman government? Come on, this was one of the most vast governments in history. Of course some people had to be manipulating it, i.e. having threats to the status quo put down.

[Alakhriveion]

One thing you learn from historiography is that a lot of historians really don't know what they're talking about, case in point the ones you mentioned.

He's really all we have to go by, though.

And you don't think there was any corruption going on in the Roman government? Come on, this was one of the most vast governments in history. Of course some people had to be manipulating it, i.e. having threats to the status quo put down.

The fact of corruption and shadiness in every government since the dawn of time doesn't mean it's likely for Pilate to suddenly care what the Jews think long enough to have just one person killed.

[Vazor]

I'm not saying that he cared what the Jews thought. I'm saying he knew that Jesus was bad for Rome. The fact that it was the Jews that thought of it first was the only reason he initially didn't want to.

[Chikara Nadir]

^Then you still don't belive in God fully.

But the people that wrote the Bible where inspired by what God has done in their lives. Which since real people saw all this and then wrote it in a book it sounds like it is true.

But for me it is all true because I know it is. But this is what I have to say for myself.

Just like you said- the people who wrote the Bible were INSPIRED by God. The Bible itself was not WRITTEN by God. Anne Rice (famous for her vampire stories, and she also wrote a few dirty novels) just wrote a book about what Jesus' youth could have been like, because she was inspired to "write only for God". Does that mean that we're going to take her inspiration as fact, and say that those who don't believe in it therefore are not believers in God? Certainly not!

We could never even BEGIN to understand how God thinks, but I don't honestly believe that the Bible are his feelings word for word. Some Bible stories are just that- stories. There may have been a king named David, and he may have slain a fierce enemy, but was he twelve feet tall? Probably not.

The story of Jonah and the whale? I think that's more meant to be a lesson than to be taken seriously. Did angels descend from heaven to teach Ezekial the ways of God? C'mon, the guy ran around naked with an ox yolk on his back. He would have been seen as a danger to society if the man had lived in modern times.

I agree with the idea that there was a man named Jesus who was a great believer in God, a great orator, a rebel against Rome, perhaps sent by God. Did he do everything that the Bible claims? I'd say that some of it is more tall tales, much in the same spirit as Paul Bunyon.

...and it's just safer for my sanity to not try to respond to the more recent posts in this thread, cause I don't watch nearly enough History Channel and A&E to say anything worthwhile. XP

[Doopliss]

You know Vazor, I seldom post bullshit, and the historians I'm refering to were probably aware of they were saying.

I mostly agree with Chikara. Actually, with all the mistranslations and the Church's misdeeds we are only left with god (yes, not even Jesus), who you don't need a Bible or any other sacred book to discover. I believe that if you wish to believe in a god you should only be a good person, and no real religion is needed, nor sacred books, you should just follow moral.

So then, why am I still Atheist? Well, that doesn't belong to the thread, maybe I'll post something in the Who we are? thing if I'm not too lazy, but I've mentioned it before, anyway.

[arunma]

What do you believe and why?

As everyone here already knows, I contend that every portion of the canonical Bible is accurate.

Then, when watching documentary after documentary I soon realized how twisted the Bible had become.

You gave up your Christian faith because of a documentary? Well, to each his own, but documentaries aren't quite as accurate as one would think. It would be more prudent to study the controversy for yourself.

The Church didn't even mention of the Gospel of Mary!

Records of the existence of the Gospel of Mary exist. How do you define "didn't even mention?" There is no reason for the Gospel of Mary to be part of the Bible, since the church ascertained that it was a forgery.

The problem also dictates how accurate these accounts are because the Bible was written hundreds of years after the events took place and the translation also poses a problem.

According to Christians, the Gospels were written approximately 30 years after Christ's ascention. According to atheists, the Gospels were written 50 years afterward. Either way, this is quite accurate by the standards of that day.

I've heard that many scholars consider Job to be a work of fiction, that is just supposed to teach a moral. Does anyone have any evidence for or against this? Arun, perhaps?

It is noteworthy that Saint James referred to Job (James 5:11). It's rather difficult (but not impossible!) to prove a negative, so I don't know how we can ever prove that Job does not describe accurate historical events. Because the Apostle refers to the account, I would say that Job is true history.

Not only that but the Bible is inaccurate concerning Pontius Pilate's role in Jesus' execution. A tyrant like him would have given his right hand to have Jesus executed. The way he is described in the Bible just doesn't make any sense when compared to non-Biblical accounts of Pontius.

The problem, here, is that this is a "would have, should have" argument. It isn't valid to contest the Biblical account of Pontius Pilate on the basis that it doesn't perfectly fit with a single, separate account of him.

[Nevermind]

1. The Bible is subject to personal/individual interpretation.

2. As is 'truth'.

[deuterium]

As everyone here already knows, I contend that every portion of the canonical Bible is accurate.
You gave up your Christian faith because of a documentary? Well, to each his own, but documentaries aren't quite as accurate as one would think. It would be more prudent to study the controversy for yourself.
Records of the existence of the Gospel of Mary exist. How do you define "didn't even mention?" There is no reason for the Gospel of Mary to be part of the Bible, since the church ascertained that it was a forgery.
According to Christians, the Gospels were written approximately 30 years after Christ's ascention. According to atheists, the Gospels were written 50 years afterward. Either way, this is quite accurate by the standards of that day.

I did give up on religion not on God. We don't need a book or religion to say we believe or love God. God loves you no matter what. I just feel the Bible is too corrupted with human arrogance to be 100% trustworthy. As if humans were cramming words into God's mouth. Like you stated "to each his own" (or to each his/her own). If you want to believe in the Bible then by all means do. Besides, we do have a commonailty. Most of us believe in God. Maybe we should think more about that than the Bible or religion.

Edited by deuterium, 09 January 2006 - 11:15 AM.

[Emiko]

"The world is laying in the power of the wicked one" the bible says....so if you believe everything the world says that disagrees with what the bible says you might as well welcome Satan into your life and be like "yea...I know Satan..you didnt tell Eve to eat the apple, you just gave it to her to look at..."

You cant believe everything in the Media..the boook of Mary my behind....If you believe in God..then do you really think he will let the world twist his word that much..I mean they already took out his name from the pages....

[Bond Extreme]

Well if you guys want to read an awesome thing God did with Moses read Exodus. That is when God spread all the plagues over Egypt since the Pharaoh wouldn't let the slaves go. One of my favorite plagues is the Death of the first-born son. Anyone a certain night that doesn't have sheep’s blood wiped on their door the Death Angle will swipe through that house that night and kill the families first born son. Pharos son was one of the victims. And well you know then all the slaves and Moses crossed the red sea. But you guys should read it. It is really interesting.

[Chukchi Husky]

The Bible, even though I never read it, is the only thing I can take as fact. Everything else, including what I learned in school and what I read in encyclopaedias, is wrong.