Reply With QuoteTrust it for what?
My talk: Can we trust the Bible?
Peoples,
I'm doing a talk on whether we can trust the bible or not.
Please could I have your viewpoints with reasons.
Thank you for your time and efforts.
Reginalds,
g000we
Trust it for what?
Well. it is inaccurate with regard to the age of our planet, the origin of life and describes a global flood for which there is no evidence when there should be plenty.
And that is just the first book.
No, I don't think we can trust it.
Worst signature ever.
It depends on what you mean by "trust it" trust it for what? an accurate portrayal of history, a guide for life, a study of philosophy, a way to find innner peace, an entertaining fictional read, a moral framework, for use in theology etc
the bible is about faith, its something you wont ever understand until you do it i guess,
"Do it" ? Faith isn't something you do, it's a highly infectious disease which afflicts a large proportion of humanity and is characterized by an inane belief in various myths and legends relating to supernatural entities and events.Originally Posted by jamiefox
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. - Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)
Who is this talk to?
I think you have a challenging task and I don't think it is a subject that should be dismissed. Rationally speaking, evidence is gathered, theories are compiled and then tested. Unfortunately all too often we see theory morphed into fact and then the evidence sought and selected to support it - the latter is not science but it is religion!
The Gospels in the New Testament were in fact selected by a group of religious leaders in around 80 AD. I cannot find, off hand the details of who these religious leaders were or exactly when the Bible as we know it was contrived but its contents was certainly selected on the basis that it should follow the religious wisdom of that time. (If anyone has more on this I would be grateful to hear from them). There are in fact more Gospels left out of the Bible than put in it. These lost Gospels are known as the "Gnostic" and include those of Thomas, Phillip, Mary Magdalene Peter and Judus. Judus was recently published by the National Geographic Society, translated from the original Coptic. I know this sounds like something that Dan Brown would dream up but it is true (and I am pretty sure Leonardo da Vinci had nothing to do with it). The book by Christopher Hitchens "God is Not Great" (Atlantic Books, London - not to be confused with Atlantis Books !!) is a good source of information. (As much as I enjoyed this book, it is nevertheless very opinionated, which you have to be a bit careful with I think).
Ironically, the reputed founder of the Catholic church and (supposedly) the first pope, Peter, had his Gospel rejected. I have not read it myself but I understand it is very mystical and has Jesus proving he was the son of God by not suffering on the cross at all. So the Bible is a selection of the available writings, it was compiled by those with strong political interests and it contradicts itself in more than one place (the lineage of Christ for example). Reliable? - well on the evidence, probably not.
The problem is of course that all this will do nothing whatsoever to persuade the true believer but I guess as sceptics, it's our job to try nevertheless.
Good luck with it.
Don't disagree with you but I thought I should point out that the Bible does not have anything directly to say about the age of the Earth. It was Archbishop Ussher in 1620 who counted back the generations in the Bible and came to the conclusion that the Earth was 6,000 years old. This of course makes the young Earth creationists claim that the age of the Earth is somehow decreed by God all the more nonsensical but when has that ever stopped them?
Yes, I suppose you got me there.
Genesis is a bit open ended in it's time line. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".
And the creative days are of an unspecified length. Some say 24 hours each, others believe 1000 years each and others...well it could be anything.
However, the general understanding I have met is that the earth, according to the bible, is not billions of years old.
Having said that, there are plenty of religious people who accept the true age of our planet and Genesis does not contradict them.
So, I stand corrected.
Worst signature ever.
Of course we can trust the bible, you want to know the name of Joseph's paternal grandfather just check Matthew 1:16
That's the turth, more than that it's gospel truth.And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Whatever you do don't rely on conflicting sources like erm... the bible. That tells lies, just check Luke 3:23
Clearly if you trust the Bible you'll know that Joseph's Dad was called Jacob, therefore you know that lies that he was called Heli must come from an untrustyworth source. This other Bible must be untrustworthy because the Bible tells us so and you wouldn't want to disbelieve the bible would you?And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Preliminary question. Which Bible?
* The Jewish Torah
* The King James bible.
* Another translation
* The originals in Hebrew - the old testament and new testament in Greek?
Having said this, the following applies to any variant in this preliminary question:
"trust" it for what purpose or reason? Unless you specify a purpose or reason then trust is meaningless. For example:
a) Can you trust it be externally consistent? No - reality has been shown wildly different to claims in the bible that can be made falsifiable claims. That is it is an unreliable source of knowledge about reality.
b) Can you trust it to be at least internally consistent? No - it is full of contradictions starting with the two creation myths onwards.
So what can you trust it for, given that typically "trust" implies reliability and consistency, and it is unreliable and inconsistent?
classic as always MATTThat's the turth, more than that it's gospel truth.
"And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head."
So the earthly incarnation of the Creator, is ignorant of basic natural history, ignorant of the habits of the very living things made by that Creator.
Not a convincing example of reliability. Was Jesus misquoted (Bible unreliable),
was Jesus actually thus ignorant (son of God unreliable!), or have our feathered friends completely altered their lifestyle since then (likely explanation from the fundamentalists)?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks