Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Just follow the on screen instructions and you'll have an account in no time!

Join our community! (click here)

We hope you enjoy your visit.

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Christian Bible: Valid?
Topic Started: Jun 4 2009, 03:08 AM (855 Views)
Eddie
Member Avatar
Paranormal DIY'er
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
As someone who recently now considers himself an agnostic, I've began to wonder, how many of you consider the bible to be valid? How can Christians justify it?

A little background, most of the records (link) of the new testament where composed up to 100 years after Jesus died... do you remember what happened 100 years ago? As for saying they claim to be based 'only' 50 years after, there's no evidence to back that up. Not to mention, how do we know that this is the same bible they read 2,000 years ago? There have been far too many reports of rulers taking out or changing the parts of the bible for whatever reason to consider anything the original contents.

Anyway, I'll elaborate in a bit, but for the Christians, do you think it's valid?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Saj_61
Member Avatar
Intermediate DIY'er
[ *  *  * ]
I cant remember what happened to me last year! Also the average living age back than was what late 30's early 40's? Surely all of them couldnt have lived that long, could they? Mark is dated 63 means its the earliest, that would make it 30 years after Jesus died and would make him at least 40. John would be at least 70! If thats valid then Hitler was a good man for countries like France, Poland, Holland etc.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yowming41
Member Avatar
Advanced DIY'er
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I have not studied much of the timelines and such that the separate books were written, and I don't know when they were all put together. But I do believe the Bible is 'valid'. I don't think that such things as people's ages and death dates pose a problem for God.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ganlo
Member Avatar
Needs Dentures
[ *  *  *  * ]
The bible is valid

/Thread
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eddie
Member Avatar
Paranormal DIY'er
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Yowming41
Jun 4 2009, 08:32 PM
I have not studied much of the timelines and such that the separate books were written, and I don't know when they were all put together. But I do believe the Bible is 'valid'. I don't think that such things as people's ages and death dates pose a problem for God.
Perhaps not a problem for a god, but a problem for the mortals that wrote the book? If they're living to these unheard of ages and recording data that's over one-hundred years old at the time, isn't it fair to say that there's a chance that the new test isn't true?

Not to mention, nearly everyone were drunks back then...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
James
Member Avatar
Intermediate DIY'er
[ *  *  * ]
TBH, i'm not religious and I think the concept of any God is quite unreal. The Bible itself aint valid, but some of its lessons are.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Blackt3ars
Member Avatar
Confession and Gfx guardian
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Well, any well written book can contain hidden truths.

I don't think the bible is valid as a book to be taken literally. It's more of bundle of tales. Do note, saying it's that, doesn't make it less important, because I've learned more about myself and life by reading fiction novels, and non-fiction.
The bible is great for learning stuff, however, it's not a history book. Anyone who considers it a history book with only facts in it, is a rather strong fanatic in my eyes, and I usually try not to take these people very serious when discussing religion. (hope I haven't offended you, Yow)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yowming41
Member Avatar
Advanced DIY'er
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Don't water down your opinions for my sake, Black. It'd be a dull life without any debate going on. (I might not believe myself if everyone smiled and said "That's right!' whenever I spoke...or typed ;) ).

Most people know that I am a Christian, so I do believe the Bible is true, and basically taken literally. That is, for example, I don't think there actually was the son who returned to his father and such, but I do believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale, ect. The Parables are the main 'not-literal' things in the Bible, I think. And I do think you can get historical information from it, (guess I'm a fanatic now) however, there is probably some distortion over the years, I've heard debates on which Bibles to use due to some of them mis-translating the original text.

Doggy, I find it hard to believe that 'everyone was drunk back then.' And what do you mean by 'the new test'? Like I said, I don't think God has a problem with that, and I think it is in his power to do anything. He doesn't just operate by miracles and lightning bolts. You could look at his handiwork and call it manmade, sometimes. A debatable thing.
Edited by Yowming41, Jun 5 2009, 10:37 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack Sam1
Member Avatar
DIY's Master Runecrafter. 96/99. DIY Editor
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I think it was an abbreviation for the new testament. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yowming41
Member Avatar
Advanced DIY'er
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Well then, I can see how you might wonder if the Bible is true if it was written many years after the events occured. But how do we remember things that happened 100 years ago? There's more than one document about, say, what happened in World War 1, isn't there? The Bible could have gotten information from previously recorded sources- but I'm not a historian, so I really don't know.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eddie
Member Avatar
Paranormal DIY'er
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Yowming41
Jun 5 2009, 10:35 PM
Don't water down your opinions for my sake, Black. It'd be a dull life without any debate going on. (I might not believe myself if everyone smiled and said "That's right!' whenever I spoke...or typed ;) ).

Most people know that I am a Christian, so I do believe the Bible is true, and basically taken literally. That is, for example, I don't think there actually was the son who returned to his father and such, but I do believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale, ect. The Parables are the main 'not-literal' things in the Bible, I think. And I do think you can get historical information from it, (guess I'm a fanatic now) however, there is probably some distortion over the years, I've heard debates on which Bibles to use due to some of them mis-translating the original text.

Doggy, I find it hard to believe that 'everyone was drunk back then.' And what do you mean by 'the new test'? Like I said, I don't think God has a problem with that, and I think it is in his power to do anything. He doesn't just operate by miracles and lightning bolts. You could look at his handiwork and call it manmade, sometimes. A debatable thing.
People were drunks. First off, at every single event, people drank until they either passed out or were too drunk to do anything else. It's recorded in the bible that people got so drunk that they didn't know how the alcohol tasted toward the middle of the party in the story where Jesus changed water into wine.

Additionally, they are stories where women get their fathers drunk to the point where they can have sex with him and get pregnant. People in the bible getting drunk enough to have sex with their daughters? Errrrr, that's pretty drunk to me.

Your comparison to WW1 doesn't really make sense. There where millions of people that knew about WW1, and maybe only a couple hundred (if the bible is correct) at the time that knew about Jesus. What's easier to morph?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack Sam1
Member Avatar
DIY's Master Runecrafter. 96/99. DIY Editor
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I actually think people drunk a lot in those times because the alcohol content sterilised the drink, making it safe to drink. So, water would have been dangerous to drink. :P At least, I think that's true...O.o
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Z Dumbledore
Member Avatar
Intermediate DIY'er
[ *  *  * ]
Eddie
Jun 6 2009, 04:08 PM
Yowming41
Jun 5 2009, 10:35 PM
Don't water down your opinions for my sake, Black. It'd be a dull life without any debate going on. (I might not believe myself if everyone smiled and said "That's right!' whenever I spoke...or typed ;) ).

Most people know that I am a Christian, so I do believe the Bible is true, and basically taken literally. That is, for example, I don't think there actually was the son who returned to his father and such, but I do believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale, ect. The Parables are the main 'not-literal' things in the Bible, I think. And I do think you can get historical information from it, (guess I'm a fanatic now) however, there is probably some distortion over the years, I've heard debates on which Bibles to use due to some of them mis-translating the original text.

Doggy, I find it hard to believe that 'everyone was drunk back then.' And what do you mean by 'the new test'? Like I said, I don't think God has a problem with that, and I think it is in his power to do anything. He doesn't just operate by miracles and lightning bolts. You could look at his handiwork and call it manmade, sometimes. A debatable thing.
People were drunks. First off, at every single event, people drank until they either passed out or were too drunk to do anything else. It's recorded in the bible that people got so drunk that they didn't know how the alcohol tasted toward the middle of the party in the story where Jesus changed water into wine.

Additionally, they are stories where women get their fathers drunk to the point where they can have sex with him and get pregnant. People in the bible getting drunk enough to have sex with their daughters? Errrrr, that's pretty drunk to me.

Your comparison to WW1 doesn't really make sense. There where millions of people that knew about WW1, and maybe only a couple hundred (if the bible is correct) at the time that knew about Jesus. What's easier to morph?
And also written history from that time wasn't really good...

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yowming41
Member Avatar
Advanced DIY'er
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Jesus was a very controversial man of his time. I think plenty of people would have heard about him. Not to mention his impact after he died and the Christian Church was started. How do we know other things of that time period, or before, were true, if history wasn't recorded well? Some people deny the Holocaust happened. That doesn't change my opinion that it did.

Also, I found this online. It brings up some interesting points.

Why We Should Trust the Gospel Witnesses

I. The disciples had little motivation to lie.

A. Not only was it contrary to their strict morality, it would gain them nothing.

B. Being a Christian back then was a ticket to ridicule and persecution. They were promised the same fate as their Master (Matt. 10:23-25).

C. Every apostle except John (who probably died a natural death) was killed because of his belief in Jesus. In other words, they signed their testimony in blood.

II. In a court of law these writers would qualify as the very best of witnesses.

A. In court, the testimony of a witness can be impeached by one of five lines of attack:

1. By proving that the witness, on a previous occasion, has made statements inconsistent with his present testimony.

2. By demonstrating bias in the witness.

3. By attacking the character of the witness.

4. By questioning the capacity in the witness to observe, remember, or recount the matters testified about.

5. By proving through other witnesses that material facts are otherwise than as testified.

B. The testimony of these men is not vulnerable to any of these charges:

1. There is no conflicting or inconsistent testimony.

a. There is no evidence that the Gospel writers claimed at a previous time that the events in question never happened.

b. Instead, they began proclaiming the salient facts from the outset and those facts didn't change.

2. The issue of bias and self-interest strengthens the credibility of the witnesses' testimony rather than weakens it.

a. The lives of the witnesses to Jesus Christ were continually in peril. In many cases the early Christians were driven underground into hiding, yet they clung fervently to their testimony, affirming the teachings of Jesus and His resurrection from the dead.

b. For this testimony they were crucified en mass, fed to the lions, sacrificed by Roman gladiators, beheaded or made into human torches.

c. One simple thing would have saved them this torment: recanting their testimony. These witnesses did exactly the opposite of what self-interest would dictate.

3. There is no evidence to impugn the witnesses' character, indicating that they might be lying.

Not only was it totally inconsistent with the moral standard they professed and lived by, but also there was no motivation to fabricate.

4. The unique nature of the events and the nature of the testimony lend themselves to accurate observation and recall.

a. Their is no direct evidence that the witnesses' capacity to observe was distorted.

b. The accounts are clear and lucid, giving an abundance of detail.

c. The accounts read like the testimony of one intimately acquainted with the facts of the issue, someone who was personally involved with the process, who was proximal to the events in question, and who had repeated opportunity to observe those events.

d. Matthew and John personally made visual identification of the risen Christ, an individual they had spent more than three years with in intimate, personal contact.

5. John and Matthew corroborate each other and are supported by other extraneous evidence.

a. Disproving the facts of the first witness is generally accomplished using the testimony of a second witness. When we compare the testimony of the eyewitnesses John and Matthew, however, we find that their accounts mesh.

b. Their accounts also coincide with the historical summaries given by Luke, the companion of Paul, and Mark, the Apostle Peter's companion.

c. Since each one's experience with Jesus was not the same, there are some differences, as you'd expect.

1) There is sufficient unanimity between the witnesses to demonstrate corroboration.

2) But there is sufficient variation in details and viewpoints in the accounts to eliminate the charge of collaboration.
Edited by Yowming41, Jun 7 2009, 02:00 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eddie
Member Avatar
Paranormal DIY'er
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Yowming41
Jun 7 2009, 01:39 PM
Jesus was a very controversial man of his time. I think plenty of people would have heard about him. Not to mention his impact after he died and the Christian Church was started. How do we know other things of that time period, or before, were true, if history wasn't recorded well? Some people deny the Holocaust happened. That doesn't change my opinion that it did.

Also, I found this online. It brings up some interesting points.

Why We Should Trust the Gospel Witnesses

I. The disciples had little motivation to lie.

A. Not only was it contrary to their strict morality, it would gain them nothing.

B. Being a Christian back then was a ticket to ridicule and persecution. They were promised the same fate as their Master (Matt. 10:23-25).

C. Every apostle except John (who probably died a natural death) was killed because of his belief in Jesus. In other words, they signed their testimony in blood.

II. In a court of law these writers would qualify as the very best of witnesses.

A. In court, the testimony of a witness can be impeached by one of five lines of attack:

1. By proving that the witness, on a previous occasion, has made statements inconsistent with his present testimony.

2. By demonstrating bias in the witness.

3. By attacking the character of the witness.

4. By questioning the capacity in the witness to observe, remember, or recount the matters testified about.

5. By proving through other witnesses that material facts are otherwise than as testified.

B. The testimony of these men is not vulnerable to any of these charges:

1. There is no conflicting or inconsistent testimony.

a. There is no evidence that the Gospel writers claimed at a previous time that the events in question never happened.

b. Instead, they began proclaiming the salient facts from the outset and those facts didn't change.

2. The issue of bias and self-interest strengthens the credibility of the witnesses' testimony rather than weakens it.

a. The lives of the witnesses to Jesus Christ were continually in peril. In many cases the early Christians were driven underground into hiding, yet they clung fervently to their testimony, affirming the teachings of Jesus and His resurrection from the dead.

b. For this testimony they were crucified en mass, fed to the lions, sacrificed by Roman gladiators, beheaded or made into human torches.

c. One simple thing would have saved them this torment: recanting their testimony. These witnesses did exactly the opposite of what self-interest would dictate.

3. There is no evidence to impugn the witnesses' character, indicating that they might be lying.

Not only was it totally inconsistent with the moral standard they professed and lived by, but also there was no motivation to fabricate.

4. The unique nature of the events and the nature of the testimony lend themselves to accurate observation and recall.

a. Their is no direct evidence that the witnesses' capacity to observe was distorted.

b. The accounts are clear and lucid, giving an abundance of detail.

c. The accounts read like the testimony of one intimately acquainted with the facts of the issue, someone who was personally involved with the process, who was proximal to the events in question, and who had repeated opportunity to observe those events.

d. Matthew and John personally made visual identification of the risen Christ, an individual they had spent more than three years with in intimate, personal contact.

5. John and Matthew corroborate each other and are supported by other extraneous evidence.

a. Disproving the facts of the first witness is generally accomplished using the testimony of a second witness. When we compare the testimony of the eyewitnesses John and Matthew, however, we find that their accounts mesh.

b. Their accounts also coincide with the historical summaries given by Luke, the companion of Paul, and Mark, the Apostle Peter's companion.

c. Since each one's experience with Jesus was not the same, there are some differences, as you'd expect.

1) There is sufficient unanimity between the witnesses to demonstrate corroboration.

2) But there is sufficient variation in details and viewpoints in the accounts to eliminate the charge of collaboration.
You're forgetting that we have pictures, video, and people alive who suffered through the Holocaust disaster. It's an invalid comparison.

To be completely honest, how can we be sure that the bible wasn't created just to induce slavery and the story of the disciples was just completely made up? There is no way to know if Jesus was ever here, nor any of those people that lived an abnormally long life. That yields the question, why would a bible be created? The answer's pretty consistent anyway you look at it, the reason most religion was created to answer questions or to control people.

If a slave thinks that after they die if they live a good life and obey their master, they'll go to heaven and be rewarded, they'll do all required work. If they think that they will just die after death, then why listen to their master and live a horrible, pointless life?

It really doesn't make sense. You're saying that you know exactly what these people who were supposed to be on earth 2000 years ago did and how they died.

If they were really that detailed, couldn't it be made up? These people were questioned of the events sometimes up to 50 years after, there SHOULD be inconsistency! Look for example how the two Our Father prayers in the bible are different, they weren't properly recorded. Not to mention, given the excessive drinking of most people back then, their memory could of became disordered. All of this is assuming that they were actually questioned of these events.

Finally, how can you prove that the bible wasn't heavily altered as time went on? There have been stories that Kings and leaders have removed sections of the bible and hidden them because they state information deemed harmful for their people to know or could just be blatant inconsistencies.

How many times was this book translated? You lose so much in translation due to the inability to say certain things in a different language. For example, the word laptop and cellphone are translated to portable in French. In a book, it states "J'ai un portable" meaning I have a cellphone or laptop. Now, an English translator will have to guess if he can't find what the word is exactly in context, translating it as "I have a laptop" when it really may mean "I have a cellphone." That's just going from one language to another, try jumping over a couple hundred! The sentence could become something completely different.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yowming41
Member Avatar
Advanced DIY'er
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
You make a good point about the Holocaust comparison.

When you look at the top of my previous post's quote, you find the reasons why the disciples probably didn't just make up their story. Why would they knowingly risk brutal torture and/or death just to 'control people' or 'answer questions'?

And the Bible says nothing at all about slaves, or anyone, going to Heaven by being 'good' or doing good things. You will never find that in the Bible. Obeying your master and doing good deeds will not get you to Heaven.

I assume you've studied at least something about ancient civilizations in whatever History classes you've had. How do you know, for example, who Julius Ceasar was, when he lived, how he died, what he did? You don't find it odd that we know those things about someone from about 2000 years ago, do you? You only question Jesus and the disciples.

The American Revolution was detailed, but it certainly wasn't made up. I know they aren't the same thing, but it's not a crime to remember how something happened. And how do you know this stuff about the disciples being 'questioned'? I don't think the Bible came to be by random people questioning the disciples and writing down what they said. Maybe the disciples already wrote down things.

First, you try to disprove the Bible of 2000 years ago, then you act like THAT one was true but now, because of actions by Kings and translations, the current Bible is full of lies and the first Bible was not. Do you believe the disciples were telling the truth? Why does it matter if the story was changed if you think it was lies in the first place, hmm?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Blackt3ars
Member Avatar
Confession and Gfx guardian
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
I assume you've studied at least something about ancient civilizations in whatever History classes you've had. How do you know, for example, who Julius Ceasar was, when he lived, how he died, what he did? You don't find it odd that we know those things about someone from about 2000 years ago, do you? You only question Jesus and the disciples.


Well, the difference between Ceasar and Christ is the fact that Ceasar had most of his life and wars written down, ad did a lot of our noble Romans. Unlike Jesus, whose life was only recorded like what, 50 years after his ascension? Now I'm not saying there's something wrong with that, because seeing a man heal the sick and wounded would have made quite an impact on a person, even today.

As most people already know, the four gospels in the Bible are not the only ones describing Jesus' life. During the council of Nicea, in 325ad, it was decided by the emperor Constantine, and several high placed Christians, what was to become the Bible. There were several gospels left out for reasons we can only guess.

This is what opposes me towards believing the Bible. It's not as much a collection of works describing the life of Christ, it's a selection of works. Certain sources were left out. This I oppose.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yowming41
Member Avatar
Advanced DIY'er
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
It would make sense to be wary of something that might have been selectively written, however, how can you prove that the 'selective works' are not true? I could find 3 stories about World War 1, look at them, cut one out and publish the other two. This doesn't make the other two false, does it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Saj_61
Member Avatar
Intermediate DIY'er
[ *  *  * ]
Yowming41
Jun 13 2009, 02:34 PM
It would make sense to be wary of something that might have been selectively written, however, how can you prove that the 'selective works' are not true? I could find 3 stories about World War 1, look at them, cut one out and publish the other two. This doesn't make the other two false, does it?
No it doenst. However people would question whether they are true if one was left out (Your senario assumes that they are the only 3 sources). I took History and how you help decide how reliable a source is you look at who wrote it and what year it was written. If a source is written by someone who likes Jesus then they are most likely going to only write good stuff about Jesus and if it is written by someone who dislikes Jesus then they are most likely going to only write bad stuff. If the bible was put together by someone who likes Jesus then they are only going to use things that say good stuff about Jesus this makes the bible then become very unreliable. Also if an event happened in 30AD and was written in 90AD by a person remembering the past then that source is also very unreliable.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Blackt3ars
Member Avatar
Confession and Gfx guardian
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Well, the problem I have with the Bible is exactly what Saj states. Unlike the stories written about WW1, the New Testament isn't exactly objective. Now of course, since I'm not an historian, I don't know everything about the case, however, I do know that the Emperor Constantine picked the Gospels based on how they described Jesus. From what I understand, is that every Gospel depicting Jesus as being too human was dismissed. Only the Gospels in which he can truely be described as godly were selected.
For example, I believe in the Gospel of Judas, Jesus is told to be laughing, something which he doesn't do in any of the canonical Gospels.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Debates · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Theme Created by Chort27 of NGL