Is the Bible 100% truth?

[matt.m]

I am with Shesulsa in respect of the "It all applies, or it doesn't apply at all". I believe it all applies, just for the sake of argument.

 

[heretic888]

I'll address the rest later, but something John said immediately piqued my interest. . .

For instance: Why does Revelation not point to end times but to the Roman Empire??

The Revelation of John was an apocalypse. The author believed the "end times" was imminent and that it would be marked by the destruction of the Roman Empire and the subsequent rise of Israel as an independent nation. This was a common literary theme in religious writings at the time.

As to why the author held this position, there are little interesting internal markers such as. . .

If you take the Greek for "Caesar Nero" and transliterate it back into Hebrew, the sum of the values for the letters in Hebrew numerology equals 666.

The "beast" which the author refers to was Nero. He probably believed that the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple (circa 70 CE) marked the "end times".

Laterz.

 

[Brother John]

The Revelation of John was an apocalypse.

That's what Revelation means, if I'm not mistaken. One is Greek the other derived from Latin

The author believed the "end times" was imminent and that it would be marked by the destruction of the Roman Empire and the subsequent rise of Israel as an independent nation. [QUOTE]Could you please site the verses that indicate this? Seems you are telling us what John DID believe, instead of your interpretation or conjecture...so I'm sure you've got sources to site.[/QUOTE]This was a common literary theme in religious writings at the time.[QUOTE]such as...[/QUOTE]

As to why the author held this position, there are little interesting internal markers such as. . .

If you take the Greek for "Caesar Nero" and transliterate it back into Hebrew, the sum of the values for the letters in Hebrew numerology equals 666.

The "beast" which the author refers to was Nero. He probably believed that the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple marked the "end times".

Given your usual degree of scepticism it seems odd to me that you claim that John included a puzzle-clue into the words he wrote using Kabbalistic Gematria. It's hardly solid apologetical ground to stand on when making your case for what an author "Did" think or intend. If you've ever studied or looked into Hebrew Gematria you can transliterate LOTS of words and make them equal "666" or your zip-code, date of birth, license plate...etc. Even Kabbalists will tell you it's not a sure sign and not a hill to die on.

Thus far you've mostly offered conjecture.
I do look forward to you unfolding your other postulates for us though.

Your Brother
John

 

[heretic888]

Given your usual degree of scepticism it seems odd to me that you claim that John included a puzzle-clue into the words he wrote using Kabbalistic Gematria. It's hardly solid apologetical ground to stand on when making your case for what an author "Did" think or intend. If you've ever studied or looked into Hebrew Gematria you can transliterate LOTS of words and make them equal "666" or your zip-code, date of birth, license plate...etc. Even Kabbalists will tell you it's not a sure sign and not a hill to die on.

Except that, when Caesar Nero is translated back into Latin, the numerical value is 616. Lo and behold, 616 is the number of the "beast" in the Latin vulgate, as well, not 666.

Also, Hebrew numerology is only associated with Kabblah in the modern mind. At the time of the authoring of Revelation, numerology was a common speculation among many writers (both Jewish and Greek). So was astrology, for that matter.

Furthermore, you can simply look at how later Christian writers treated the Revelation of John. They either denied it (as in the case of Eusebius) or simply reinterpreted the text to "explain" why the End Times hadn't happened yet.

Laterz.

 

[Brother John]

Except that, when Caesar Nero is translated back into Latin, the numerical value is 616. Lo and behold, 616 is the number of the "beast" in the Latin vulgate, as well, not 666.

Also, Hebrew numerology is only associated with Kabblah in the modern mind. At the time of the authoring of Revelation, numerology was a common speculation among many writers (both Jewish and Greek). So was astrology, for that matter.

Furthermore, you can simply look at how later Christian writers treated the Revelation of John. They either denied it (as in the case of Eusebius) or simply reinterpreted the text to "explain" why the End Times hadn't happened yet.

Agreed.
The translating back into Latin is interesting, but you'd also be translting the numerical system too.... so of course the number of the beast And the gematria for Nero remains the same. It's equivalent.

PLEASE NOTE: I'm not really disagreeing with Anything you're saying. I also believe that John was refering to the fall of Rome and Rise of Israel. I also don't look down on the use of Gematria, just didn't think it'd be a tool in your arsenal.
Good for you....

Your Brother
John

 

[Flamebearer]

First, I must apologize for the delayed reply.

Second, I must say that I find it incredibly presumptuous of heretic888 to simply brush off the statements of respected scholars as biased opinions. For example: Dr. Metzger, whom I've been quoting, holds a masters and doctrate from Princeton University, as well as five other honorary doctorates. He's the author of over fifty books on the text of the New Testament and has been the chairman or president of more than five Biblical Literature committees or societies. I doubt if heretic888 has spent over forty-six years teaching the New Testament - and Metzger is just one example of the experts who defend the veracity of the Bible.

John Dominic Crossan, on the other hand, is a member of the Jesus Seminar, which likes to protray its work as mainstream scholarship (but tends to bypass such details as peer review). In reality, he represents an extremely small fraction of New Testament scholars who make a disproportionate amount of noise.

Most of those who study Christ believe that there is some value, some truth, in the study, just as those who study science believe that there is value in it. Here's some food for thought: Why would anyone who believes that Jesus Christ is a fraud desire to study Him? The answer: to prove Him, once and for all, wrong. I find it quite interesting that those who have gone into this search ready to have their assumptions challenged, and possibly changed, have come to the conclusion that the Bible is true. A case in point: Lee Strobel, an investigative journalist for the Chicago Tribune. His book, The Case for Christ, chronicles his search as he put the evidence for the life of Jesus through a courtroom-style investigation. (Very good reading, by the way. I thoroughly recommend it.)

Yes, I do indeed make assumptions about reality, as does everyone and everything else, even "good" science. Science makes the basic assumption that natural phenomena can be explained in a logical fashion; that effects have causes, and that there are natural laws which must be found. Those who claim that the Bible is not true, or that Christianity is false, assume that the God of the Bible does not exist. Therefore, it cannot possibly be the Word of God. I think that's one of the reasons Christianity is so controversial: it challenges basic assumptions. Instead of saying that man is God, it says that God made man and desires that they acknowledge Him.

I also realize that saying that there is evidence doesn't make it so - but it works the other way, too. Denying that there is evidence doesn't mean that there is no evidence. We're at a bit of an impasse on this. And let not the generally black pot call the kettle generally black.

One of the facts that persists is the very existence of the church today. Let me explain: Christians have had enemies from the very beginning. It didn't start with the Romans, but with the leaders of Judaism. It makes sense. Jesus' followers claimed that he was God - a blasphemous statement and the worst crime imaginable. Naturally, those leaders who didn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah got riled and tried to stamp out the movement. Simply producing the body of Jesus, or proving that his disciples had stolen it, would have proven wrong the claim that He had risen from the dead. This being a central belief of the church, it would have fallen apart right there. The problem is, they couldn't. Even though this particular opposition was the closest, time-wise, to the alleged events of Christ's life, they couldn't produce contrary evidence.

Finally, I think I should explain my reasons for engaging in this discussion. I'm not trying to win an argument. If a person is not willing to reconsider their assumptions, argument is pointless. I am writing so that readers courageous enough to have their assumptions challenged may see some of my viewpoint. I encourage them to not take for granted anything I or anyone else may say (after all, this is the Internet). Get some reliable sources and check it out for yourself! The book I mentioned is a good starting place, but definitely not the only one.

-Flamebearer

 

[heretic888]

. . . I must say that I find it incredibly presumptuous of heretic888 to simply brush off the statements of respected scholars as biased opinions. For example: Dr. Metzger, whom I've been quoting, holds a masters and doctrate from Princeton University, as well as five other honorary doctorates. He's the author of over fifty books on the text of the New Testament and has been the chairman or president of more than five Biblical Literature committees or societies. I doubt if heretic888 has spent over forty-six years teaching the New Testament - and Metzger is just one example of the experts who defend the veracity of the Bible.

I don't care how many degrees or how much "authority" he has, an apologist is an apologist.

When someone makes claims such as "they just intuitively felt it was the word of God" or appeals to received tradition and authority, then no serious critic is to take such claims seriously. This, as is so common in Biblical scholarship, is theology masquerading as history. Plain and simple.

I mean, how exactly can you falsify the claim that the Bible intuitively "feels" like the Word of God, that it "resonates" with all "true believers"?? Such claims cannot be falsified, precisely because they are faith assertions. This is evangelism, not science.

I'm sure he has done a great deal of research into the subject and has acquired useful data in regards to the field, but his pre-formed theological commitments "color" any interpretation or analysis of this information. This is epidemic among apologist scholars.

This is also why the author of the article I linked earlier in this thread compared having a doctorate in theology to having a doctorate in Star Trek. The entire field is a complete joke by scientific standards (including the standards of other historical fields).

John Dominic Crossan, on the other hand, is a member of the Jesus Seminar, which likes to protray its work as mainstream scholarship (but tends to bypass such details as peer review). In reality, he represents an extremely small fraction of New Testament scholars who make a disproportionate amount of noise.

Most of those who study Christ believe that there is some value, some truth, in the study, just as those who study science believe that there is value in it.

Which is exactly why the field is something of a running joke to other academics. There is no accepted standards of methodology or peer review, the discipline is really pre-paradigmatic in nature. The standard everyone appeals to is intuitionism (it just feels true), which is why Biblical scholarship is really just a platform for theology, not history or sociology.

This is also the case for the "Jesus Seminar". The entire criteria, the standard, for what Jesus did or did not "probably say" was intuitionism among the scholars. Whether conservative or liberal scholarship is invoked here, it's all a big joke in the field.

Robert Price pointed this out quite clearly in his Deconstructing Jesus, in which he argues that most (if not all) "Historical Jesus scholarship" is really just a medium for promoting one's Christology. The "Historical Jesus" the scholar inevitably finds always looks amazingly similar to the beliefs of that scholar himself.

Here's some food for thought: Why would anyone who believes that Jesus Christ is a fraud desire to study Him? The answer: to prove Him, once and for all, wrong. I find it quite interesting that those who have gone into this search ready to have their assumptions challenged, and possibly changed, have come to the conclusion that the Bible is true.

You mean like Robert Price, John Shelby Spong, Burton Mack, or Marcus Borg??

A case in point: Lee Strobel, an investigative journalist for the Chicago Tribune. His book, The Case for Christ, chronicles his search as he put the evidence for the life of Jesus through a courtroom-style investigation. (Very good reading, by the way. I thoroughly recommend it.)

I wouldn't. It's more apologetic nonsense.

I would recommend Burton Mack's Who Wrote the New Testament? for a fairly reasonable account of how the Christian canon developed.

Those who claim that the Bible is not true, or that Christianity is false, assume that the God of the Bible does not exist. Therefore, it cannot possibly be the Word of God. I think that's one of the reasons Christianity is so controversial: it challenges basic assumptions. Instead of saying that man is God, it says that God made man and desires that they acknowledge Him.

If you want to deal in Straw Man non-sequiters, sure.

That there are geographical errors in Mark and John really has nothing to do with the existence of "God", and bringing it into the discussion just shows we're not dealing in science but evangelism. Just one more reason why I hold the field to be a running joke in historical circles.

I also realize that saying that there is evidence doesn't make it so - but it works the other way, too. Denying that there is evidence doesn't mean that there is no evidence. We're at a bit of an impasse on this. And let not the generally black pot call the kettle generally black.

The problem here is that there are points where there should be evidence. That there is no convincing evidence for, say, a World Flood or a Davidic "Empire" or a mass "Exodus" from Egypt is extremely telling.

One of the facts that persists is the very existence of the church today. Let me explain: Christians have had enemies from the very beginning. It didn't start with the Romans, but with the leaders of Judaism. It makes sense. Jesus' followers claimed that he was God - a blasphemous statement and the worst crime imaginable. Naturally, those leaders who didn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah got riled and tried to stamp out the movement. Simply producing the body of Jesus, or proving that his disciples had stolen it, would have proven wrong the claim that He had risen from the dead. This being a central belief of the church, it would have fallen apart right there. The problem is, they couldn't. Even though this particular opposition was the closest, time-wise, to the alleged events of Christ's life, they couldn't produce contrary evidence.

If you believe unfalsifiable Church propaganda, sure, but when asked for actual evidence for any of that, such arguments simply fall apart.

For example, Christians aren't even mentioned by any external historical sources until the early second century (if you ignore the obvious forgeries in Josephus). Again, very telling.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Agreed.
The translating back into Latin is interesting, but you'd also be translting the numerical system too.... so of course the number of the beast And the gematria for Nero remains the same. It's equivalent.

Which just shows that there is nothing special about the number itself, but to its symbolism (as a veiled reference to the "beast", Emperor Nero).

If the number had some intrinsic prophetic value, then it wouldn't change when you translate the text into different languages.

PLEASE NOTE: I'm not really disagreeing with Anything you're saying. I also believe that John was refering to the fall of Rome and Rise of Israel. I also don't look down on the use of Gematria, just didn't think it'd be a tool in your arsenal.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in any "magical" power of things like numerology or astrology. That's superstitious animism, if you ask me.

However, I think it is important to take into account how the ancient minds that authored these texts would have seen the world. They most likely did believe in numerology and astrology, at least for symbolic purposes. It is important to try to approximate the proper context when evaluating ancient texts.

Which is why I find the modern religious interpretations of such texts to be something of a joke. This is clearly a case of historical revionism.

Laterz.

 

[Karateguy4000]

OH MY.. Yes the bible is 100% ture. Jesus has said in his word im the way the turth and the light no man comes to the father but by me.

That is all i got to say is the bible is ture

Dwaynr

 

[Ray]

However, I think it is important to take into account how the ancient minds that authored these texts would have seen the world.

You aren't making the supposition that mankind was less intelligent 2,000 to 5,000 years ago are you? You're just saying that ancient people just hadn't come to our level of sophistication, right?

It is important to try to approximate the proper context when evaluating ancient texts.

Which is why I find the modern religious interpretations of such texts to be something of a joke. This is clearly a case of historical revionism.

I'm left speechless by those two comments.

 

[Kenpsy7]

Yes the Bible is 100% true. What most scoffers and unbelievers tend to overlook in their observations is that God is God. He is soverign, regardless of how we feel about it. He has providentially written and preserved the Bible. It is Gods providence that has kept the bible intact today, despite all of the attacks on it and subtle attempts to undermine its authority as Gods authoratative word. Lets suppose that Jesus was the only begotten son of God (and he is) as the bible plainly states. Lets further suppose that God allowed his only begotten Son to be falsely accused, mocked, beaten, scourged, striped naked, and crucufied before the eyes of sinful men, all to pay the debt that those same men and ladies owed for their sinful lives (and He did). Then God would be a fool( which he is not), or not much of a God (he is the creator of all things) if he allowed the record of His only begotten Sons death burial and ressurrection (the Gospel) to be lost or somehow perverted. What good would it do us (as sinners in need of a savior) if the record of how we are to be saved (Born Again) was not accurate. Yes, the bible has been preserved down through the ages by an all powerful God (the only true God) so that you and I can recieve forgivness for our sins(eternally) and avoid the lake of fire for all eternity. Now, wheather you are willing to repent (Turn from your sin to God) of your sins and recieve Gods free gift (Grace) of salvation through the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ is your own decision between you and your maker. It's like this, God wants you to be saved and go to heaven when you die, I'm reasonably confident that you would like to have all your sins forgiven and go to heaven when you die, the devil does not want you to be saved (The devil is going to be cast into the lake of fire in the future). To whom will you listen?? God has put his truth out in plain sight for all to see (the Bible). But you have free will. Choose Gods way, or your own. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

 

[heretic888]

You aren't making the supposition that mankind was less intelligent 2,000 to 5,000 years ago are you? You're just saying that ancient people just hadn't come to our level of sophistication, right?

No and no.

I'm left speechless by those two comments.

Um, okay.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Yes the Bible is 100% true. What most scoffers and unbelievers tend to overlook in their observations is that God is God. He is soverign, regardless of how we feel about it. He has providentially written and preserved the Bible. It is Gods providence that has kept the bible intact today, despite all of the attacks on it and subtle attempts to undermine its authority as Gods authoratative word.

Ah, the joys of circular logic.

One is reminded of the words of Stephen Colbert:

"Y'see, the thing is that the Bible is the Word of God and can't be wrong. How do we know the Bible is the Word of God?? Because the Bible says it's the Word of God. I mean, what part of my wheel of logic are you not getting on here??"

Lo and behold, friends. Lo and behold.

Laterz.

 

[Ray]

Ah, the joys of circular logic.

One is reminded of the words of Stephen Colbert:

"Y'see, the thing is that the Bible is the Word of God and can't be wrong. How do we know the Bible is the Word of God?? Because the Bible says it's the Word of God. I mean, what part of my wheel of logic are you not getting on here??"

Lo and behold, friends. Lo and behold.

In the post that you are responding to there is not one line that says (nor implies) the "circular reasoning" that you are ascribing to it.

Maybe for once, you could really use those logic skills that you claim to have: read, think and ponder what a person says before making responses that insult and belittle anyone who believes differently than you.

 

[John Brewer]

Jesus:

1. Liar
2. Lunatic
3. LORD

You decide!

 

[celtic_crippler]

The question is "Is the BIBLE 100% truth?" not "are the teachings of Jesus Christ 100% truth?".

I haven't seen anyone (unless I missed a post somewhere) bashing the teaching of Jesus Christ. Interestingly enough, no 'writings' of Jesus are actually contained in the current accepted version of the "bible." I've never heard anyone quote Jesus 3:16 before.

Many of the idealogies presented in the Bible are also evidient in the Tora(spelling?) and the Koran. They contain basic ethical teachings necessary for civilization to continue to exist and so that anarchy and chaos do not prevail.

Did you know it's the same God??? The God spoke of by Jews, Christians, and Muslims is the same guy. WHAT!?!?! It's true. History proves it. Jesus was a rabbi...actually one of thousands at the time believed to be a possible "messiah." Muhammed wrote that he fealt he was the last in a long line of prophets (including Jesus, Abraham, and Moses) to put God's word into writing. Centuries and differing opinions of powerful persons has blurred the line between these 3 religions to the point where most people think they are 3 distinct different one's with 3 distinct different "Gods." Man, that's probably gonna upset some peeps.....anyway....

That's my point. Man's influenced the teachings and writings of all these "religions" for centuries. Certain individuals have altered, ommitted, and edited the bible (and other religious text) for their own political gains. Do you honestly think or believe the bible exists today as it did in its original form?? It does not. Since the beginning of time, man has used 'religion' as a political tool to hold power over others. Just look at our own U.S. Constitution! It's only been a little over 200 years since it was written and look how many "leaders" have changed and perverted it. The U.S. hasn't been a "constitutional government" in almost 100 years!!!!! Putting that into perspective, the bible has been around a lot longer and has had more opportunities to be "screwed" with.

So...is the bible 100% truth? Based on the law of large numbers and the basic behaviors of man........probably not. Besides, when's the last time a bush caught on fire and started talking to you?

 

[elder999]

I'm not going to get into the whole mistranslation thing here-been there, done that-the "Bible" is full of errors, especially most of the English versions, most especially the totally excrable King James' Version.

I'm gonna quote Pilate, and ask, What is truth?

Then I'm going to point out the difference between a "fact" and "truth"
with this post way back in the beginning of all this.

The Bible is full of beauty and truth; it isn't entirely factual at all-in fact, there are large portions of it that were probably never meant to be taken as such.....

 

[KOROHO]

The Bible, as the word of God, is 100% truth.
The problems come from man's misunderstanding, mis-translating and in many cases outright manipulation of it.
But I firmly believe that even if you have one of the poorest translations, if you are tuly seeking the truth, then God will reveal that to you and guide you on your way.

 

[pstarr]

I think that the translations have been very accurate - but misinterpretations abound.

Sometimes people try to read things into it that aren't there. Some folks have a tough time with the concept of miracles.

Whatever.

 

[Carol]

I think that the translations have been very accurate - but misinterpretations abound.

Sometimes people try to read things into it that aren't there. Some folks have a tough time with the concept of miracles.

Whatever.

Shame. Miracles are cool. :ultracool