Is the Bible 100% truth?
- Thread starter shesulsa
- Start date
Brother John
Senior Master
Yes, I believe that the Bible is True.
Do I believe that every event explained in it actually happened? No. Many, but not all.
I believe that the story of creation relates, in allegory and through a veil, that God did create everything. Do I believe that it took 6 days? I believe that the meaning and depth contained in the Holy scriptures is deeper than that and that many things point to truths and put them forth in allegory and metaphor. Those things that are most important (such as the means of salvation, etc.) are pretty plain. I do believe that the majority of the things related in the Bible actually happened; but not all.
Does that make sense?
I don't believe that every single story (such as Job) is "Literal" but that doesn't keep it's message that it contains from being "True".
During the last two centuries (maybe 3) much of the impact of the old 'mystery religions' and their means of imparting truths, dissipated under the intolerance and 'literal' scrutiny of the fundamentalist movement. Mind you...I think that fundamentalism (Meaning a strong adherance to the foundational paradigm of a movement) is great! But what that fundamentalism became.........reaks of human ego and failure.
It's not the fault of God, or the scriptures.....but of humans that needed reassure themselves that they are CORRECT; so much so that they then had the burden of CORRECTING all who didn't believe as they did.
They lost sight of the first gift, after the gift of life, that God gave mankind...
free-will.
SO: I do believe that the Bible is "True", but I don't believe that all of the stories that it relates are real historical accounts.
does that make better sense?
Your Brother
John
Do I believe that every event explained in it actually happened? No. Many, but not all.
I believe that the story of creation relates, in allegory and through a veil, that God did create everything. Do I believe that it took 6 days? I believe that the meaning and depth contained in the Holy scriptures is deeper than that and that many things point to truths and put them forth in allegory and metaphor. Those things that are most important (such as the means of salvation, etc.) are pretty plain. I do believe that the majority of the things related in the Bible actually happened; but not all.
Does that make sense?
I don't believe that every single story (such as Job) is "Literal" but that doesn't keep it's message that it contains from being "True".
During the last two centuries (maybe 3) much of the impact of the old 'mystery religions' and their means of imparting truths, dissipated under the intolerance and 'literal' scrutiny of the fundamentalist movement. Mind you...I think that fundamentalism (Meaning a strong adherance to the foundational paradigm of a movement) is great! But what that fundamentalism became.........reaks of human ego and failure.
It's not the fault of God, or the scriptures.....but of humans that needed reassure themselves that they are CORRECT; so much so that they then had the burden of CORRECTING all who didn't believe as they did.
They lost sight of the first gift, after the gift of life, that God gave mankind...
free-will.
SO: I do believe that the Bible is "True", but I don't believe that all of the stories that it relates are real historical accounts.
does that make better sense?
Your Brother
John
hong kong fooey
Black Belt
The bible and it's truths depends on your faith . in christanity you belive thatr everything in the bible is true and you have faith in the bible. im not sure about the other religions though
heretic888
Senior Master
Brother John said:
Personally, I think "fundamentalism" and "literalism" simply correspond with certain levels of personal development. Please see my discussion of James Fowler's Faith-Development Theory.
In general, though, I would agree with the assessment that the Bible is (mostly) "true", albeit not factually accurate.
Laterz.
heretic888
Senior Master
Ray said:
This is basically akin to someone refusing to do geometry and therefore saying, "I see no evidence for the Pythagorean theorem. Somebody just made it up!"
To be perfectly blunt, Ray, your vision is not what's in question here so what you do and do not "see" is irrelevant. What is in question is the hypothesis of Markan Priority and the logic and evidence underlying it. You have yet to engage in a discussion of this data.
Your rebuttal is a non-argument. You have not provided any refutations to the logic or evidence that Markan Prioritists have advanced. Rather, as in your last post, all you have done is make Appeals To Belief: "I believe it, therefore it is true."
Of course, I'm sure such "arguments" sound great in Sunday school, but they ain't gonna cut the muster with somebody that is actually well-versed with the methodologies and scholarship in question.
You pipe about "true science" (whatever that's supposed to mean), but you are apparently clueless about the fact that all good science begins with methodology. Unless you can evince a methodological problem with Markan Priority (as opposed to an axiomatic problem), then your arguments are meaningless.
Laterz.
heretic888
Senior Master
hong kong fooey said:
That depends on your definition of "truths", really.
If you are referring to moral, allegorical, or spiritual "truths" (which is precisely the hierarchial order of sciptural exegesis in Jewish mysticism), then I'm inclined to agree with you. That largely does depend on one's faith context. Once again, I find myself quoting Pseudo-Dionysius:
"Don't suppose that the outward form of these contrived symbols exists for its own sake. It is a protective clothing, which prevents the common multitude from understanding the Ineffable and Invisible. Only real lovers of holiness know how to stop the workings of the childish imagination regarding the sacred symbols. They alone have the simplicity of mind and the receptive power of contemplation to cross over to the simple, marvellous, transcendent Truth the symbols represent."
However, if you are referring to the "truths" of empirical science and historical study (which, in my opinion, are more appropriately termed "facts"), then that is where cultural relativism falls apart. No historical person could have been physically born during the reign of Herod (who died in 4 BCE) and during the Quirinus census (in 6 CE), no matter what one's "faith" says about the text. The aforementioned points about Passover customs, as well, cannot be historically factual --- regardless of what one's faith, pastor, or church says about them.
This is not to say the text is therefore spiritually bankrupt, by no means at all. However, simply because a text is spiritually authentic does not mean it therefore assures historical accuracy.
All this means, of course, is that the Bible remains a source of inspiration and transformation to the believer --- but is utterly unreliable as a source of history. It is important to keep that in mind.
Laterz.
Brother John
Senior Master
hhhmmm.....I'd never thought about it like that. Good point about Fowler's theory.heretic888 said:
Personally I feel that most of those things that aren't 100% "Historically accurate" are contained in what Christianity would call "The Old Testament", whereas I feel that the "New Testament" ((with the exception of Revelation.....which is not meant to relate an historical event in the first place, but rather a 'vision')) IS "True" in a literal and 'spiritual' sense.
I suppose Iv'e said enough on this to make myself understood.
Thanks
Your Brother
John
heretic888
Senior Master
Brother John said:
Thanks.
Brother John said:
Given that I am skeptical of a Historical Jesus in the first place, I am inclined to disagree.
The truth is that (with the notable exception of the seven or so authentic Pauline epistles), the Old Testament probably contains more "history" than the New Testament. Texts like the Acts of the Apostles, 2 Thessalonians, and the "Pastoral Letters" are little more than 2nd century pseudipigraphica authored to advance orthodox propaganda. As for the Revelation of John, this is in all likelihood a Christian recension of a previously Jewish intertestamental text. The canonical Gospels themselves not only contradict one another, but are clearly non-factual on many points (such as when Jesus could have been born as well as the silliness of a full grown man being crucified by having his palms "nailed" horizontally outward).
I think some of the Pauline epistles might contain historically valid information, but almost everything else in the New Testament is pure myth and propaganda.
Laterz.
Brother John
Senior Master
OK.
to each their own.
I'm not here to argue, but to state what I think and feel about it.
Done that.
Have a good Memorial Day.
Your Brother
John
to each their own.
I'm not here to argue, but to state what I think and feel about it.
Done that.
Have a good Memorial Day.
Your Brother
John
heretic888
Senior Master
Brother John said:
Likewise.
Ray
Master Black Belt
The pythagorean theorem has probably more proofs than any other mathematical theorem. It's well proven.heretic888 said:
To be perfectly blunt, you've made an assertion; it's up to you to provide demonstrable evidence that supports your claim.heretic888 said:
That is completely false. I never I said "because I believe it, it is true." All i said was show some decent evidence that what you assert is true.heretic888 said:
That isn't sunday school and I never offered such an "argument."heretic888 said:
You, or someone, decided that the gospels were copied from one or more of the same sources. That is an assertion, now show some good evidence of it.heretic888 said:
heretic888
Senior Master
Ray said:
I provided you two links detailing the evidence and reasoning for Markan Priority and one link detailing the Old Testamental sources for Mark.
Your wave-of-the-hand trick isn't going to work here. Your refusal to engage the evidence that has been presented does not mean it does not exist. It just means, once again, that you are resting your assertions on appeals to faith and belief, not logic.
Laterz.
It would seem that many people don't have absolute faith in the Bible because of their assertion that it was written by people, and people can see different things in different ways.
Were that the case the Bible wouldn't have much more validity than any other book on theology or philosophy.
However, Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, that the authors of the Old Testament were "moved" (for want of a better term) by the Almighty to write as and what they did.
The argument about whether or not this is true goes on and on. What it comes down to is a matter of faith.
As for me and my house, we believe.
Were that the case the Bible wouldn't have much more validity than any other book on theology or philosophy.
However, Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, that the authors of the Old Testament were "moved" (for want of a better term) by the Almighty to write as and what they did.
The argument about whether or not this is true goes on and on. What it comes down to is a matter of faith.
As for me and my house, we believe.
heretic888
Senior Master
pstarr said:
I'm not sure if anyone on this thread has actually suggested the Bible lacks theological or spiritual validity, pstarr.
The issues that I (and a few others) have brought up revolve around specific historical and cultural claims derived from a literal reading of the New Testament (the Old Testament has its faults, too, but it's not my area of expertise). These are empirical issues, not philosophical ones.
No amount of "faith" is going to reconcile having a person born during the reign of Herod (who died in 4 BCE) and during the census of Quirinus (in 6 CE). Nor can "faith" reconcile having Pontius Pilate portrayed as a benevolent ruler reluctant to execute criminals. Nor can "faith" resolve the fact that if a man were crucified the way Jesus was supposed to have been, his palms would have been unable to support his body weight (meaning his hands would have simply ripped through the nails). Nor can can "faith" deal with the glaring errors made in the description of Jewish customs. Nor can "faith" overcome the computer and textual analyses that suggest only seven of the thirteen Pauline epistles are "authentic".
That doesn't impact the spiritual value of the text, in my opinion, but suggesting that the above issues are just a matter of "faith" is like suggesting the world being flat is just a matter of "faith". It's not.
Laterz.
Had the good fortune of fulfilling a dream a few years back...working on a project for NASA that flew on the Space Shuttle 
I've seen the earth from space, instrumentally speaking. Given that my laptop panel was 2 dimensional display, I can offer proof that not only is the world flat, but the sun also revolves around it.
Now, someone can say the earth is round until they are blue in the face. It still doesn't make my laptop panel show the earth in 3D. The instruments on the shuttle show that this is the earth. But, it is still flat on my screen.
I don't really think it says the earth is flat.
I think the limitations of the medium can make it look flat.
Does it bother me that the medium makes the earth look flat? No, because staying fixated on the limitations of the medium detracts from the reaon why it is there in the first place.
By comparison...my scriptures are...like seeing the earth from the Space Station. Newer, and in many ways, unrelated. But still not all that different.
Focusing too much on the limitations takes away the opporunity to see something precious. Focusing too much on differences takes away to share the wonder with another person that may be seeing the same thing...only through software written by a different person. It may have a slightly different user interface but the end result is staggeringly similar. And beautiful :asian:
Just my thoughts though.
I've seen the earth from space, instrumentally speaking. Given that my laptop panel was 2 dimensional display, I can offer proof that not only is the world flat, but the sun also revolves around it.
Now, someone can say the earth is round until they are blue in the face. It still doesn't make my laptop panel show the earth in 3D. The instruments on the shuttle show that this is the earth. But, it is still flat on my screen.
I don't really think it says the earth is flat.
I think the limitations of the medium can make it look flat.
Does it bother me that the medium makes the earth look flat? No, because staying fixated on the limitations of the medium detracts from the reaon why it is there in the first place.
By comparison...my scriptures are...like seeing the earth from the Space Station. Newer, and in many ways, unrelated. But still not all that different.
Focusing too much on the limitations takes away the opporunity to see something precious. Focusing too much on differences takes away to share the wonder with another person that may be seeing the same thing...only through software written by a different person. It may have a slightly different user interface but the end result is staggeringly similar. And beautiful :asian:
Just my thoughts though.
heretic888
Senior Master
Carol Kaur said:
I'm inclined to agree, Carol.
However, the issue at hand here revolves a literal reading and interpretation of the text. In my experience, this is by far the more common methodology in religious circle than, say, an ethical, allegorical, or mystical interpretation. By the way, that order of interpretation --- 1) literal or historical, 2) ethical or moral, 3) allegorical or metaphorical, and 4) spiritual or mystical --- is precisely the hierarchy of scriptural exegesis in traditional Jewish midrash and Muslim tawil. A similar methodology is also alluded to often in Paul's authentic letters (i.e., "letter" vs "spirit" or "psychic" vs "pneumatic").
The issue is that we live in a society where, for example, a large segment of the population believes the world was literally created in six days some 6,000 years ago for no other reason than "the Bible tells me so". And, of course, if you disagree with them on this (or anything else that they hold "comes from" the Bible), then you're going to burn in hell. For these people, there is no understanding of allegory and metaphor in the text, or a recognition of the socio-historical context of the text. The precepts that condemn homosexuality are not understood as a social construction of a patriarchal-agrarian society, but as "eternal truths" handed down by "God".
By any other name, this is literalism and fundamentalism. And this is why we have to deal with nonsense such as forcing creationism and intelligent design in our science classrooms, attempted constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, and the erecting of religious monuments (i.e., the Ten Commandments) on the property of federal courthouses. All of the aforementioned movements are derived precisely from an intolerant and very literal reading of the Biblical text.
The actual "spiritual" interpretation of the text that you are alluding to, of course, has very little to do with any of the "history" or "moral laws" that have been handed down in the Bible. The Christian mystics are very clear on the point that the "spiritual message" of Scipture is simply the Death and Resurrection. That there may not have been a Historical Jesus is irrelevant, since it is the mystical Christ that is being invoked here.
Paul repeatedly points out that the Death and Resurrection of the Christ is the Death and Resurrection of the Christian. They are one and the same. And neither have anything to do with something that may or may not have happened in history. In the work of those such as Pseudo-Dionysius, St. Bonaventure, or St. John of the Cross, this culminates in Divine Union with the ineffable Godhead, what is commonly referred to as apophatic mysticism.
To sum up, the "spirituality" of the Bible and the "history" of the Bible are two completely different levels of interpreation. One has little to do with the other.
Laterz.
The census which was conducted just prior to the birth of Jesus has not been firmly established, so far as I know. It doesn't look to me as thought Pontius Pilate is described as being reluctant to execute criminals (his wife had had a dream about this one, though and she expressed some concern about it).
It is generally agreed that the spikes were driven into Christ's wrist rather than his palms, although one scientist actually did find a method by which the could have been driven into the palms and still support the weight of the body.
And a good friend of mine who is Jewish (born and raised in Israel) sees no "glaring errors" in Jewish custom of the day as depicted in the New Testament. In fact, he and his rabbi spotted several interesting customs that we, as gentiles, generally miss.
It is generally agreed that the spikes were driven into Christ's wrist rather than his palms, although one scientist actually did find a method by which the could have been driven into the palms and still support the weight of the body.
And a good friend of mine who is Jewish (born and raised in Israel) sees no "glaring errors" in Jewish custom of the day as depicted in the New Testament. In fact, he and his rabbi spotted several interesting customs that we, as gentiles, generally miss.
heretic888
Senior Master
pstarr said:
Actually, the Gospel of Luke (NIV) says:
"In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinus was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register." (2:1-3)
Of course, there is absolutely no mention of Herod, the "slaughter of the innocents", the magi, or the escape to Egypt in Luke's account. As for Mark and John, they don't even talk about Jesus's birth and begin the story when he is an adult.
So, who should we believe?? Luke or Matthew?? If taken as historical accounts, only one of them can be right.
pstarr said:
He is reluctant to even punish Jesus (who was tried and convicted by the Sanhedrin court) and wants to let him go. The accounts are clearly designed to cast Pilate in a positive light and cast all the blame on "the Jews" (who release a convicted murderer, Jesus Barabbas, instead of Jesus Christ).
As ben Yehoshua pointed out, the entire depiction is historically absurd and reaks of anti-Semitism.
pstarr said:
Really? The author of the Gospel of John (NIV) would disagree with you:
"But he said to them, 'Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.'
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, 'Peace be with you!' Then he said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.'" (20:25-27)
I didn't see any mention of "wrists" there.
pstarr said:
Ah, the appeal to an anonymous authority. How convenient.
pstarr said:
Another appeal to anonymous authorities. Delightful.
Regardless of your friend's ethnicity and nationality (which have absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter), the Gospel authors do fudge up on first century Judean geography, customs, and historical facts quite a bit.
From The Myth of the Historical Jesus:
"The New Testament story confuses so many historical periods that there is no way of reconciling it with history. The traditional year of Jesus's birth is 1 C.E. Jesus was supposed to be not more than two years old when Herod ordered the slaughter of the innocents. However, Herod died before April 12, 4 B.C.E. This has led some Christians to redate the birth of Jesus in 6 - 4 B.C.E. However, Jesus was also supposed have been born during the census of Quirinius. This census took place after Archelaus was deposed in 6 C.E., ten years after Herod's death. Jesus was supposed to have been baptized by John soon after John had started baptizing and preaching in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias, i.e. 28-29 C.E., when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea i.e. 26-36 C.E. According to the New Testament, this also happened when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene and Annas and Caiaphas were high priests. But Lysanias ruled Abilene from c. 40 B.C.E until he was executed in 36 B.C.E by Mark Antony, about 60 years before the date for Tiberias and about 30 years before the supposed birth of Jesus! Also, there were never two joint high priests, in particular, Annas was not a joint high priest with Caiaphas. Annas was removed from the office of high priest in 15 C.E after holding office for some nine years. Caiaphas only became high priest in c. 18 C.E, about three years after Annas. (He held this office for about eighteen years, so his dates are consistent with Tiberias and Pontius Pilate, but not with Annas or Lysanias.) Although the book of Acts presents Yehuda of Galilee, Theudas and Jesus as three different people, it incorrectly places Theudas (crucified 44 C.E.) before Yehuda who it correctly mentions as being crucified during the census (6 C.E.). Many of these chronological absurdities seem to be based on misreadings and misunderstandings of Josephus's book Jewish Antiquities, which was used as reference by the author of Luke and Acts.
The story of Jesus's trial is also highly suspicious. It clearly tries to placate the Romans while defaming the Jews. The historical Pontius Pilate was arrogant and despotic. He hated the Jews and never delegated any authority to them. However, in Christian mythology, he is portrayed as a concerned ruler who distanced himself from the accusations against Jesus and who was coerced into obeying the demands of the Jews. According to Christian mythology, every Passover, the Jews would ask Pilate to free any one criminal they chose. This is of course a blatant lie. Jews never had a custom of freeing guilty criminals at Passover or any other time of the year. According the myth, Pilate gave the Jews the choice of freeing Jesus the Christ or a murderer named Jesus Barabbas. The Jews are alleged to have enthusiastically chosen Jesus Barabbas. This story is a vicious antisemitic lie, one of many such lies found in the New Testament (largely written by antisemites). What is particularly disgusting about this rubbish story is that it is apparently a distortion of an earlier story which claimed that the Jews demanded that Jesus Christ be set free. The name 'Barabbas' is simply the Greek form of the Aramaic 'bar Abba' which means 'son of the Father.' Thus 'Jesus Barabbas' originally meant 'Jesus the son of the Father,' in other words, the usual Christian Jesus. When the earlier story claimed that the Jews wanted Jesus Barabbas to be set free it was referring to the usual Jesus. Somebody distorted the story by claiming that Jesus Barabbas was a different person to Jesus Christ and this fooled the Roman and Greek Christians who did not know the meaning of the name 'Barabbas.'"
The author of the Gospel of Mark exhibits what I. Wilson (p. 36) calls "a lamentable ignorance of Palestinian geography":
"In the seventh chapter, for instance, Jesus is reported as going through Sidon on his way from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. Not only is Sidon in the opposite direction, but there was in fact no road from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the first century CE, only one from Tyre. Similarly the fifth chapter refers to the Sea of Galilee's eatern shore as the country of the Gerasenes, yet Gerasa, today Jerash, is more than thirty miles to the southeast, too far away for a story whose setting requires a nearby city with a steep slope down to the sea. Aside from geography, Mark represented Jesus as saying 'If a women divorces her husband and marries another she is guilty of adultery' (Mark 10:12), a precept which would have been meaningless in the Jewish world, where women had no rights of divorce."
According to C. Waite (History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred, 1992):
"There are also many errors [in the Gospel of John] in reference to the geography of the country. The author speaks of Aenon, near to Salim, in Judea; also of Bethany, beyond Jordan, and of a 'city of Samaria, called Sychar.' If there were any such places, they were strangely unknown to other writers. The learned Dr. Bretschneider points out such mistakes and errors of geography, chronology, history and statistics of Judea, as no person who had ever resides in that country, or had been by birth a Jew, could possibly have committed." (pp. 397-398)
In addition, B. Keeler (A Short History of the Bible, 1965) states:
"The Gospel of John says that Bethsaida was in Galilee. There is no such town in that district, and there never was. Bethsaida was on the east side of the sea of Tiberias, whereas Galilee was on the west side. St. John was born at Bethsaida, and the probability is that he would know the geographical location of his own birthplace." (p. 16)
Also please see the comments CanuckMA and I made concerning Passover earlier in the thread.
Laterz.
Similar threads
