The validity of the Christian Bible

[Mister Sandman]

A question that all the athesits and people against Christianity.

Is the bible really valid? How can we know that it the biblical principles are beneficial?


Argue away.

[Brdavs]

It`s valid as a religious script.

It is perhaps valid as a doctered transcript of the life of one J.C.

As a source of ultimate trouth about life, universe and everything - to be taken literarry? God no lol. Pun intended.



When you think about it actually, it is an impressive testemon of how far a then obsure religion of 12 tribes of sheep and goat hearders has come. A monument to peoples... persistance and adaptability in refusal to think for themselves... and dare I say... lack of imagination to even come up with gods of theirown.

[weilandsmith]

A question that all the athesits and people against Christianity.

Is the bible really valid? How can we know that it the biblical principles are beneficial?


Argue away.

You could also ask the same question of other religions. Are the holy books of Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism and Hinduism valid? For that matter, since Satanism springs from one of the Bible's main protagonists, is it valid? We can also delve into mythology and ask the same question of the Nordic, Gaellic, Greek, Roman and Egyptian myths.

The point is, if you claim to be a part of a religious denomination, then you damned well better believe in it in spite of what other people say.

As for the principles of the Christian bible... what is beneficial?

The old testament contains the ten commandments. The new testament is all about the example of a life lived by a God who turned himself into a man in the person of Jesus Christ. Read the bible. Then you can answer your own question about the benefits of the Christian principles of religion.

[Juliette]

What a stupid question.
Since when does anything need to be valid in our cute-but-imbecile society?!

I thought it was the nature of modern secular societies to randomly accept any and all theories, conspiracies, fallacies and other crap as the truth? You just need to pick a selection of them for yourself?
Then why the hell would you ask for something like the Bible to be "valid"?!
Trust me, if someone would indeed post a convincing argument, I'm 99.999% sure (assuming you are a so-called enlightened thinker) that you will say something along the lines of: "Indeed, well said. I think otherwise, but that would indeed be a good reason why the Bible is valid."

Meh. Ask a real question, instead of trying to provoke people into giving an answer you will reject once it is given anyway.

[Mordack]

I think you need to define 'valid.'

As Brdavs, this can be interpreted on a number of levels.

It also depends what you mean by 'biblical principles' - another phrase which is open to interpretation. Whilst the bible may well extol the virtues of good behaviour and companionship, it's also well worth noting that it contradicts itself in numerous places and also advocates a number of principles which would be considered draconian by today's standards.

So which principles are you talking about?

The bible is an amazing book, hands down. It's probably the most culturally significant book in the history of mankind. I think you can take a lot from the bible, and use it to lead a good, and 'beneficial if you like, life. It's when nutjobs start quoting obscure scripture to justify predjudice, or when people attempt to take every single idea presented in a very general text with numerous contributors as verbatim, that things start to go astray. I do think much of what's presented in the bible is beneficial though, yes. If that answers your question.

[Mister Sandman]

By valid I mean,

Historically, Ethically and Scientifically.

[spoiler]

A question that all the athesits and people against Christianity.

Is the bible really valid? How can we know that it the biblical principles are beneficial?


Argue away.

You could also ask the same question of other religions. Are the holy books of Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism and Hinduism valid? For that matter, since Satanism springs from one of the Bible's main protagonists, is it valid? We can also delve into mythology and ask the same question of the Nordic, Gaellic, Greek, Roman and Egyptian myths.

The point is, if you claim to be a part of a religious denomination, then you damned well better believe in it in spite of what other people say.

As for the principles of the Christian bible... what is beneficial?

The old testament contains the ten commandments. The new testament is all about the example of a life lived by a God who turned himself into a man in the person of Jesus Christ. Read the bible. Then you can answer your own question about the benefits of the Christian principles of religion.

[/spoiler]

I know for facts that, the holy books of Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism and Hinduism are not valid. In facts of "white-washing" the text, contradiction after contradiction, changing the text after it was first originally published, and overall a scientific lie.


And the reason why we say they are myths :- is because of course they are not valid. It already has be scientific, historically, and ethically disproved.


[spoiler]

:lol:
What a stupid question.
Since when does anything need to be valid in our cute-but-imbecile society?!

I thought it was the nature of modern secular societies to randomly accept any and all theories, conspiracies, fallacies and other crap as the truth? You just need to pick a selection of them for yourself?
Then why the hell would you ask for something like the Bible to be "valid"?!
Trust me, if someone would indeed post a convincing argument, I'm 99.999% sure (assuming you are a so-called enlightened thinker) that you will say something along the lines of: "Indeed, well said. I think otherwise, but that would indeed be a good reason why the Bible is valid."

Meh. Ask a real question, instead of trying to provoke people into giving an answer you will reject once it is given anyway.

[/spoiler]

Society doesn't accept anything....

It is a real question. And I will not reject an real answer. Mainly I want to see the arguments of both sides... not some persons bias ideas which are clearly wrong.


Oh and FYI I've read most of the bible..

[Solus]

By valid I mean,

Historically, Ethically and Scientifically.

personally, i dont believe it necessary for the bible to be 'valid'. it was intended to challenge peoples thinking, and considering this, logically to achieve its purpose it has to be to some extent different from what society expects or accepts.

this also applies while talking about the basis of the religion itself. Christianity as i see it (being a christian) is purely about the relationship between humankind and God. but when people who try to discredit the bible or christianity on a scientific level, they miss the point completely. i believe in an omnipresent God who wants a relationship with me. and to be omnipresent, you cant fit within the confines of human logic.

just another thought, why blaspheme? i mean atheists too, people dont want to acknowledge god much when things go right, but when things dont go right, were more than willing to use God's name in vain? why? i mean on some unconcious level we do achnowledge god wether we admit it or not, if we didnt this wouldnt be the case imo.

[Ashu]

Well,the 2000+ years of history certanly ring a bell and the fact that some of the most intelligent ppl in the world BELIEVE in its validity....

[fireball37]

If you're talking about the ethics of the bible I have to disagree with you. The old testament is riddled with some frankly disturbing ideas and commandments. Look at Hosea 13:16 "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."
Not very pleasant, and its not just matters of war where the bible can be immoral, consider Deuteronomy 22:23-24 "If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife."

[agapooka]

The English word "God" shares the etymology of "Odin". It's very pagan. Unless your beliefs are pagan, I see no need to see it as taking your Supreme, Omnisicent, Omnipotent Creative Spirit's name in vain.

A good test for "validity" (perhaps congruence is a better starting point) of the Bible is to find whether or not it contradicts itself. If it does and you attribute this contradiction to translation, you are forced to question your deity's ability to preserve its word.

I grew up with high doses of the Bible administered daily. I have, however, recently written a very long sentence in legalese about a major contradiction that I found. It's probably obvious to many who are not biased towards the Bible, but I thought I'd put it to words. For purposes of simplicity and mutual understanding, it does use the pagan word "God". The method that I used is the following:

I took the Biblical definition of God and I applied it to the entity that the Bible calls God. I now consider myself a theist, if you must know. I just don't like it when a book tells me that God can't live up to its own standards. Anyway, heregoes:

Whereas Love is patient and,
Whereas Love is kind and,
Whereas Love does not envy and,
Whereas Love does not boast and,
Whereas Love is not proud and,
Whereas Love is not self-seeking and,
Whereas Love is not easily angered and,
Whereas Love keeps no record of wrongs and,
Whereas Love does not delight in evil and,
Whereas Love rejoices with the truth and,
Whereas Love always protects and,
Whereas Love always trusts and,
Whereas Love always hopes and,
Whereas Love always perseveres and,
Whereas God is Light, God rejoices with the truth and,
Whereas God is righteous, God does not delight in evil and,
Whereas Light and Righteousness are congruous with the definition of Love as stated herein and,
Whereas God is Love, God inherently must be Light and righteous as these attributes are inseparable from Love and,
Whereas God is unchanging and,
Whereas The Entity alleged to be God by the Old Testament of the Holy Bible, which shall be referred to as "The Entity" in this document, should consistently satisfy the above definition of God's nature, Love, and all attributes thereof, which are in accordance to the same Holy Bible and,
Whereas The Entity hated Esau and,
Whereas The Entity did not persevere with its claimed creation by destroying the bulk thereof in what is alleged to be a worldwide flood and,
Whereas the the flood is not the only evidence of The Entity being easily angered and,
Whereas an individual who is self-seeking is defined as one who exclusively or almost exclusively promotes his, her or its interests and,
Whereas The Entity can be found exclusively or almost exclusively promoting its own interests, which did include a people of a specific lineage (at one point commonly referred to as the Hebrews) and various agents acting on its part, which were a part of that lineage and,
Whereas The Entity kept record of wrong for all souls who were not attached to a flesh and blood body, which was not a part of The Entity's favoured lineage, and which did not take part in the given year's annual sacrificial ritual and,
Whereas The Entity's millions of killings cannot be construed, in any way, shape or form as kind,
The Entity alleged to be God by the Old Testament of the Holy Bible does not satisfy the definition of God as provided in this document, which is in complete accordance with the New Testament of the Holy Bible.

[Thade]

A good test for "validity" (perhaps congruence is a better starting point) of the Bible is to find whether or not it contradicts itself. If it does and you attribute this contradiction to translation, you are forced to question your deity's ability to preserve its word.

Unfortunately it is a translation issue. However it is not a translation issue of God's error but rather man's over time. You see back during Charlemagne there was the Nicine Convention in order to translate the old and new testament completely into Latin from the various languages it was then currently in. They did this in the best way possible at the time (and probably did a good job but since I don't know ancient Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic I can't argue that). They took 70 or so of their greatest scholars and had them translate the various books together. Since that time however the English have often decided they can translate it better as one person rather than as a quorum (they also decided to make certain things easier to understand which never should have been done). So unfortunately your comparison falls a bit short of it's mark due to man's fallibility. For the best example of this please see here and compare 1 Corinthians the King James Version to 1 Corinthians the New International Version.

1 Corinthians 13:4-7

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

vs.

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

As you can see Charity and Love are not exactly the same thing. Hope that might clear certain things up for folks.

[fireball37]

Actually, they are... Love is an umbrella term for four different concepts (think Greek) in modern english the spiritual love represented here (agape) has no parallel, but back then 'charity' meant exactly that, it can be seen in one of the more famous christian passages "deus caritas (root of charity) est" or "God is love", the translation is effectively the same, if the etymology has changed.

[Thade]

The Latin caritas (which is charity not love) is not the same as the Greek agape.

diliges is the word that was used to translate the Greek agape into Latin. The word caritas had a different latin meaning thus the derivative charity which does mean a form of unconditional love...but not the same as agape.


(I may return to the forums some time late tomorrow but for now I have a few real life things to take care of so I will be responding right away.)

[fireball37]

Right, thanks for pointing that out, I always thought the concepts of caritas and agape were identical...

[TheWay]

The Latin caritas (which is charity not love) is not the same as the Greek agape.

diliges is the word that was used to translate the Greek agape into Latin. The word caritas had a different latin meaning thus the derivative charity which does mean a form of unconditional love...but not the same as agape.


(I may return to the forums some time late tomorrow but for now I have a few real life things to take care of so I will be responding right away.)

Funny that this came up and I missed it as my name TheWay actually represents a phrase I use in ministry that being the way of agape or in other words the way of God's Love. my email as a matter a fact is thewayofagape@yahoo.com

The scriptures are valid in many ways which I will explain later for now I must go