The validity of the Christian Bible

[n3M351s]

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.

A lot of things changed in the New Testament.

[TheWay]

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.

A lot of things changed in the New Testament.

Well technically they did not change as God is unchanging, the old testement requires study because of the culture surrounding it and the way in which it was written. The ideas in the old testement are not all disturbing to me and I ahve spent most my life studying scripture and religions in general. However I could understand how someone casually reading could feel that depending on which way you read.

The story of Lot his daughters and the destruction of Sodom and Gamorra are a great example. Ths story is frequently misunderstood

Also depending on your view of God even stories like that of Abraham and his son Issac could be disturbing.

[urogard]

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.

how does that differ from the bible?

[Mister Sandman]

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.

how does that differ from the bible?

1. The Bible and science co-exist.
2. The Bible isn't white washed
3. The Bible doesn't contradict itself
4. Once The Bible was published it wasn't edited.

[fireball37]

1. The bible and science do not coexist on most matters, consider evolution, the age of the Earth, and the existence of a global flood.
2.I'm not sure what you mean by white-washing but I do know that many elements of the bible get taken out of context to further an argument, and other areas ignored.
3.The bible contradicts itself terribly, in the old testament, one of the ten commandments is to not kill, and yet god directs his followers to slaughter there enemies on many occasions.
4.The bible is edited massively, the text has been converted to and from hundreds of languages, degradation of the original text will certainly have occurred in the interim.

[agapooka]

I personally refuse to entrust a book with my soul's eternity, if it cannot properly be translated and/or be completely congruent with itself. I consider it absurd to throw one's eternity away, based on assumptions and ambiguous interpretations of a text which was, as was pointed out, massively edited. There are many manuscripts that do not agree with one another and I'm glad that you pointed out one of the differences between the NIV and the KJV. Modern translations in particular rely heavily on manuscripts which are questionable at best. I refer to the Septuagint as one example.

Ask yourself this: if there is error in the Bible, then the Bible is not perfect. If God requires perfection, this implies that the Bible, as we know it today, is sub-standard in God's eyes and therefore, if God is reasonable, it would not be expected that we put faith in a book, which God views as sub-standard. Unless one can demonstrate that there is at least one flawless translation... but I don't see how that can be thoroughly achieved without original manuscripts, which were all conveniently destroyed, although we can at least test various translations internally.

These are arguments within the frame of the Bible, because before the Bible can be tested externally, it must be tested internally. Does it support itself?

So, for the people who just came in, we proved that the NIV is BS and you shouldn't read it. If you insist on reading a Bible, go get a different translation. kthx

[TheWay]

The bible does not contradict itself, and if you would like to discuss actual verses and claimed contradictions feel free to try. As of the issue of the commandment thou shalt not kill you are quoting it incorrectly as it is thou shalt not murder, which completely changes the meaning of the commandment.
In order to deal with issue sufficiently we must understand some things
1 The scripture we have today is indeed a translation and yet when placed next to the Dead Sea scrolls version of the book of Daniel it is almost identical with the only discrepancies being the difference in tenses and word usage. To understand just how amazing this is given the age of the dead sea scrolls you must study the other great books of history and you will find that with all the great writings this same issue of accuracy arises however none can claim the same accuracy as the bible and yet none of those books are thrown out of the discussion.
2 If you are seeking a flawless translation you will not find it as the only translation that is flawless is that which was God breathed and perfect in its writing, it is the only translation without flaw.
3 these above facts are the reason bible scholars study multiple translations and many times the original languages it was written in.
4 The NIV is not perhaps the most scholarly work however it is a fine translation and accurate in most cases and in some cases it better explains a certain verse. The issue the NIV may run into is that it is a phrase by phrase translation or idea by idea rather than a word by word translation as the ESV is. The translations of scripture seek to convey the words of God as accurately as possible through barriers of time, culture, and language.
5 God is an amazing being who although perfect has chosen to have relationship with his imperfect and fallen creation. God uses many things that may seem to some to be below him like anthropomorphism which he uses to help us understand himself. He has had his presence pass by Moses just so Moses could get a glimpse if not a full picture of God’s power. He has had conversations with Abraham that seem to suggest God is changing his mind based on the arguments of man. God has chosen to know and to love us and that is the wondrous thing about the Christian God. Is the scripture we have today perfect no it is not but that is the beauty that God can communicate his message through his word even though it has been tainted and mistranslated by his creation. God could have sustained a copy of the original writings but instead he gave his word to man in many cases verbally asking these men to pass this knowledge on. God even choosing to speak through man is inconceivable why would he choose to have fallen man be his conduit for his word, that alone makes the belief in this scripture difficult because if man wrote it how is it also written by God. These are the things that are rich and full in Christian theology. I have no issue with someone not believing in the validity of the scriptures God has allowed you many arguments for why it cannot be trusted and has only one reason why it should and that one reason will escape most.
6 The scripture is in my opinion the single greatest document on earth because it speaks through more than its words no it is living and breathing it is Christ who is the way the truth and the life. The scriptures are powerful and they change lives whether or not you believe it.
7 I have been honest in the issue of scriptures validity so I hope you will understand when I say although the accuracy of the scriptures can be called into question the one thing that is not true is that the scriptures are not harmonious. The scriptures fit together without disagreement when studied properly.

[Thade]

1. The bible and science do not coexist on most matters, consider evolution, the age of the Earth, and the existence of a global flood.
Evolution is not precluded in the Bible it simply states that God created things...not the manner in which he did so. I could state that I created my computer. Did I speak a word and it magically appeared? No. I bought the individual components (which themselves had been created from various other components all the way back to raw resources which are composed of base molecules which are composed of base atoms etc. Thus a sufficiently advanced manipulation of physics and quantum mechanics could create anything desired from pure energy) and assembled those components into this computer thus I created it. This (link) proves scientifically both Global Flood and a different age than is commonly accepted.

2.I'm not sure what you mean by white-washing but I do know that many elements of the bible get taken out of context to further an argument, and other areas ignored.
Not sure what Sandman means by White-washed so I can't argue for him here...however just because certain things are taken out of context by certain individuals to justify atrocities does not mean that the Bible (or it's author) would condone those acts.

3.The bible contradicts itself terribly, in the old testament, one of the ten commandments is to not kill, and yet god directs his followers to slaughter there enemies on many occasions.
There is a difference between murder, self-defence and war. God commanded the Isrealites to retake Canaan, the Holy Land, which was once a land occupied by their people. Therefore it was a war for reconstruction of a nation, killing enemy soldiers doesn't exactly break a commandment.

4.The bible is edited massively, the text has been converted to and from hundreds of languages, degradation of the original text will certainly have occurred in the interim.
There is a difference between being edited and being mistranslated. Yes there have been certain degradations of the text due to mistranslation. However, for the average audience the variances do not really matter as it is the intent of the message that the translators are attempting to convey. In doing this they sometimes cause a discrepancy within God's word. For a person who comes to faith through a minorly flawed version of the Bible as they begin to have enough Faith to question that Faith they can go to their Priest/Pastor and get answers to their questions. Although not all questions can be answered otherwise there would be no need for Faith thus taking away Free Will. If God proved himself right here and now your belief in him after that moment would mean nothing. Therefore He believes he created people with enough intelligence to question the world around them, as well as all the assumptions people within that world make. As for editing the Bible the last major edit took place by Martin Luther when he removed books that he felt did not stand up to scrutiny. I have yet to read these books as I was raised Lutheran and the Bible in our house at the time didn't have them. However, anyone can obtain a Bible with these books...it's not like he had every other copy destroyed (as was done with the gnostic gospels except that some were preserved (thankfully) at Naghamada (or whatever). In any case the response to this one is getting lengthy...show me an example of a blatant editting of the Bible and we can discuss that.

Responses to you in this color...I hope you don't mind I find answering point by point in this manner is best to ensure I respond to all points and to make the post more coherent. I shall refrain from this practice in the future if that's what everyone would like.

[Thriller]

SO This thread is about semantics right?

[Thade]

SO This thread is about semantics right?

What exactly does the word semantics mean? and can it really hold a meaning with its own definition in mind?

...

jk...Was this specifically aimed at my arguments? or someone else's? If mine, are you upset about it being largely semantics based because semantic arguments are difficult to contradict? or because the power of my semantic arguments were so overwhelming you declared forfeiture? (lolz yeah right) I love debating and discussing simply for the sake of themselves as they increase one's subject knowledge, critical thinking skills, communication skills and can open one up to new people and new ideas. Just because I'm currently arguing this set of perspectives doesn't mean I couldn't switch sides tomorrow if I felt that the debate would be more difficult from that side. The premise is that all arguments are based on words thus yes this thread is about semantics as is every other debate thread in here. That's the nature of the game the way I play it (skewed as I was an English - Writing major with a minor in classics). So while I see the thread as being about semantics what do you see the thread as being about? (perhaps I'll expand my debate style)

[Thriller]

SO This thread is about semantics right?

What exactly does the word semantics mean? and can it really hold a meaning with its own definition in mind?

...

jk...Was this specifically aimed at my arguments? or someone else's? If mine, are you upset about it being largely semantics based because semantic arguments are difficult to contradict? or because the power of my semantic arguments were so overwhelming you declared forfeiture? (lolz yeah right) I love debating and discussing simply for the sake of themselves as they increase one's subject knowledge, critical thinking skills, communication skills and can open one up to new people and new ideas. Just because I'm currently arguing this set of perspectives doesn't mean I couldn't switch sides tomorrow if I felt that the debate would be more difficult from that side. The premise is that all arguments are based on words thus yes this thread is about semantics as is every other debate thread in here. That's the nature of the game the way I play it (skewed as I was an English - Writing major with a minor in classics). So while I see the thread as being about semantics what do you see the thread as being about? (perhaps I'll expand my debate style)

From your long winded answer you must be a writer

I think the the OP created the thread to highlight the positive lessons and the importance of the knowledge contained within the bible.

And the bible does have a lot to offer in both regards. The differences lies on what lessons and knowledge you take from it.

eg. The world in only 10000 years old---- bad
Morality is important for a society to function---- good.

[agapooka]

I wouldn't say that the NIV is a fine translation if its wording clearly states that the God of the Bible isn't God at all. I've already shown how I came to that conclusion.

Such *important* details cannot be overlooked as you choose to do. Oh and now there are more questions that require an answer (and don't worry, I don't put the entire burden of answering them upon you. I am not biased towards my current argument and am willing to do the research myself... once I've gotten enough sleep. Just came back from Berlin.)

1. If God is defined as being love in the sense of agape, which you claim is different from "charity" (a claim that I wish to investigate in the interest of finding the exact difference), then it would be appropriate to define agape.
2. It is worthwhile to ask oneself why a perfectly beautiful definition of "charity" is found in the Bible if it is irrelevant to God's character. Is it a standard that is selectively applied to earthlings, but not to God? Why? My previous argument, using the aforementioned passage in Corinthians, DOES demonstrate that it definitely does not consistently apply to The Entity, as defined in that document.

Finally, I maintain and strengthen my stance on the necessity of perfection and I am disappointed that you insist on minimising and justifying a lack thereof. The amount of error that even you agree exists in the Bible falls short of even my human standards.

The above is written from a point of view that allows for the Bible to be tested by itself. It does not necessarily reflect the author's opinion. Internal testing comes before external testing with the reasonable grounds for this being that if the subject of the test cannot stand by itself, there is little point in testing whether or not it falls when proverbial wind strikes it externally.

Oh, before I forget, two other points:

1. It is your opinion that it is inconceivable that God would choose to communicate with humans. It is not a valid argument.
2. I agree that the Bible has changed the lives of many people. It's amazing what believing something will do to a human. Actually, the people who believed in their cult leader at Jonestown had their lives completely changed from breathing to... not breathing. And then, there are plenty of belief systems where the believers claim to have a perfect sense of peace and love. So, they've just proven that they are easy to manipulate. Therefore, it is also not a valid argument for the "validity" of the Bible in an objective sense. All it means is that many people perceived it as valid, and quite honestly, that means nothing.

[Demeisen]

eg. The world in only 10000 years old---- bad
Morality is important for a society to function---- good.

yup

&

eg. the earth was literally created in a week---- bad
respect your fellow humans---- good.

[Mister Sandman]

Time in the bible is undefined.

10,000 years ^o) I still haven't read the part saying "The earth is 10 000 years old"

In addition you need to contextualise the dates.

[Demeisen]

answers in red

Time in the bible is undefined.

so is the amount of cheese it takes to crush a man. but i can still give an educated guess. the difference between the age you claim and the actual age, in terms of cheese, is the difference between a car sized cheese and a small mountain of it. that doesnt seem to be sensible now does it?

10,000 years ^o) I still haven't read the part saying "The earth is 10 000 years old"

the bible doesnt teach maths eh? that age is arrived at by using the dates of births, deaths, events etc to calculate back to the 1st human. the dates overlap often enough to come up with the biblical 'age of creation'

In addition you need to contextualise the dates.

in addition you need to explain what you mean there