Bible beleivability?

I have heard a lot of arguments at school that the Bible is not beleiveable, because theres no evidence of it. Mind you these people are high school students and havent got much life experience, but its an interesting arguement. My question about it is this: if the Bible is unbeleiveable because we cant verify the source of the words on the page, would it then follow that the events of today, which are documented on video, and in pictures, will not be beleiveable 1000 years from now, because technology has evolved to the point where pictures and movies can easily be reproduced?

I guess my question is two parts, firstly about the validity of the arguement for the truth of the Bible, and secondly about the idea of truth of documentation over time.

Sorry if this is the wrong forum for this, Im just starting to get the hang of these boards

Who told you that there is no way to prove the bible's stories? All most all of the physical things that the bible talks about have been proven. There is even a thread about noahs ark, one of the more unbelievable stories. Do you have anything in particular that you don't think can be proven as a fact?

Sorry, I forgot about question #2. You are right about that.

The generation that is growing up now have been subjected to more trash and garbage than anyone should be expected to handle. I'm suprised anyone knows whether to scratch their watches or wind their butts. Errrr. hope that wasn't too crude

Originally posted by PB
My question about it is this: if the Bible is unbeleiveable because we cant verify the source of the words on the page, would it then follow that the events of today, which are documented on video, and in pictures, will not be beleiveable 1000 years from now, because technology has evolved to the point where pictures and movies can easily be reproduced?

There's some misunderstanding of the work, here.

Some of the Bible is proveable (the Maccabees, for instance) and well documented in history. What they would be talking about is that much of it has no other source to confirm it. So today's videos of, say, the war in Iraq would be backed up by huge lumps of documentation plus archaeological evidence.

The bible is old. Very old.

I myself consider some, if not all of it, to be perfectly believable. But I also take it with a grain of salt.

The stories and passages of the bible preach something that can no longer be achieved. Hell, half of the 10 commandments can't even be followed by the average Joe.

I consider the bible a history book. I read it, I nodded, and thats that. I don't live my life by the 'rules' of the bible... its impossible in this society. But I beleive that God is real, and yada yada yada the bible taught me ;p

byrd- When our great,great, great, grandchildren watch "Impact" or "Volcano" do you think they will know if it is fiction or a documentry?


rwsdakota- Which of the ten commandments do you have problems obeying?

I tend to agree, I think many of the things that are written are probably true, I see no reason why not.

I suspect the criticism I hear at school is more of a function of ignorance, when questioned, they can never come up with a concrete example of what they think is wrong, just sweeping claims of "its so old it must be wrong". But in general I sense a great deal of cynicism with regards to the contents and merits of the book.

That cynicism scares me though, in 1000 years who knows what truths could be shouted down for a lack of evidence? The holocaust? Even today there are deniers. Who knows what years of evolution of technology will bring.

Originally posted by PB
Mind you these people are high school students and havent got much life experience,

I take this as a severe insult! The youth are not to be undermined, seeing how the younger we are, the more we truly see. A child could tell you more about their own beliefs on god than any scholar.

but honestly, the bible is a book. it was not written by god. it is a very good read, i suggest it to anyone who wants to learn how to speak a dead language. maybe even someone who wants to learn about religion! but truthfully, it is no more than a book, written by man, on mans personal views of their god.

as truth? no. to me, it is meant to show one how to lead a good life. my proof? talking to god and never fearing one second of it.

Originally posted by Scat
A child could tell you more about their own beliefs on god than any scholar.

but honestly...

I see honesty in those words.


A simple story about the beliefs of a child.

In a Sunday school class the children were asked to draw a picture of what they thought God looked like. After 15 minutes, the teacher went around the room looking at the pictures. There were pictures of old men in white robes. Pictures of burning bushes. Some children unable to imagine what God looked had drawn nothing. Then the teacher came to this one small girl. She looked over her shoulder to look at her picture. It was a picture of a chicken.

"Why did you draw a picture of a chicken?" the teacher asked.
The girl became nervous "Um, well... I don't know... I s'pose he might look like Big Bird?"

The children in the room began to laugh at the poor girl.
Tears welled up in the girls eyes as she ran over to the BIG bible that was sitting on a reading stand. Frantically the girl flipped through the pages as she began choking back the tears.

The teacher quieted the children down and went over to the little girl.

"I am sorry" the teacher said.

The little girl ignored her apology, still flipping through pages scanning the words as she went.

In the slightest whisper between sniffles, the girl repeated "I know he's a bird. I just know it."

The teacher shook her head with a sad smile, and returned to the rest of the class to continue their lessons.

About the time the class was over, the little girl yelled, "I KNEW IT! I KNEW IT!"

The teacher goes over to the little girl who now had a BIG smile on her face, as she wiped away her tears. The finger of her other hand was firmly planted on the page.

The teacher leaned over to see what the girl was pointing at and read:

Pslams 91:4
He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.





[edit on 2-7-2004 by Raphael_UO]

Originally posted by Scat
I take this as a severe insult! The youth are not to be undermined, seeing how the younger we are, the more we truly see. A child could tell you more about their own beliefs on god than any scholar.

Sorry I think that came across badly. I didnt mean to say all teenagers are ignorant, just this particular sample. O also know many kids who are fully capable of putting together a very cohesive arguement...but thats neither here nor there.

Sorry to get off topic.

Sweet! Nice story! Ive never heard that one before. I meant more as in a sense of honesty, innocence, wisdom, and the ability to see thigns we oler ones with more hate in our minds can no longer see.

But back to the bible...the noahs ark thing was proved to be a hoax, or so I thought. Oh well, thats just a side note, please dont let it get to be the main topic! hehe!

But, the bible stories, whether being proved historically correct or not, will always be simple stories to me, written by someone who just wanted to help someone one somehow. And it still hold the same regards as Bradbury, Stewart, Shakespeare, and Suess

Originally posted by Scat
Sweet! Nice story! Ive never heard that one before. I meant more as in a sense of honesty, innocence, wisdom, and the ability to see thigns we oler ones with more hate in our minds can no longer see.

But back to the bible...

I know what you meant. The bible teaches the same thing.
I use that basic story to teach a great many lessons. For example, backing your belief with scriptures, humility and judging others. But my favorite use is to teach that sense of honesty, innocence, wisdom and that ability to see things older people can no longer see.

It is said

Luke 18:17
"Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all."

Well.....now we've seemed to part ways raphael, because I really dont think quoting scripture gives anyones argument any more support. Because by quoting scripture, the argument is no longer theirs, its Mathew, Mark, Luke, and Johns.

hmmm I think that there are two things to consider here regarding the Bible.

One, are the stories in Bible true? Have they really happened? For example, the flood. Almost every nation, tribe, civilisation on this planet has its own version of it. So we can assume that a huge flood did occur at some point in the past.

Two, did God have anything to do with it? I think this is the part that is usualy questioned, the divine intervention. What is believable or not believable is the involvment of God in all this. If we do find the ominous Ark one day, it still doesnt prove that God told Noah to build it. The "God" element could be a myth, although the actual flood really happened.

Originally posted by Scat
Well.....now we've seemed to part ways raphael, because I really dont think quoting scripture gives anyones argument any more support. Because by quoting scripture, the argument is no longer theirs, its Mathew, Mark, Luke, and Johns.

You have your way. I have mine.
I have no argument. I simply provide information, and if one desires it understanding as it was taught to me. Edit: I don't know why I just wrote those words. I provide no understanding, simply more information that leads to understanding of what was taught to me.

You said what you said. I said the bible said the same thing. I showed you the passage in which it was said. Simple facts.

That you believe differently than myself is a natural thing. It comes with the ability to choose. Right choice or wrong choice-- both are natural things. Who am I to say which is right and which is wrong? I can only attempt to understand your choice, and allow you to understand my choice.

If you choose not to try to understand my choice, then that too is your choice.

If I were to "argue" for a moment, this is the most I would say: You say that quoting scripture does not gives a person argument any more support. I say, nor does it make the support any less unless man twists the meaning to fit his view.





[edit on 2-7-2004 by Raphael_UO]

Assuming that the bible is comprised of true historical events, it is not 100% Truth in itself as all recorded data is tainted by the perception of the individual writing it. You have heard the phrase "History is written by the victors". It is the same idea.

Ref: Is the Bible "True?" you ask.

In a word, no. At least most of it cannot be taken literally as the MSS now stand. Too many internal "self- contradictions"

And certainly not scientifcally. And not historically either. The texts are hardly morally valid today in the 21st century either.

It certainly does NOT contain what we could call "history in the modern positivistic sense": rather it is a curious mix of Zionist HAGGADIC MIDRASH, POETRY, LITURGICAL NONSENSE, CLAN-TRADITION, SUPERSTITION, FABLE, MORAL TALES and POLITICAL PROPAGANDA.

Oddly, most people who claim to believe what is written "between the two covers of their Bibles" have never read it very carefully. Let alone questioned its contents at all.

I suppose we would have to start by asking:

How many people on this thread literally (i.e. REALLY) "believe" that there is any "scientific" truth at all to several of the more outrageous zionist "Bible stories" that were meant, at the very most, to be moral lessons or plain political propaganda glorifying the socalled Chosen People

(Don't forget WHO wrote the Hebrew Bible, and FOR WHOM....i.e. Israelites, for other Israelites ! And even the New Testament was written entirely by Jews to prove from Jewish Scriptures that "Iesous" was the "Christos" (and invalid argument for non Jews anyway, since they didn't believe in the "OT Scriptures" to begin with).

In other words CONSIDER THE SOURCE.

But as to how true much of the material covered actually is: You would have to ask youselves the following questions: and BE HONEST about it:

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE that Joshua commanded the SUN AND THE MOON literally "to stand still" so he could finish a battle "and be avenged on his enemies" (Joshua chapter 10)?

(for that matter, DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT IT WAS EVEN REMOTELY POSSIBLE FROM A PURELY SCIENTIFIC STANDPOINT for the prophet "Isaiah" LITERALLY TO CAUSE the SUN TO TRAVEL BACKWARDS FOR AHAZ on his SUNDIAL? (see II Kings 20:8-11)

DO YOU LITERALLY BELIEVE THAT EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL SPECIES ON THE PLANET COULD HAVE BEEN PLACED ABOARD THE SOCALLED ARK OF NOACH TWO BY TWO (or SEVEN BY SEVEN depending on what lines you read)? All the thousands of species of Insects too? Over 100 Billion Birds? Where did he get all the animals NON NATIVE TO THE AREA OF THE LEBANT e.g. Australian Kangaroos or North American Bison or South American Llamas, none of which are mentioned in the "Bible" ??

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE that Real Live Donkeys can "speak" fluent and grammatically acceptable Paleo Hebrew, with or without the Vowels? (The Story of Balaam's Mule in Numbers 21-22)?

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE that the IT IS A TRUE FACT OF SCIENCE THAT THE SUN AND THE STARS were created AFTER VEGETATION (Genesis chapter 1)?

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT IT IS A TRUE FACT THAT THERE IS A SOLID METAL DOME UP THERE IN THE SKY (Heb: "Reqiaq" = "bowl") covering the earth? GENESIS 1:6

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT ABRAHAM DWELT IN THE LAND OF THE PHILISTINES 500 YEARS BEFORE THERE WERE PHILISTINES (Gensis 21:34)?

DO YOU BELIEVE IT COULD BE EVEN CONCEIVABLE THAT 90 YEAR OLD WOMEN CAN GIVE BIRTH TO SONS?

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT ELIJAH LITERALLY ASCENDED INTO "HEAVEN" IN A FIREY CHARIOT ? (2 Kings 2:11) If its a literal ascension, where's poor lost little Elijah floating around now? Perhaps taking some COLOUR pictures of the Rings of Saturn?

What about all the "non Science" in the New Testament?

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE MEN LIKE JESUS COULD BE BORN "OF A VIRGIN" WITHOUT SEX THE WAY ALEXANDER THE GREAT AND JULIUS CAESAR WERE ALLEGEDLY BORN?

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE SOMEONE CAN TURN WATER INTO WINE LIKE THE GREEK GOD DIONYSIUS ALLEGEDLY DID AT HIS SHRINE IN CANA? Was it red or white wine? What vintage?

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT SOME ONE CAN PHYSCIALLY RISE FROM THE DEAD AND THEN ASCEND INTO HEAVEN? Where's he floating around now? Next to Elijah with his own camera?

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE IT IS POSSIBLE FOR ANYONE (including all you Ethiopian Eunuchs out there) LITERALLY TO BE TELETRANSPORTED TO ANOTHER COUNTRY IN A FEW SECONDS? (see Acts 8:26-40)

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT MEN WALK ON WATER? THAT BOOMING VOICES FROM RAIN CLOUDS CAN MANAGE TO SPEAK FLUENT FIRST CENTURY ARAMAIC?

I could keep going, but I think I've opened up enough points for now. As for "scientific" knowledge, I could write a book about the pseudo Science in that "book":

Let's start at the beginning (e.g. Genesis chapter 1). Firmament? I've never seen one of those....oh you mean that blue coloured expanse up there that looks like it has "water" above it making it blue?

Newsflash: There is no "Firmament" (Heb: Raqiaq = "beaten metal dome") above the (presumably flat) earth. There is no "solid anything" surrounding the earth. So right there in chapter 1 verse 6 is, well, a lie. Certainly NOT a scientific fact. Despite the fact that Israel's more sophisticated neighbours like Babylon and Egypt believed it. That's no excuse for them either...

Another Newsflash: there is no BLUE WATER above any "Firmament. "

And Stars and the Sun were not "created AFTER" Vegetation as it states in plain paleoHebew in Genesis. The P writers of Genesis chapter 1 had no way of knowing that stars are suns, and that vegetational life appears only long-after planets are formed, but that's no excuse for him.

We are NOT dealing with scientific facts in the "Bible" here.

The TWO contradictory Genesis versions of Creation Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a and 2:4b to 4:26) suggests at least two schools of writers are at work here, both of them not interested in "pure rational scientific knowlege" and the two of them wrote texts that were clearly wholly ignorant or unmindful of each other, and ignorant of the facts of nature and astronomy, not to mention the true age of the earth.

Another Newsflash: the Earth is not merely 4004 years old, which is the approx age of the earth if you trace back all the Toledoth in Genesis ("generations" of xxxx who lived, begat and died etc.): it is over 4 Billion years old.

The Bible writers were pre-scientific, pseudo historians. So get over it already.

Let any secular writer today write such an unscientific book as "Genesis" or let a modern day "historian" write a book like the book of II Kings found today in the Jewish Bible--- with so many ommissions, pre-scientific superstitions, internal and external contradictions of the basic facts of science, geology, biology, morals or anything else for that matter, and the academic world would laugh you out of business.

No contradictions, you say? We can start with Genesis: the order of creation in the two Creation Myths of the book of Genesis is reversed from each other: compare them for yourselves (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a and 2:4b through 4:26); even the very style of the Hebrew language is different. Certainly not the same writer with any kind of a single theology or world-view.

Read: Eliot Friedmann's book, Who Wrote the Bible? for a layman's approach to this complicated subject. But get your highliter out!

Some Christians and Jews would say, in looking so closely at the text of the Bible, aren't we opening a Pandora's box here?

Well...yes.

And the first thing they say to that, is:

"Then where do we draw the line if we start doing that? The foundation of our religion will collapse if we start tearing that book apart.."

So be it. Would you rather perpetuate the LIES that so many generations have foisted on their children for so many years?


And what about all the questionable "morality" of the clan god of the Bible YHWH, the post exilic god of the Israelites, who seems to have had quite a taste for Genocide and Extermination Policies, even worse than Adolf Hitler?

"Now go and genocide the sons of Amelek and exterminate all they have, and leave nothing of them alive; but genocide both man and woman, both infant and suckling babies, oxen and sheep, camels and asses" (1 Sam. 15:3).

Are you SURE you want to worship this bloodthirsty clan god who was a perfect role model for the atrocities in Mein Kampf?

Reflect for a minute exactly what was Samuel's order for Saul originating from YHWH.

Here is what M. J. Gauvin wrote :

"What "God" is telling the Israelites to do, basically is:

To genocide the old man with trembling hands and silvered hair; murder the mother who shields with her body the life of her child; rifle the cradle, and plunge the glittering sword of death through the frail form of the smiling babe ...and know, ye fiends of ruthless slaughter, ye but fulfil the command of the Yahweh, whose 'mercy endureth forever' ?"

And you're worried about whether the vomit placed into this god's mouth is TRUE?

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT ELIJAH LITERALLY ASCENDED INTO "HEAVEN" IN A FIREY CHARIOT ? (2 Kings 2:11) If its a literal ascension, where's poor lost little Elijah floating around now? Perhaps taking some COLOUR pictures of the Rings of Saturn?

The people of the time didn't knew much about science, the laws of nature, etc...

Yes i do beleive in the bible and all that there is in it. I've been asking myself those questions for years, and from what a teacher told us in 9th grade that i agree with him, a lot of the oldest stories of the bible could have happen this way OR another. They didn't get all the nature laws and such, maybe god letted them believe that elijah went to heaven in a fiery charriot, because they beleived that heaven was above us, and even they saw it that way, they wrote it that way. Maybe they saw something else, and couldn't explain it better.

All of these stories can have rational explanations, even with god involved in them.

About the genesis and the creation, maybe god inspired someone with that story, just as a symbol, that he created us because he loves us all.

I'm not against the story of the big-bang and all because im a catholic and i believe in the bible. If the genesis is just a symbol from god to show the people of the time that he was the one who created all, it doesn't force us to interpret it that way. Maybe god had a little something to do with that big-bang, and in his plan was every development that the universe is today.

My whole point is, you can't just go and force people against their beliefs. I have mine, you have yours.

My arguments:

1. The Bible is a historical book. Indeed, you will find evidence that parts of what were said in the Bible to happen indeed actually happened to a certain extent. This does not, however, make the Bible a complete and unadulterated truth. History does not prove the existence of God or the validity of the Bible.

2. The Bible is greatly subject to the mutation of time. Not only was it true that the gospels of Jesus were not written until at least 50 years after Jesus died, but continued translations over and over again will do some damage to the original content. For example; did you know that Mary was not necessarily a virgin?

The editors of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) and New English Translation (NET) of the Bible would undoubtedly have loved to uphold the traditional belief that Isaiah predicted that Jesus would be born of a virgin, but they evidently knew that was wrong: "Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son.." (Isaiah 7:14) ... "Look, this young women is about to conceive and will give birth to a son." (Isaiah 7:14 NET), but they didn't do so because they evidently knew the proper translation is "young woman", not "virgin". The reason Matthew put the word "virgin" in Isaiah's mouth may have been because belief in saviors born of a virgin was extremely commonplace, and Matthew either wanted to be sure not to disappoint those whom he wished to recruit into his religion and put the word there fraudulently, or else he actually believed that Isaiah spoke of a virgin, when in fact his recollection of scripture was foggy and he had no access to scripture which would have shown him wrong.

Source: members.aol.com...

You see, the gospels which are the basis of the Christian faith were incredibly tampered with even at the point of their conception. Isn't it plausible now to say that it has been tampered more 1,953 years later?

I think the joke about the little girl thinking that God is a bird is just about how little kids can't understand metaphors haha. The bible has been proven accurate by the dead sea scrolls. I think that the bible is accurate, but I definately don't follow all of it literally. I just find too many contradictions. I'm going on vacation in like 4 hours for 10 days so I won't be able to reply for a while.. The part about hell for example. Ask yourself these two questions:

1.) Does God love us all with all his heart (metaphor, hope there are no 10 year old girls here

2.) Is he all powerfull? Meaning that he can do ANYTHING!

If so, we wouldn't be going to hell because even if we chose with our feeble human minds to go against God, he would still love us enough to save us. I am a christian, but the hell thing really gets to me. I am still open to being proven wrong....in fact I WANT to be proven wrong so it will make more sense to me. If he really loved us that much...more than our parents he wouldn't just say, "Well, I guess if they don't think I'm here then I'll just let them go to Hell and live out there worst nightmares for all eternity!!!!!"

I know that he didn't send them there, it was, "Their choice". But it's not really their choice to go to Hell if they don't think it exists! Seriously, I'm not a christianity basher...I'm a christian but I just don't understand it!!!