If one part of the bible is not literally true is the entire bible is false? - Page 2

Jerry · 05-25-08, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

If one part of the bible is not literally true is the entire bible is false?

Parts of scripture are peribles, and they are true, neither do they negate other sections of scripture.

Tashah · 05-25-08, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

If one part of the bible is not literally true is the entire bible is false?

Many people have the notion that the Bible should be treated strictly as an historical document which diminishes it to an either/or proposition. Either everything it contains must be empirically true, or else nothing it contains is empirically true.

This is an extremely simplistic and disingenuous way to parse its contents. The Bible is a potpourri of religious beliefs, historical tradition, valid history, personal musings, contemporary social conventions, contemporary law, hearsay, parables, allegories, metaphors, and song.

Rather than an historical document, the Bible is a literary work and the product of many human contributors who put quill to scroll long ago. Empirical inaccuracy and historical confusion is often the result of edits that occurred in disparate locale's and different era's. It is also impractical to expect every element of this ancient document to display moral prescience. I daresay, there would be no need of the Bible itself if moral principal and the human condition had always existed in a state of perpetual perfection.

The Bible is neither totally true nor totally false as it contains elements of each personality. It is up to the reader to distinguish the body from the garments.

Felicity · 05-25-08, 10:59 AM

The Bible is entirely true in the sense that there is good to be learned from all of it. If by "literally" it is meant that there is no subtlety of language like metaphor or allegory etc., then in my opinion, that is a very naive and/or biased view of the Bible and the religions that adhere to Biblical teaching.

Rev. · 05-25-08, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lachean

So then what in the Bible do you regard as true, and by what standard do you make the distinction?

The message of the Bible is true...God loves man enough to be born as a man, submit to obedience, suffer and die to purchase our redemption. That is absolutely true, and everything written in scripture must be understood in the light of that truth.

John1234 · 05-25-08, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat

Now, if one had evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross

The Jehovah's Witnesses believe they can prove he died on a "pike" and not a cross.
And they are as Christian as it gets.

The original word used to describe it (Prior to translation) means pike and not cross.

I am sure that other things have been lost over the last 21 centuries.

The bible is pretty amazing. Some things only just now are starting to make sense. And some things, man just could not have imagined 2,000 years ago.

Such as "God will destroy those who would destroy the earth".
Just how the heck is mankind supposed to even imagine "destroying the earth" over 2,000 years ago?
Mankind could not even move a large mound of dirt back then.
There was no sci fi to watch.

Cephus · 05-25-08, 03:35 PM

Only if your argument is based on the Bible being the inerrant word of God. Once you find something that's wrong, that type of claim fails.

Of course, this can be turned around. If one part of the Bible is true, that doesn't mean the entire Bible is true, just the part that you found reliable. Each statement must stand up on it's own and be judged individually. Doing so proves the majority of the Bible to be mythological, along with some historical elements mixed in.

scourge99 · 05-25-08, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashah

The Bible is a potpourri of religious beliefs, historical tradition, valid history, personal musings, contemporary social conventions, contemporary law, hearsay, parables, allegories, metaphors, and song

<snip>

It is up to the reader to distinguish the body from the garments.

Herein lies the unsolvable irresolvable problem. It is ONLY a book and is limited by such a constraint no matter how much others attempt to convince you otherwise.

conquer · 05-25-08, 11:52 PM

The bible has too many topics involved in it that some of them might agree with reality and others simply might not.

We must remember that science itself (facts) are not against the bible, but that some "theories" of science are the ones which appear to contradict with what the bible states.

For example, until today, the only trusted method to measure the age of things is the Carbono 14 method, because this method is the only one which is "verifiable".

This is to say, the Carbono 14 method of measure can be tested by using a different method not related with its proccedure. We have the counting of rings as an example.

You measure the the age of an old tree sample through the Carbono 14 method and it gives you 2,789 years of age. Now well, you count the rings of the tree and their amount is 2,902 rings. We know that the tree forms one ring per year, and by comparing both results you have "verified" the Carbono 14 method with success, it is a verifiable method, it is a trusted method.

What about the radiometric dating method? This method sounds great, it sounds very accurate, but sorry, is not a verifiable method.

One can cry, scream, insult, kick the walls, punch the computer monitor screen, but this is the reality of such method: it is not verifiable.

So, the current "age" of the universe given by scientists is just an assumption, the universe can be 5 million years old, 5 billion years old, 50 thousand years old, you can use the amount of your belief, because there is not a verifiable method to be trusted about measuring the age of the universe.

So, we have that neither the bible's narration and neither the radiometric dating method are verifiable.

And, the Carbono 14 cannot give data further than 5,000 years of age, the rest (the amount data over 5,000 years) is an assumed further data calculated after the limits of the Carbono 14 method.

In other words, in reality we are trapped to both interpretations, the religious and the scientific interpretations, because no facts back up either side.

scourge99 · 05-26-08, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by conquer

The bible has too many topics involved in it that some of them might agree with reality and others simply might not.

We must remember that science itself (facts) are not against the bible, but that some "theories" of science are the ones which appear to contradict with what the bible states.

For example, until today, the only trusted method to measure the age of things is the Carbono 14 method, because this method is the only one which is "verifiable".

This is to say, the Carbono 14 method of measure can be tested by using a different method not related with its proccedure. We have the counting of rings as an example.

You measure the the age of an old tree sample through the Carbono 14 method and it gives you 2,789 years of age. Now well, you count the rings of the tree and their amount is 2,902 rings. We know that the tree forms one ring per year, and by comparing both results you have "verified" the Carbono 14 method with success, it is a verifiable method, it is a trusted method.

What about the radiometric dating method? This method sounds great, it sounds very accurate, but sorry, is not a verifiable method.

One can cry, scream, insult, kick the walls, punch the computer monitor screen, but this is the reality of such method: it is not verifiable.

So, the current "age" of the universe given by scientists is just an assumption, the universe can be 5 million years old, 5 billion years old, 50 thousand years old, you can use the amount of your belief, because there is not a verifiable method to be trusted about measuring the age of the universe.

So, we have that neither the bible's narration and neither the radiometric dating method are verifiable.

And, the Carbono 14 cannot give data further than 5,000 years of age, the rest (the amount data over 5,000 years) is an assumed further data calculated after the limits of the Carbono 14 method.

In other words, in reality we are trapped to both interpretations, the religious and the scientific interpretations, because no facts back up either side.

The difference is how people ascertain truth. For many Christians the determination of truth regarding the bible is made through implication, not direct evidence. The evidence associated with the Bible as well as the statements made in the Bible give some credence to the Bible. IE there is testimony and historical evidence that the people and the places in the Bible existed; there is testimony that Jesus lived and performed miracles; there is testimony that people experience divine acts; etc.

However, this method (hear-say) does no justice to the pursuit of "truth". None of this evidence lends itself to discovering whether the God and acts performed in the Bible are true; testimony does not prove reality; references to historical places and people does not prove anything except the existence of historical places; the existance of Jesus does not prove the existance of performed miracles.

This is not to say that the Bible is wrong, it is merely unproven. The Bible will always will be unproven (most likely) because the method in which the Bible uses to claim truth cannot be verified (testimony).

Very few things in this world are guaranteed (see Mach's thread for the few objective truths known to man --> http://www.debatepolitics.com/religion-philosophy/31743-reason-its-axioms.html) This puts us humans in quite a conundrum. However, science attempts to navigate this problem by utilizing a methodology involving empirical data and axioms. This method, the scientific method, has repeatedly proven itself (by far) the most consistent, logical, rational, and truth revealing tool known to man.

Scientific theories and hypotheses run the gamut from extremely supported (theory of general relativity) to not supported or weakly supported (super string theory and Higgs field). If you take your time and carefully read scientific articles and papers you can determine how strongly or weakly a theory is supported. So feel free to pick and choose which theories, hypotheses, and hear-say explanations you want to believe; I can't change your mind for you. BUT I would strongly suggest one develops a solid and consistent methodology in which one evaluates the merits of claims and even more important always maintain an open mind to the infinite possibilities.

rathi · 05-26-08, 01:52 AM

Quote:

You measure the the age of an old tree sample through the Carbono 14 method and it gives you 2,789 years of age. Now well, you count the rings of the tree and their amount is 2,902 rings. We know that the tree forms one ring per year, and by comparing both results you have "verified" the Carbono 14 method with success, it is a verifiable method, it is a trusted method.

What about the radiometric dating method? This method sounds great, it sounds very accurate, but sorry, is not a verifiable method.

Radiometric dating is the same thing as carbon 14 dating. Carbon 14 is a radioactive isotope.

Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Excellent job on defeating your own argument.