What's more important, truth or the Bible?

[grasping the after wind]

One more question to gauge where you are coming from. How would you respond to the statement. " I do not understand the devotion so many people have to what they term "Science" as from what I can tell science shows us many facts but very little in the way of truth."

 

[Tree of Life]

Truth! Absolutely.



No, I don't think it sounds strange or silly in the least. Whenever a new piece of knowledge is discovered, analyzed, proven to be true, and yet it goes directly against any current scientific theory, the scientific theory must be revised and, if it can't account for this piece of newly discovered knowledge by any means, then a better scientific theory must be found or formulated that can, still perfectly explain the existing body of knowledge as well as account for this newly discovered nugget of knowledge. That's how science works.

It seems as if you've defined "science" to be synonymous with "truth". At least science is a method for discovering truth. But science is still a true method for discovering truth.

I would distinguish "science" as an enterprise from "current scientific theory" which is subject to change as new knowledge comes to light.

Reformulating this, would a choice between science and truth seem like a false dilemma?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm aware that the great majority of Bible believers will probably say something along the lines of "The Bible IS the truth", "One can only find the truth in the Bible", "they are both one and the same (truth/Bible)", etc... and that's fine. Even though I myself don't believe the Bible to be true any longer, I was born and raised christian, I was very active in church, always participating in Bible competitions, finishing in the top spots most of the time, I'm also I musician so, I was part of the worship ministry most of the time, pianist of the choir, etc... What I'm trying to get at is that I know exactly what it feels like to really, really believe the Bible is the absolute truth because I truly believed in it pretty much all thirty years out of the first thirty years of my life.

So, the question is not "do you believe the Bible is true" or "do you think the Bible and truth are one and the same", no... my question is 'What's more important for you, is it truth, regardless of all its implications, or is it the Bible, regardless of what the truth actually is?

I would love to hear your positions!
Cheers!

SkepticLogician,

Personally, before answering the question, I'd have to have in mind a clear (or at the very least an "approximate") denotation for each of the concepts under consideration.

The problem is that each of these concepts can have a variety of constructions or embedded meanings, and before any of us can choose one over the other, we have to first get to the truth about Truth, as well uncover, if possible, the nature of the Bible.

Then, we can attempt to compare and contrast these 'two' concepts so as to reach and affirm some kind of personal preference. Needless to say, this undertaking is a complex mental exercise, and for any of us to whitewash the issue by stating that the exercise is really just "linear" and "simple" is, I think, to delve into a kind of sophistry.

That's my take anyway.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[Albion]

I think I understand why you would see my question as a false dichotomy if you believe that the Bible contains 100% truth in it. So, would this question make more sense to you: If you were shown full proof of a clear error, falsehood or contradiction in the Bible, would you acknowledge that it can no longer be claimed that the Bible is 100% true or would you rather dismiss and ignore the truth of the fact that the error/contradiction exists in an attempt to save the Bible's status as containing 100% truth?

The number of people who would defend the Bible as being entirely true while also being convinced that it is in error are so few that it hardly seems like it's worth asking such a question.

 

[oi_antz]

The number of people who would defend the Bible as being entirely true while also being convinced that it is in error are so few that it hardly seems like it's worth asking such a question.

It happened to me, and I chose to accept that the whole bible cannot be reasonably believed to be true. But the whole thing is useful when examining and promoting the truth. I think you might be picking on some failure of OP's words to be perfectly what he means, but I could be wrong.

 

[Albion]

It happened to me, and I chose to accept that the whole bible cannot be reasonably believed to be true. But the whole thing is useful when examining and promoting the truth. I think you might be picking on some failure of OP's words to be perfectly what he means, but I could be wrong.

Right. While what I wrote is correct IMO, I did read his question too quickly.

There are many who would agree that the Bible contains truth but that there are also incorrect parts (because of mistranslation or because these are not about matters of faith). Would they then insist that the Bible is 100% correct, in all matters, as we have it in English? Some might, but I can see no reason to feel any obligation to do that, and it still seems to me that those who might take that route are relatively few. You certainly are not among them, and I think that your POV is common. BTW, you said that "it happened to" you, but not, I assume, the part about defending it as being 100% true after you concluded that it is not.

 

[skepticlogician]

I would think there was a problem with the particular verse in question, whether an interpretation problem, a translation problem, a manuscript problem, or something else.

But none of the "errors, falsehoods, or contradictions" I've been shown hold water.

In other words, if such a clear proof of a falsehood in the Bible was presented to you, you would never consider that the Bible has a problem, not for a second, but rather, that the Bible is being misinterpreted or translated incorrectly?

So, it seems that for you, the Bible is indeed more important than truth because in your mind there isn't such a scenario in which the Bible could be wrong.

By contrast, if you were to show full and unmistakable proof me that science is a malfunctioning and unreliable tool to arrive to the truth, I wouldn't hesitate to throw it out the window and look for a better mechanism to arrive to the truth. Because for me truth is the most important thing.

 

[skepticlogician]

Your question is too broad to answer without some clarification.

How would you define the term truth?

Well, I would define truth as "that which conforms to reality", let's start there. If I were to find a statement written somewhere, and that statement does not conform to reality, I should be completely justified to say that such a statement is NOT true, for example.

Must something contain all that is true to be considered true or could it contain part of all that is true and be considered true as long as it does not contain falsehood.

If 'that something' is claimed to be 100% true, then yes, it can only be considered true if 'that something' doesn't have the slightest error possible. See, this is the thing, I don't have a problem saying that the Bible contains truths, actually, personally, I believe the Bible contains many truths, but those truths don't automatically cancel the contradictions that it also contains, making the Bible 100% true, or what's even more extraordinary, of divine origin.

That's the difference, I don't have any problem saying that the Bible contains many truths.
Believers, on the other hand, have HUGE problems even considering that the Bible might have any contradictions or non-truths.

Do you consider the general more important than the specific or the group more important than the individuals that make up the group? Why or why not?

Can you elaborate on this question a bit more to apply it to the discussion of truth? I just want to make sure I'm understanding your question.

Is the parable of the Good Samaritan truth or untruth in your opinion?

Well, by definition, the point of a parable is not whether the story presented is true or untrue, by rather, to exemplify a particular concept that the one telling the parable is attempting to transmit to his/her audience. Now, if the story teller wants to argue that the parable was actually factual and it really happened, well, that's a different matter and completely different discussion.

Also I think you have made at least one claim that needs substantiation.You claim there are errors the Bible. What mistakes are you speaking of?

Agreed. I'm not presenting any of these errors for debate in this thread only in an attempt to keep the discussion on the subject of the importance of truth when considering the writings in the Bible. Each of these mistakes and contradictions can promptly become full fledged debates on their own, but we can certainly go over these on separate threads.

Would you consider a mistranslation an error? Misspelling? If something was included that the author meant to be included then is it an error or just something that the reader does not find to be concretely factual?

A mistranslation would be an error committed by the translator and in such case the author should not be considered to be at fault. However, mistranslations can completely change the original meaning of a statement, therefore are problematic and need to be brought to light in any debate around such a statement.

A misspelling could be considered an unimportant error only when that misspelling is not changing the meaning of the statement in any way. If the meaning is changed due to the misspelling, then it is important to bring it to light in any debate around such a statement.

If something that's included in a statement is not factual, and 'that something' was indeed meant to be included by the author, then clearly the author is at fault in this case, and such a statement cannot be considered true.

 

[skepticlogician]

One more question to gauge where you are coming from. How would you respond to the statement. " I do not understand the devotion so many people have to what they term "Science" as from what I can tell science shows us many facts but very little in the way of truth."

I would ask you to elaborate on what you mean by 'truth' so I can understand the distinction you are making between 'that truth' and 'the many facts that science shows us'.

 

[skepticlogician]

It seems as if you've defined "science" to be synonymous with "truth". At least science is a method for discovering truth. But science is still a true method for discovering truth.

How so? I don't believe science to be synonymous with truth. I believe science is a reliable mechanism to bring us to truth. As I've mentioned before, I don't have a problem with throwing 'science' out the window and look for a better tool, if it were to be clearly demonstrated that it is NOT a reliable method for discovering truth.

I would distinguish "science" as an enterprise from "current scientific theory" which is subject to change as new knowledge comes to light.

Completely agreed.

Reformulating this, would a choice between science and truth seem like a false dilemma?

Well, no, because like I said, I would immediately throw 'science' out the window and look for a better tool, if it were to be clearly demonstrated that it is NOT a reliable method for discovering truth.

I would go with truth over science, 100%, every time, all the time, in such a scenario.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm aware that the great majority of Bible believers will probably say something along the lines of "The Bible IS the truth", "One can only find the truth in the Bible", "they are both one and the same (truth/Bible)", etc... and that's fine. Even though I myself don't believe the Bible to be true any longer, I was born and raised christian, I was very active in church, always participating in Bible competitions, finishing in the top spots most of the time, I'm also I musician so, I was part of the worship ministry most of the time, pianist of the choir, etc... What I'm trying to get at is that I know exactly what it feels like to really, really believe the Bible is the absolute truth because I truly believed in it pretty much all thirty years out of the first thirty years of my life.

So, the question is not "do you believe the Bible is true" or "do you think the Bible and truth are one and the same", no... my question is 'What's more important for you, is it truth, regardless of all its implications, or is it the Bible, regardless of what the truth actually is?

I would love to hear your positions!
Cheers!

I guess my response would be probably to ask which is more important to you, pizza or the color blue? Making a valuation between two not-likes basically amounts to a false dichotomy.

The importance of truth as a general principle or abstraction, and the particular importance of Scripture in the religious life of the Christian Church are not like and like.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Noxot]

I'm aware that the great majority of Bible believers will probably say something along the lines of "The Bible IS the truth", "One can only find the truth in the Bible", "they are both one and the same (truth/Bible)", etc... and that's fine. Even though I myself don't believe the Bible to be true any longer, I was born and raised christian, I was very active in church, always participating in Bible competitions, finishing in the top spots most of the time, I'm also I musician so, I was part of the worship ministry most of the time, pianist of the choir, etc... What I'm trying to get at is that I know exactly what it feels like to really, really believe the Bible is the absolute truth because I truly believed in it pretty much all thirty years out of the first thirty years of my life.

So, the question is not "do you believe the Bible is true" or "do you think the Bible and truth are one and the same", no... my question is 'What's more important for you, is it truth, regardless of all its implications, or is it the Bible, regardless of what the truth actually is?

I would love to hear your positions!
Cheers!

what is important to me is God who is both goodness and truth or love and wisdom.

recently joe rogan had a podcast with jordan peterson (a clinical psychologist and psychology professor) and bret weinstein ( a biology professor). in it they discussed a difference between facts and truths and the different types of truth. it was a very enjoyable podcast that I think you might also enjoy it.

 

[CrystalDragon]

I'm aware that the great majority of Bible believers will probably say something along the lines of "The Bible IS the truth", "One can only find the truth in the Bible", "they are both one and the same (truth/Bible)", etc... and that's fine. Even though I myself don't believe the Bible to be true any longer, I was born and raised christian, I was very active in church, always participating in Bible competitions, finishing in the top spots most of the time, I'm also I musician so, I was part of the worship ministry most of the time, pianist of the choir, etc... What I'm trying to get at is that I know exactly what it feels like to really, really believe the Bible is the absolute truth because I truly believed in it pretty much all thirty years out of the first thirty years of my life.

So, the question is not "do you believe the Bible is true" or "do you think the Bible and truth are one and the same", no... my question is 'What's more important for you, is it truth, regardless of all its implications, or is it the Bible, regardless of what the truth actually is?

I would love to hear your positions!
Cheers!

Truth, easily.

True that I do not find in the Bible.

In the Bible I find centuries-long developments, contradictions, supposed prophecies not really fulfilled, and God-approved violence and death.

 

[skepticlogician]

I guess my response would be probably to ask which is more important to you, pizza or the color blue? Making a valuation between two not-likes basically amounts to a false dichotomy.

The importance of truth as a general principle or abstraction, and the particular importance of Scripture in the religious life of the Christian Church are not like and like.

-CryptoLutheran

Are you actually proposing there's a relationship between pizza and the color blue which is analogous to truth and the Bible, or are you just trying to sarcastically dismiss my question?

Do you believe the Bible to be in any of these buckets?
1. The bible contains many truths.
2. The bible contains only truths.
3. The bible IS the truth.

If none of the above, what is then your position regarding the relationship between truth and the bible?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are you actually proposing there's a relationship between pizza and the color blue which is analogous to truth and the Bible, or are you just trying to sarcastically dismiss my question?

Do you believe the Bible to be in any of these buckets?
1. The bible contains many truths.
2. The bible contains only truths.
3. The bible IS the truth.

If none of the above, what is then your position regarding the relationship between truth and the bible?

I'd say that it's number 1, since Jesus IS the truth and the Bible is a human reflection of that Embodied, Supreme, Ground of Truth.

 

[Chriliman]

I'm aware that the great majority of Bible believers will probably say something along the lines of "The Bible IS the truth", "One can only find the truth in the Bible", "they are both one and the same (truth/Bible)", etc... and that's fine. Even though I myself don't believe the Bible to be true any longer, I was born and raised christian, I was very active in church, always participating in Bible competitions, finishing in the top spots most of the time, I'm also I musician so, I was part of the worship ministry most of the time, pianist of the choir, etc... What I'm trying to get at is that I know exactly what it feels like to really, really believe the Bible is the absolute truth because I truly believed in it pretty much all thirty years out of the first thirty years of my life.

So, the question is not "do you believe the Bible is true" or "do you think the Bible and truth are one and the same", no... my question is 'What's more important for you, is it truth, regardless of all its implications, or is it the Bible, regardless of what the truth actually is?

I would love to hear your positions!
Cheers!

I believe the Bible contains truth from God, but God's truth is not limited to the Bible. Scripture is a testimony to the personhood of Christ the true word of God and we can see that testimony in all creation as well.

 

[hedrick]

The OP doesn't ask the question in a useful form. Everyone believes in truth. The question is how to determine it. Conservative Christians are convinced that the Bible is directly from God, and thus more reliable than any other possible source. Others, whether non-Christians or more liberal Christians, don't have that belief, and use the same kinds of tools in assessing what it says that they would for other documents.

This difference doesn't seem like it's one that you can discuss. The inerrancy of Scripture is a basic commitment. Changing it involves a conversion on the same order as becoming a Christian (or a non-Christian). That rarely happens because someone wins an argument.

 

[Soyeong]

I'm aware that the great majority of Bible believers will probably say something along the lines of "The Bible IS the truth", "One can only find the truth in the Bible", "they are both one and the same (truth/Bible)", etc... and that's fine. Even though I myself don't believe the Bible to be true any longer, I was born and raised christian, I was very active in church, always participating in Bible competitions, finishing in the top spots most of the time, I'm also I musician so, I was part of the worship ministry most of the time, pianist of the choir, etc... What I'm trying to get at is that I know exactly what it feels like to really, really believe the Bible is the absolute truth because I truly believed in it pretty much all thirty years out of the first thirty years of my life.

So, the question is not "do you believe the Bible is true" or "do you think the Bible and truth are one and the same", no... my question is 'What's more important for you, is it truth, regardless of all its implications, or is it the Bible, regardless of what the truth actually is?

I would love to hear your positions!
Cheers!

What's more important for you, is it truth, regardless of all its implications, or is it survival, regardless of what the truth actually is?

If Evolution and Naturalism are true, then our brains are not geared toward believing things that are true, but rather it is geared toward believing things that increase our chance of survival without respect for what is true. For example, our brains repress repress traumatic events, so what is true doesn't matter if believing or not believing something increases our chance for survival, there is no evolutionary reason why our brains would favor believing something true instead instead of something false that has an evolutionary advantage. If the Bible is false, then we ought to believe it is false, but without the existence of God I can't even claim that much because there would be nothing to establish an obligation to not believe things that are false.

 

[Sketcher]

Your question seems to imply that the two are at odds. I don't believe they are, so I can't pick one over the other. How one interprets the Bible in light of other facts, there is some flexibility there. And I certainly care about truth, whether we're talking about a Bible passage or not.

 

[skepticlogician]

Your question seems to imply that the two are at odds. I don't believe they are, so I can't pick one over the other.

I'm not sure the question implies they are at odds. For example, as a non-believer, it shouldn't be surprising that to me, science is the best tool to come about finding truth in our surroundings. To me science and truth are not at odds in the least. But if you were to demonstrate to me that science is actually not a reliable way to find the truth, to me truth is more important, I wouldn't have a problem throwing science out the window, as I've mentioned.
It surprises me very much this sort of fear that believers seem to have to even consider hypothetically that the bible might not contain the truth, why is that? Is it because the bible is indeed more important than truth to you guys?
I really want to know, because, for example, when I tell a believer that the bible condones slavery, their reaction is never "does it? wow, let me take a look to confirm"... it's more something like "no, that's not possible, the bible would never do that".
You see the bias in there? It's possible that believers are not aware that they put the bible way higher than the truth and they don't even know it... it could be, I don't know.