Why does the whole Bible have to be true?

[day time]

I don't see the *total* relevance in whether or not the Bible is true or not. You don't need a book to know God.

Where I do see some of the relevance, is if the books in the Bible are primarily how you, yourself, know of God, then I can see why it would be so important. Because if something is found to be false, then it would throw into question what you think you know.

Or since the accounts of God in the Bible are often horrific and depict both brutality and the miraculous ..... if they are true, then having God explain what we don't understand about His actions would be relevant. Otherwise it will cause division ... similar to media reporting on aspects of leaders and those in the public eye. Having them clarify can be helpful to those who are seeking to understand their stances and actions. Otherwise, if we merely go on the accounts and words of others, we'll end up trusting Kim Jong Il types of characters who don't deserve it, or perhaps distrusting and treating maliciously those who do deserve our trust .... all based on heresay.

 

[someguy14]

Perhaps some could pray sincerly for some faith. Take Him at His word.
An example is Jesus walking on water and Peter eager to join Him.

 

[lucaspa]

I garner my wisdom, truth and knowledge from many sources. One of those sources is the Bible. However, if something in the Bible doesn't make sense, is contradictory, is illogical or is entirely ridiculous I don't feel some need to incorporate this piece of irrationality into my belief system purely because it must be assumed to be true on faith.

The whole Bible has to be true if and only if you have made the Bible your god. If that is the case, then having the Bible be wrong means your god is wrong and, therefore, may not exist.

What do you gain by taking the whole Bible as true? ...What do you gain by exalting the Bible to some level above all other books?

You gain a very simple god that you can manipulate to be what you want it to be. Thus, you get to be in charge and tell us what that god wants. It's a power trip.

Why can't you get truth from the Bible as well as getting truth from other sources?

Christians have always allowed extrabiblical knowledge to influence their interpretation of scripture. No "biblical literalists" thinks Luke 2:1 literally means the entire world was enrolled in Caesar's sentence. Most "Biblical literalists" have allowed extrabibiblical knowledge to let them change the interpretation of passages where it clearly says the earth does not move, and thus accept heliocentrism and that the earth moves around the sun.

Here, I strongly urge you to read these essays to help answer your question:
Theology Today - Vol 39, No. 2 - July 1982 - ARTICLE - The Beginning

http://www.newreformation.org/

 

[lucaspa]

Indeed. I am plagued by skepticism.

Even Jesus and Paul were skeptical now and then. Jesus' praying in the Garden prior to his arrest are a testiment to his skepticism. You might find the book Skeptics and True Believers helpful.

And while gender roles fuzzy some things about marriage, I also don't think there was ever a "golden era" to look back to.

No, there wasn't. There are some pretty nasty forms of marriage within the Bible. Forms that do not at all correspond with the "one man, one woman" cry we hear so much about today.

Well, in the 1800s when gender roles were very clear cut and females were more submissive and with fewer rights, it may have been the "golden era" for the husband, but not so for the wife. On a slightly different note: is a woman's primary purpose to bear children?

It depends on which strata of society you look at. Among the well-to-do, gender roles did approach the ideal of woman stays at home and husband earns the money. BUT, when you leave that strata, the roles get a lot fuzzier. For one thing, both people needed to work to put food on the table. Women ran businesses while the husbands worked at a job. Pioneer women cut down trees, planted fields, hunted small game, fought off Indians etc. right alongside the menfolk.

I think marriage demands respect, honesty, open communication and love. I think the women should submit to the man out of love just as much as the man should submit to the female out of love. It is a mutual give-take relationship; a spiritual union; a life-long commitment. And it requires work by both parties.

The lack of any of these things is why marriages end up broken, unhappy or divorced. NOT because the wife fails to keep quiet and submit.

There's also the cases where the husband beats the wife, drinks all the money away, keeps mistresses, etc. I find it terrible that people that who read the Bible where it says half the Great Commandment is to "love your neighbors as yourself" would ever consider it loving your neighbor to ask that neighbor, in the face of a woman facing such conditions, to stay in such a marriage. If that is "love", then how do you distinguish it from "hate"?

 

[unique101]

Another angle of looking at this is to look at the effects of man's actions by abandoning the commands of God Almighty e.g. punishing a girl who sleeps around. This is a deterrent to arrest social chaos - illegitimate children, sexual transmitted diseases, single parenting, lost family values etc. It could be therefore said that instead of trying hard to literary understand the meaning one can look at the effects of not applying such verses.

The seeker of truth.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

WorldwideFlood.com
Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood
Do a google search there are many many others.

If you can find a link that is not run by a Christian, creationist organization, I might be more intrigued.

Camp 1: People who believe the flood and are Christian
Camp 2: People who don't believe the flood and are Christian
Camp 3: People who don't believe the flood and are non-Christian
Camp 4: People who believe the flood and are non-Christian

Why is there no one in Camp 4?

If there was legitimate, scientific evidence for a global flood, there would be some segment of the scientific community that were non-Christian and also believed in a global flood. But no one is in Camp 4 meaning its largely ideological and not evidenced based.

I could tear those links apart but there's a lot of information there. As I read I came across more and more stupidity and ignorance about the basic principles of geology.

For example: "Clastic dikes present a problem to the "mythions of years" mindset of evolution in that massive "older" sediments are found intruding up into overlying younger strata. This must have occurred while the "older" sediments were still in a plastic state.

What took these "older" sediments so long to become hard?"

If the maker of this website had done a 5 minute Google search on clastic dikes he would have found this: Clastic dike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, polystrate fossils. Give me a break: Polystrate fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its not as if polystrate fossils are found everywhere and anywhere. They're always found in an area where rapid sedimentation would logically occur do to land subsidence, volcanic activity, or debris flows on a mud plain.

One of the funniest examples they give of "proof" of the flood is that a whale being found upright in a mine. Okay...but they flood wouldn't have killed whales anyway

This whole website is a series of weak arguments using all the really rare, anomalous examples in the geologic record. Yes, there are anomalies and there are some weird things, but those anomalies ARE NOT the norm. The scientific method is not about drawing conclusions from the few bizarre anomalies, its about integrating the knowledge and drawing conclusions from the whole data set. The anomalies are weird, but like in the case of polystrate fossils, there is a clear geological explanation for these anomalies.

It's not your personal perspective i agree. There are many who believe as you do. Even so, your perspective/The perspective you adopted, is only one of several.

It is the only legitimately scientific perspective that is grounded in solid evidence based upon geological principles.

There will always be multiple perspectives on things; but it doesn't make them all legitimate.

No, it is spherical. Round denotes a 2 dimensional perspective.

These guys seems to think its flat: The Flat Earth Society -- Home

I guess you might be wrong because its just your perspective.

 

[Nails74]

If you can find a link that is not run by a Christian, creationist organization, I might be more intrigued.

Just out of curiosity, do you actually read any websites that might give you a glimpse into true Christianity? Is strikes me as odd that, after 2+ years on here as a "Christian seeker", you continue to do nothing but argue. What is the point?

 

[SharonL]

Men were led by the HOly Spirit to write the Bible over a period of 1600 years. It is God's Word - Jesus is the Word become flesh.

 

[drich0150]

If you can find a link that is not run by a Christian, creationist organization, I might be more intrigued.

Camp 1: People who believe the flood and are Christian
Camp 2: People who don't believe the flood and are Christian
Camp 3: People who don't believe the flood and are non-Christian
Camp 4: People who believe the flood and are non-Christian

Why is there no one in Camp 4?

Because the old earth doctrine says that at some point all land was under water.

Now because old earth and Creationism conflict, if one believes in one then by default can not believe in another. In turn people who believe in the great flood have this belief because they are christian/Jew.

If there was legitimate, scientific evidence for a global flood, there would be some segment of the scientific community that were non-Christian and also believed in a global flood.

If evidence is consumed and processed by the scientific community to support their beliefs, does it mean that those who believe in those theories are always believing in absolute truth?

Maybe I should ask you this. Has science ever been wrong when extrapolating data from available evidence when constructing a theory that supports it's core doctrines?
(Global warming due to green house gasses, Global cooling due to excessive co2 in the air, holes in the Ozone due to cfc's, do I need to go on?)

But no one is in Camp 4 meaning its largely ideological and not evidenced based.

A theory is still just a theory whether based in evidence or not. Especially when they are subject to change. Know when they are changed, then even a theory based in "fact" requires faith to believe and accept as truth.

I could tear those links apart but there's a lot of information there. As I read I came across more and more stupidity and ignorance about the basic principles of geology.

There is as much stupidity if not more about our current understandings in accepted geological study. For instance why are continually pushing back the time line of geology? Because when we find something we can not explain, or if a geological known is found out of sync what we believe or we know to be true, the time line is pushed back every 10 or so years to accommodate this new "truth." Why? Because no one is willing to admit that we simply do not know. Or, That what we think we know is the best guess of someone with the most expansive degree in this field.. That is until someone with a bigger degree wants to make a name for himself and turn over the findings of the guy who came before.
When this happens everyone's "perspective" is made to change.. That is if you wish to stay "current."

In truth, If geologist knew the truth, then their "facts" would not change.
Again as it is the best you can do is to have Faith in the current understanding of Geology.

One of the funniest examples they give of "proof" of the flood is that a whale being found upright in a mine. Okay...but they flood wouldn't have killed whales anyway

Not sure what is being said here.

This whole website is a series of weak arguments using all the really rare, anomalous examples in the geologic record. Yes, there are anomalies and there are some weird things, but those anomalies ARE NOT the norm. The scientific method is not about drawing conclusions from the few bizarre anomalies, its about integrating the knowledge and drawing conclusions from the whole data set.

That is, in a continual process of amendment and change as evidence changes, or as discoveries are made, that prove the what we once believed to be abnormalities, demand to be accounted for as the norm. In most cases simply pushing back the geological time line is enough, but once in a generation or so the whole geological account demands an over haul.

We are long over due for an over haul..

It is the only legitimately scientific perspective that is grounded in solid evidence based upon geological principles.

uh, yeah. And those principles are faith based. Faith that the websites and men you are quoting have done their due diligence. and in turn the handful of geological trend setters they have quoted, have got it right this time.

There will always be multiple perspectives on things; but it doesn't make them all legitimate.

No, not always, but it does show that what is popularly accepted is not akin to absolute truth. In the end no matter what you believe it can be a classified as matter of faith. Do you know why no one disputes gravity? Because the law that defines the process can be verified and proven over and over. Very little has changed in the law of gravity since Isac newton first penned it. The same can not be said about the popular understanding of geology. That is why there is room for alternative explanations. Like it or not what you believe is based in faith. A faith in facts is still faith. Why? because even if the facts themselves are indisputable the theories that tie the facts together are not. You have faith in the theory that says everyone else is wrong.

That said it is a simple matter of preference as to what you want to believe. Once can even say it is a matter of perspective on how you wish to view life and God.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Just out of curiosity, do you actually read any websites that might give you a glimpse into true Christianity?

Yea but I was responding the posters links on creationist nonsense that has no grounding in science and/or contradicts scientific principles entirely. I don't take the Bible literally because I don't think it was intended to be a book on natural history but rather a book on the human condition, God and morality.

I do read lots of hearty Christian writings and websites; the likes of CS Lewis and Chesterton.

I'm aware that the literalist interpretation is not the only interpretation.

It strikes me as odd that, after 2+ years on here as a "Christian seeker", you continue to do nothing but argue. What is the point?

This thread was not meant to be an argumentative thread about Noah's ark. It was meant to question a simple assumption made by Christians. After 2+ years, I have not run out of questions and have not stopped learning. Nor do I intend to stop asking questions and learning in 10+, 20+ or 50+ years.

I do believe a great deal of the Bible. But I am not one to make the leap from using the Bible as a source of moral law and a story of the human condition to the point of using the Bible as a book on natural history that supersedes scientific evidence.

As such, I think some things that are described in the Bible are false, not in that they lack meaning or give insight into the human condition or man's relationship with God but rather that the words themselves, taken literally, must be logically, scientifically and evidentially false. I don't think that being intellectually honest and admitting these falsities decreases the potency or importance of the Bible it is simply using the Bible as it is meant to be used: a spiritual piece of literature; not a scientific piece of literature.

I did not start this thread with the intention of arguing about Noah's ark and the flood. So this is my last response on that subject.

 

[Believer69]

I don't see the *total* relevance in whether or not the Bible is true or not. You don't need a book to know God.

Just diving in here. But dont you need the bible to know the judeo-christian god. Without this then you can know any god. zues, odin and the thousands of other gods. Without it wont you just be making up your god?

 

[AdamKane]

If you can find a link that is not run by a Christian, creationist organization, I might be more intrigued.

How about an Islamic creationists organization?

Fossils have discredited evolution (Harun Yahya) - YouTube

 

[day time]

Just diving in here. But dont you need the bible to know the judeo-christian god. Without this then you can know any god. zues, odin and the thousands of other gods. Without it wont you just be making up your god?

I think this might be knowing *of*, verses knowing or experiencing personally.

Zeus, odin, the judeo-christian god, Ra, etc ... reading about them is not what I would consider "knowing". I think this one actress is hot, and I've seen some of her movies etc ... but I don't call that "knowing". Dating her, going out with her, talking with her, etc .... that would be knowing and getting to know her in my definition of "knowing". Reading about her, or even taking the accounts of others as "knowing her" .... that isn't what I would consider knowing either. That's more like being a *fan* of hers, or taken to the extreme ... if I think she's talking to me personally in her movies or something, like everything she says in a movie or even in real life is a message to me ... then that could make me delusional and a "fanatic".

I didn't need a book to have this conversation with you, for example .... or to date someone or befriend them. I didn't need a book to recognize Obama is President of the US and whether to vote for him or not. You and they exist without having to read about you lol. In my eyes, this is fairly straight forward ... knowing someone or something is knowing someone or something personally. Knowing *of* them, or being a fan of them, etc ... is different.

 

[Believer69]

I think this might be knowing *of*, verses knowing or experiencing personally.

Zeus, odin, the judeo-christian god, Ra, etc ... reading about them is not what I would consider "knowing". I think this one actress is hot, and I've seen some of her movies etc ... but I don't call that "knowing". Dating her, going out with her, talking with her, etc .... that would be knowing and getting to know her in my definition of "knowing". Reading about her, or even taking the accounts of others as "knowing her" .... that isn't what I would consider knowing either. That's more like being a *fan* of hers, or taken to the extreme ... if I think she's talking to me personally in her movies or something, like everything she says in a movie or even in real life is a message to me ... then that could make me delusional and a "fanatic".

I didn't need a book to have this conversation with you, for example .... or to date someone or befriend them. I didn't need a book to recognize Obama is President of the US and whether to vote for him or not. You and they exist without having to read about you lol. In my eyes, this is fairly straight forward ... knowing someone or something is knowing someone or something personally. Knowing *of* them, or being a fan of them, etc ... is different.

Interesting point. But yes you may have a conversation with this actress but how do you know what she is saying is true?

 

[Nails74]

I do believe a great deal of the Bible. But I am not one to make the leap from using the Bible as a source of moral law and a story of the human condition to the point of using the Bible as a book on natural history that supersedes scientific evidence.

And once again, I think you miss the entire point of the Bible. This is not simply a book of morals.

As such, I think some things that are described in the Bible are false, not in that they lack meaning or give insight into the human condition or man's relationship with God but rather that the words themselves, taken literally, must be logically, scientifically and evidentially false. I don't think that being intellectually honest and admitting these falsities decreases the potency or importance of the Bible it is simply using the Bible as it is meant to be used: a spiritual piece of literature; not a scientific piece of literature.

So what parts can I discard? The resurrection of Christ is something that is frequently cited by unbelievers as something that cannot possibly be true. For a man to suffer as he did, die, remain in a tomb for three days and then be resurrected...nah...couldn't possibly happen...it just isn't logical. As Paul said...

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say, “ There is no resurrection of the dead ”? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation is without foundation, and so is your faith. In addition, we are found to be false witnesses about God, because we have testified about God that He raised up Christ —whom He did not raise up if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, Christ has not been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Therefore, those who have fallen asleep in Christ have also perished. If we have put our hope in Christ for this life only, we should be pitied more than anyone. [1 Corinthians 15:12-19]

 

[day time]

Interesting point. But yes you may have a conversation with this actress but how do you know what she is saying is true?

The same way you know whether or not what anyone says is true .... when they say something, they can back it up.

And dude I hope that was an interesting point lol .... I think we'd all be up **** creek if we had to check with books before interacting with each other to get to know each other lol.