In this writing we are going to examine the reliability of the Bible especially concerning that of the Gospels. These matters may be problematic for many people and they may lose their faith because of it. Often the statements of many researchers, in which they may doubt the history of the Bible or say things like "In the real world miracles have never happened", may influence people's minds. They may say that the Bible is not reliable in the things that it talks about.
However, it is good to notice that such statements are nothing new but have been presented already during the past two hundred years. Actually it is interesting to notice that as Darwin 's theory of evolution and the theory of the ice age became well-known among people, the said higher criticism of the Bible began to gain ground simultaneously. Researchers, who started questioning the writings of Jesus' life and other events of the Bible, began to spring up. They might have thought that if the creation and the Flood are not true in the light of the previous theories, what reason would we then have to believe in information about Jesus. So it is certainly not by chance that all three matters came out almost simultaneously.
In any case, it is good for us to research this. The purpose is to help especially those people who want to know more about this matter, and to show how reasonable it is to trust in events mentioned in the Bible. If you struggle with this matter, it is worth your while to read the next lines.
Posts: 3 | Location: Finland | Registered: 05-30-07
What do you mean by 'trust'? If you mean, "Can I put utter faith in the results of modern-day analysis of ancient texts", the answer is surely "No". Because what appears to be true today, based the the analysis of some newly-discovered documents, may turn out to have been the interpretation of only one of the many sects of early Christianity.
And as for the 'approved' versions we have to-day, that seal itself means relatively little. It is just the mark of a certain sect that won a certain battle regarding a certain text in the past.
But the same is true of any research. If you count every species of life in undersea caves, there is always the possibility that just one more will be discovered, and this discovery would render your previous count wrong.
It is psychologically more healthy to understand that absolute truth about anything is (probably ) not possible. And just learn to live with that fact, and do the best you can to find a comfortable and reasonable 'certainty'.
Posts: 6362 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
I have a question about the message on the site that you directed us to (above).
quote:
However, it is good to notice that such statements are nothing new but have been presented already during the past two hundred years. Actually it is interesting to notice that as Darwin 's theory of evolution and the theory of the ice age became well-known among people, the said higher criticism of the Bible began to gain ground simultaneously.
Is this suggesting that the theory of the ice age and Darwin's theory of evolution somehow caused people to doubt the reliability of the bible?
Or is this suggesting that higher criticism of the bible caused people to invent theories of evolution and of the ice age?
Or is it suggesting that there arose about two hundred years ago a new spirit of inquiry that caused people to want to investigate and test the truth of all kinds of things they previously believed without question?
Posts: 6362 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
I have read the Bible and its "prophecies" and I have not noticed any such thing. I think it depends more on what you want to believe and what you already believe than the validity of what you read.
quote:
It is psychologically more healthy to understand that absolute truth about anything is (probably) not possible. And just learn to live with that fact, and do the best you can to find a comfortable and reasonable 'certainty'.
I like that, Babthrower.
Posts: 4535 | Location: Rochester, NY, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
You can read the Bible and its prophecies ... and you shall notice that Bible is word of God
No, it's the word of prophets pretending they speak words directly revealed to them by their god. But they all do that. The Mormons, Mohammed, Joseph Karesh. And the Mormons have their sacred book from their god's very lips. And Islam has its sacred book dictated to their scribes and wise men from the very mouth of Allah. The exact words. Copied down at the time their prophet lived. Unchanged. Inspired truth.
Well, David Koresh didn't get to finish his. But if he had finished it, we would have another sacred text from the mind of god.
Except they're all different.
__________________________ But you didn't clear up my other question: What did your source mean by:
"... it is good to notice that such statements are nothing new but have been presented already during the past two hundred years. Actually it is interesting to notice that as Darwin 's theory of evolution and the theory of the ice age became well-known among people, the said higher criticism of the Bible began to gain ground simultaneously."
Is this suggesting that the theory of the ice age and Darwin's theory of evolution somehow caused people to doubt the reliability of the bible?
Or is this suggesting that higher criticism of the bible caused people to invent theories of evolution and of the ice age?
Or is it suggesting that there arose about two hundred years ago a new spirit of inquiry that caused people to want to investigate and test the truth of all kinds of things they previously believed without question?
And is it suggesting that criticism of biblical texts began only two hundred years ago?
Posts: 6362 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
Any spiritual information you receive that requires your imagination to believe, is of little value. . Any spiritual information you receive that you can superimpose in your mind and prove, is of great value.
Posts: 3 | Location: little town Arizona | Registered: 05-30-07
Unless one has experienced something oneself, so that it is stored in memory, all 'information we receive' requires some imagination to believe.
'Superimpose on one's mind' means nothing. We do not 'superimpose' information, or anything else, on our minds. Our minds are the things that perceive and act. We cannot go outside of our perceiving and acting minds and 'superimpose' anything.
Posts: 6362 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
Originally posted by babthrower: It is psychologically more healthy to understand that absolute truth about anything is (probably ) not possible. And just learn to live with that fact, and do the best you can to find a comfortable and reasonable 'certainty'.
If such reasoning is correct, then we have to discard all doctors as quacks for they know not what they do to bodies and all scientists as deceived for they know not what they do based on their observations. . . .
Surely, there is a distinction between differing individual ideas of, say, beauty, but if we cannot agree on incontestable facts of, say, 2 + 2 = 4, then we should keep our mouths shut.
Anyway, I do agree that broadly, one should not go batty over what one believes to be certain lest one find out by one's own experience that one is mistaken or deceived or fooling oneself, etc. Yet, one's realization that one was all along incorrect in one's particular trust of a fact may also be a mistake or a deception or a folly, etc.
a) I haven't made sufficient sacrifices to the god, or
b) I don't expect my doctor -- or anybody else for that matter -- to 'own' absolute truth?
Well, if you've picked either answer, you're right.
So let's disregard (a) for the moment.
How could I expect my doctor to know everything in the field of medicine with absolute certainty? That would require that I expect of my doctor a level of knowledge and certainty beyond what I myself expect of me!
So I won't sue him/her for a mistake.
(I will certainly sue if he/she knowingly or willfully or carelessly ignores the best available evidence. If he/she prescribes a drug for my husband, who has a major allergy to penicillin, and this information is on his chart, and in the doctor's file, and in the hospital's file, and the drug he/she prescribes contains penicillin and he dies of shock, they will be responsible for his death.)
But if he has a fatal reaction to a drug he's never used before, because the doctors and pharmacists and hospital staff had not cast the runes that day, and so had no prophetic warning he would die from a drug which had an unknown side effect, I would not sue them. So I'll never get rich ov er a medical mistake, which seems to be the American dream these days.
Only those who believe, wrongly, that they live in an impossible world in which doctors always can predict the outcome of any treatment with 100% certainty would think otherwise.
I know nothing with absolute certainty. I make mistakes every day.
You think you have absolute certainty, but you're wrong. I bet you make mistakes every day, too, even though you cast the runes and do all your chanting and praying and word-math and other magic tricks.
I have a bulletin from the universe for you, Tsaeb. Magic is a childlike attempt at science. It's pre-scientific. It's childish. Your life-span depends on whether you picked the right parents and whether your country goes to war on its own soil more than on any other factor.
You have repeatedly mentioned a lawsuit you're engaged in. Were you not a 'quack' when you did what you did that eventually led to a failure of your expectation? Why didn't you foresee the outcome, and use a different strategy? If 'absolute truth ' was out there, why didn't you snatch it out of the air? Were you negligent?
Posts: 6362 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
You're right, petriedish has no clue. Here's the proof:
quote:
"... it is good to notice that such statements are nothing new but have been presented already during the past two hundred years. Actually it is interesting to notice that as Darwin 's theory of evolution and the theory of the ice age became well-known among people, the said higher criticism of the Bible began to gain ground simultaneously."
Actually analysis of biblical texts came long before the 'enlightenment'. In fact it was at work when the translations were done that preceded the Reformation.
Note to PetriFB: The Reformation is what people who have studied the history of religion call the birth of the Protestant churches.
Never mind that 'analysis' was going on since the second century at least. Then there was an absolute orgy of analysis just before the Council of Nicea. The emperor of Rome called together all the bishops and told them to clean up the texts which were full of contradictions -- or else. And since he was horrifically cruel, they knew what that might mean, so they did. They threw out hundreds and hundreds of documents then in circulation and 'approved' those which became the 'core' texts. After that, Christians were obliged to believe them or be charged with heresy.
But all bibles that were re-translated from the older documents in Hebrew and Greek were the result of your dreaded 'analysis'. If you want to avoid 'analysis', better join the Roman Catholic church.
The translation by John Wycliffe, a professor at Oxford University, about the year 1380. And even though it was a translation of the 'approved' Latin translation, it still required analysis. The problem he posed, as far as the Christian church was concerned, was that he produced an English bible, which ordinary people could read; he opposed the wealth of the Pope and the church, and wanted the people to know that the early Church and Jesus himself were poor and simple men.
But the next great bible to be published was William Tyndale's, and it was a translation from early Hebrew and Greek. So a massive amount of scholarship and analysis went on to produce it. Tyndale was burned at the stake for his attempts to get a better translation.
And when the English Reformation came along, it was Tyndal's version that was the basis of the King James version. But even so, King James' paid scholars did significant 'analysis' before they produced it in 1611.
So you see that 'analysis' has been going on since at least 325 CE, when Constantine's bible was created by analysis of earlier texts.
That you are ignorant of basic science is bad enough; that because you are ignorant, you then attack what you neither know or understand is worse. But you should be embarrassed, Petri, that even an atheist like me knows more about the history of the bible than you know.
'Analysis' was going on for well over a thousand years before Darwin was even a twinkle in his daddy's eye.
Posts: 6362 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
What kind of peace and clarity? According to the Buddhist or Hindu tradition, and also the Christian ascetic one maybe, achieving peace and clarity takes extraordinary effort, of mind and body, and upheaval of lifestyle. Maybe a superficial kind of effortless 'peace and clarity' can be achieved by accepting the dogma of some sect or other and refusing to trouble about its inconsistancies - internal or with the real world - and absurdities.
Zechariah 12:1-5 doesn't say that Jerusalem will become an international problem. It was written before our modern ideas of nation states and thus 'international problems'. It says that the city of Jerusalem will miraculously hold out on being besieged by all 'nations' or peoples. Well, we don't besiege cities any more, and it seems unlikely that the whole world would attack Jerusalem. The idea that your God would protect your city was surely a commonplace, and that a city would be attacked was hardly a prophecy. Ordinary, boring old city folk with no magical foresight routinely built fortification in case of attacks.
Revelation 11:9-10 does not say that the world will simultaneously witness events. It says that two prophets will be killed in a great city, and that subsequently "for three and a half days men from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them...". I guess you'd have to go back to the original language to see if that meant "all men from every people..." and ""all the inhabitants of the earth..". To me the passage suggests that these bodies will be passed by great numbers of people in the street, representing all nations, tribes and traditions, and no one will honour them. That's a pretty powerful image. To try to suggest that it's a prediction of the Internet, as this site does, trivialises it. If they were going to predict the Internet, why not do it properly - with mention of computers, websites and losers in their parents' basements who never see the light of day?
As for the last one - "troops would cross the Euphrates". Wow, what a scarily detailed prophecy. At some point in the future soldiers will cross a strategic river? You could also predict 'soldiers will march about carrying weapons' or 'armies will fight each other'.
As this site points out, such a vaguely described, relatively common event can be made to fit just about any conflict -
'It was during the gulf war with Iraq that we heard it once again. "This is it!" They said. "The prelude to the final battle...the battle of Armageddon!" But wait a minute. I thought they had said that the Iraq-Iran war was the opening shots of Armageddon. And before that, the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. And before that, the Arab-Israeli conflict of 1967. And didn't the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan have something to do with it?
There has been a lot of foolish speculation about it. It is easy to watch the headlines and then to lift some Biblical passage out of its context and say "See, the Bible predicted this event!"'
AnswerPool.com 
) not possible. And just learn to live with that fact, and do the best you can to find a comfortable and reasonable 'certainty'.
