Why is it so important that the Bible be true?

a reply to: Solarmania

When I say I am a thorough-going Biblical literalist,

I do not mean that I believe every metaphor, illustration etc. is to be taken 100% literally and only literally.

I mean that overwhelmingly the vast majority of sentences, paragraphs are to be taken literally.

I think many are both metaphorical and literal.

I think a relative few are more or less a metaphor, an illustration.

I do tend to think that even the basic metaphors meant as metaphors--that many of them will turn out to have been literal, too.

As to the rest of your assertions, that pile of points is not remotely my construction on reality. I find that stuff wholly without serious foundation and rife with very poor logic.

We'll see how our different constructions on reality pan out for each of us. I'm quite comfortable with mine, after nearly 7 decades. God and His Word have repeatedly proven literally and absolutely true to the nth degree, in my life--including several life-saving events.

IF you are seriously interested in interesting truths about The Bible, Chuck Missler's videos are well worth the time.

originally posted by: mouthfullofkefirgrains
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I never wanted to to be true. My truth-seeking simply led me there.

I had no problem with death and whenever I have faced it (almost drowning in hurricane swell, health crisis from 911 dust toxicity, etc) I never thought to pray to God and was not really sure there was one.

BUT as an artist, I wanted to get some sense of the truth of this reality, because art ideally expresses TRUTH.

As I was healing myself from health crisis I realized that life is not some dystopian materialist program I had been led to believe it was by the media and some of the best education money can buy…

I was able to heal myself from issues medical science/MEDIA claimed were incurable…

once you cross the rubicon of these kinds of realizations, then you keep digging and cross-referencing and seeking… first to see how healthy I could get, how high a vibe I could achieve… invariably you hit upon the topic of Jesus Christ and other religions… you sort through them and become increasingly surprised by the scholarship, historicity, science, etc on the Bible… how profound it is, how true Christ is, especially when compared to all the other "religions"--I'm with Bob Dylan: Jesus Christ is not a religion, but a TRUTH.

I don't understand how all of this proves the bible is true though. Life is a deception? Therefore the Bible is true? What about all the inconsistencies within? The circular logic of the bible saying the bible is true?

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not really. To be a "Muslim" is literally to be a person who chooses to worship and submit to God. It's kind of hard to be a Muslim and then reject the concept of an omniscient Creator. Our idea of God is basically a powerful extradimensional inventor. The "Big Bang" would simply describe what happened after He decided to "start" this Universe. I think that's a lot more plausible than a humanoid being that has human avatars and humanoid half-"god" sons that can die.

Yeah that's cool. If you've found ways to reconcile your faith with modern religion. I used to play the god of the gaps game when I was a Christian. It's just that it all sounds reasonable at face value, but when you start digging into how the science works and the accounts in the book, they don't align properly. So you have to start taking liberties with the text. Thus things aren't properly defined and you lose the evidential aspect of the books.

Thanks. Though you have to realize that a lot of those religious historical family lines exist to this day. The "Hashemites", for example, are one branch of the Prophet Muhammad's clan (they share a common ancestor & the most notable Hashemites are Middle East royalty). And most of the Prophets like John the Baptist have shrines to this day. And Mecca has mosques that were built by the Prophet Muhammad and the early companions (though the Sauds have been demolishing them recently, grrr...).

So it's understandable that the historical accounts may have more of an effect on some Muslims. But I'm a Muslim in the original sense of the word, meaning I focus on my personal connection with God and proving myself to Him. Everything else is secondary.

I'm not saying these people didn't exist. I'm saying that it is HIGHLY likely that these stories got exaggerated through story telling through the ages. Look at how people worship Elvis, and he's only been dead for a few decades.

That's kind of what I'm saying about the Qur'an. If a Muslim only reads the Qur'an, which we believe to be the literal teachings of God, you'll see most of the stories for the lessons in them instead. It's literally not like the Old Testament/TaNaKh, which is written as a historical account in chronological order.

One of the longer Surahs/Revelations may have a greeting for a few lines, a few lines of warnings, a few lines of guidance, reminders of a historical person or event, more lines of guidance, then followed by rules or food for thought. The historical accounts are often brought up mid-verse (note: Though I don't mean to diminish the people in the accounts. I just want to remind you that Islam is about following the God who sent the Prophets, which is why the Qur'an focuses more on that than the specific histories).

Ok. That makes sense, but what about advise from outside the Qur'an? At this time we know that reasoning for rules put on Muslims and Jews to not eat pork has to do with the animals being easily ridden with harmful diseases. Especially in the desert climates they were living in. This has been established both historically and scientifically. So now that we have identified the ways to go about eating pork without it harming us, Muslims and Jews both don't eat the animal because it is deemed "unclean" in their books. This is contradictory advise between science and faith, and something that I am getting at.

True, but here's where I think you're forgetting something big. Every single religious person, regardless of their faith, has had personal experiences that attributed to their beliefs. You seem to be looking at religious doctrines and personal experiences as isolated situations, when they actually go hand in hand.

Personal experiences are great, and I'm not denying they are happening, but how do we know what they are to assign to the particular faith. Many times people have the faith first, or they live in a society that heavily favors a particular faith. Then the personal experience occurs, and the person imposes the society's dominant faith's characteristics to the experience. Yet how does this man KNOW it is a Christian experience while living in a Christian dominant nation. How does this woman KNOW it is a hindu experience while living in India?

The person could even be a born again of whatever faith, and the pattern still holds true. Atheists in America are more likely to have "Christian" personal experiences. Atheists in the Middle East will have "Muslim" personal experiences. It's all a matter of perception, and no one knows who is right. Only that these experiences are happening.

I think you took that the opposite of how I meant it. I meant that it's not a coincidence that the majority of humans from every demographic believe in something greater than what we can sense. It's not a bandwagon effect if nearly everybody has an internal, instinctive longing to understand this "greater power" they sense. That would be like saying that since nearly all people instinctively long for physical contact, it must be a bandwagon effect.

I don't have it. I have a residual feeling from people telling me it is true. To me, it feels like social programming. If the concept of God didn't exist, no one would feel like there is more to things after death.

People clearly don't agree on what that "greater power" may be, hence all of the various religions, cults, ancient alien theories, theories of interdimensional beings, and the such. But I don't think you can honestly deny that most people instinctively believe there is something greater out there.

The only thing I can agree that is innate about humans is our curiosity and need to explain the greater world around ourselves. We all have different ways of trying to go about doing that. Plus our egos make it extremely hard to admit when we are wrong. So we will cling to bad ideas just because they are OUR ideas that we came to using OUR deductive abilities. That is what I see.

(For the record, I like these kinds of conversations. Way better than some of the other "controversial' threads here.)

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Against possibly better judgment . . . I'll comment . . . mostly because it is such a high priority philosophically, epistomologically, etc.

1. Not only The Bible . . . but "merely" THE RESURRECTION. IF such were not true, then NOTHING MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER. One may as well shoot another as feed them.

It does make a difference in a social aspect. You setup rules and standards for how to behave in proper society so people can be happy. Humans can GIVE it meaning. Why does a god need to bestow it?

2. The propagandized-from-hell notion that there is no objective right or wrong is sheer idiocy. It's logically thoroughly inconsistent rationally and inconsistent with reality as observed.

So a father stealing a loaf of bread to feed is starving children is evil? The Bible says on more than one occasion that all stealing is wrong. So which is it?

3. The Bible presents the most testable, coherent etc. body of truth more covering the whole of reality than ever assembled.

A small book like that explains EVERYTHING about the universe? And you find that to be a plausible statement?

BTW, I'm a Biblical literalist. I believe God said what He meant and meant what He said. And, I've found it to be literally true in my life to the degree I have treated it as so.

If the bible were literally true, modern life couldn't exist as it does. Most modern technology wouldn't work and life would be a lot more darker to live.

PS: I didn't write this thread to hear what Chuck Misler thinks about the Bible. I wrote it to understand what YOU think about. So I cut all that useless fluff from your quotes.

a reply to: Joecanada11

Joe those commandments are for Israel when they came into the land. Believe me God had his reason why he wanted his people to follow that. Disrespect was not to be tolerated in their society, if it wasn't tolerated today we may have a more civil society. But I guess we are more civilized and call it freedom of speech.

But no Christian today is required to follow any of them today and it is not even applicable in any way. So what does this have to do with anything, it is your private interpretation taken out of context to make it LOOK as if there is a fault. But the fault lays with you not the book.

You have proved nothing.

a reply to: Joecanada11

again has to do with Israel in their land. They didn't even follow it and they were scattered for its violation.

Any man with any blemish, a dwarf, a woman, a person with Psoriasis, lame, or disabled can come to Christ Jesus as saviour under the gospel of the grace of God and get saved, and receive the promise of a perfect body when they join Christ in heaven.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

So, is it a true story? Did God really have 2 bears attack and 42 youngsters for being bratty and taunting God's prophet, calling him "baldy"? Or was that some story that someone made up to tell late at night around the camp fire, to scare youngsters into behaving themselves?

a reply to: mOjOm

Do publications of a theory from a person who has a degree and is a theoretical Physicist, should to be taken as truth even if it is not proven but only a theory?

I think not.

a reply to: BO XIAN

that is a problem with many they make all the verse in the bible Metaphorical or Allegorical. while there is less than 1% that is actual metaphors and allegories.

We are to conciser the context and literature type. Identify that which is metaphorical and Allegorical and deal with them as such.

But most of the Bible can be taken literally.

a reply to: windword

It is a Narrative and therfore at one time it acutally happened. All the prophet did was call a curse on them. It just so happened that two angry female bares probably robbed of their cubs by hunters came upon the kids later and killed them all.

It does not say God or the prophet killed them. that is the error of many laying blame where there is none. The bears tare it does not say any of them were killed unless you use a corrupted Bible with words changed and verses missing. But I will allow that some of them were killed but not all if any.

Maybe if those kids(ages 12-20 often considered children during those days) weren't out ganging and were home working where they should have been they may not have even been torn by the bears. Wrong place at the wrong time. Many kids are killed today because of ganging and being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Nothing new under the sun as Solomon said.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Maybe if those kids(ages 12-20 often considered children during those days)

Uh, no. Boys were Bar Mitzvahed at 12 in those days. That means boys the ages between 12-20 were young men, not "little children".

And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

42 kids too stupid to run from 2 angry she bears!?

Nah. I don't believe it is a true story. It was something scary, made to tell around the camp fire.

Do you think that Jonah really lived in the belly of a giant fish for 3 days too?

a reply to: windword

They were still considered children until they were old enough to go to war, at age 20.

Now we go to Jonah.

Reread it it implies he died

Jon 2:6 I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.

and he was swallowed by a great fish, Jesus qualified it as a whale, Freakier things have happened.

Again it is a narrative so it must have happened. And a whole nation repented at his preaching and they were temporarily spared for that generation but in the next they were destroyed.

Failure for one generation to pass on the truth to the next. Always been a problem in society.

Again Nothing new under the sun.

Anything but believe it, huh Winword?

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Reread it it implies he died and he was swallowed by a great fish

What? He died and THEN he was swallowed by a big fish, or he died in the belly of the big fish? So, in your mind, Jonah was the first man to be resurrected?

Either way, there's no indication that Jonah died during his ordeal at all. He is completely aware while inside the belly of the fish and talks about the sea weed around his head. He prays to his god, The Lord, and then his god tells the fish to barf him up.

5 The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head.
6 I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O Lord my God.
7 When my soul fainted within me I remembered the Lord: and my prayer came in unto thee, into thine holy temple.

10 And the Lord spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.

So, the "great fish" projectile vomited Jonah unto the dry land!?

LOL! I don't think so!

a reply to: ChesterJohn

The problem with this statement is that Jesus himself said that until all things pass on earth the law still needs to be fulfilled. Why would God have one set of rules for one people and then others. The problem is that there is no 100% agreed on interpretation of the scriptures. If it were truly written by a God and if it were true it wouldn't be so ambiguous. Some believe it a faith that saves. Others believe that it's obeying the law that saves and yet both of those camps can back up there beleif with scripture. That is the problem. Among many other unbelievable things.

You asked for someone to give you scriptures that don't make sense. I did that and you didn't explain them at all. Because they can't be explained.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Most every one has a different out look on their idea of a bible. What did most people do hundreds of years ago? Most did not have a bible and most could not read if they had a bible. They lived by the code that was taught to them. The reason most people insist that their bible is top notch is that they don't want to be wrong. It's a denial type thing. No proof but strictly an ego trip. I am right because I don't want to be wrong. Some are scared and some are not. You been in the military and I think you know what I am saying. You get fibbers and you get liars and then you get guys that won't say a word but most all are different with different ideas. I don't really think you have to have a bible to live right.

a reply to: Joecanada11

yes both camps can but they are under two different Gospels that is why?

Martin Luther had the same problem, he said he would give his degree to whomever could reconcile it for him. To bad like many today he did not rightly divide the word of Truth.

I never said the law is past away or that it was not applicable to any. It is applicable to Israel under the kingdom Gospel.

Well sorry the preserved word is correct and all others are wrong.

The scriptures you gave make plenty of sense to me.

a reply to: windword

He died the great fish/whale swallowed him, his prayer was heard while he was in the belly and he revived to life and was spewed out on dry land.

When he says the bars of the earth were around him forever his soul was in hell. But once his prayer was heard God brought his soul and body back together in the belly and caused the fish to spit him up on the beach.

there are reasons why Jesus likens his own death and resurrection to what happened to Jonah.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah that's cool. If you've found ways to reconcile your faith with modern religion. I used to play the god of the gaps game when I was a Christian. It's just that it all sounds reasonable at face value, but when you start digging into how the science works and the accounts in the book, they don't align properly. So you have to start taking liberties with the text. Thus things aren't properly defined and you lose the evidential aspect of the books.

Hmm, can't really argue with that one. I've even heard of Hindu sects that worship Shiva saying the Big Bang was the result of his dance of destruction and creation, known as the Tandava (I think I spelled it right). But in all fairness, it's not much different from theoretical physicists who start preaching about things they have no evidence for, like white holes and a series of Big Bangs and Big Contractions. (I actually like hearing some of their ideas, though I also take them with a grain of salt.)

Ok. That makes sense, but what about advise from outside the Qur'an? At this time we know that reasoning for rules put on Muslims and Jews to not eat pork has to do with the animals being easily ridden with harmful diseases. Especially in the desert climates they were living in. This has been established both historically and scientifically. So now that we have identified the ways to go about eating pork without it harming us, Muslims and Jews both don't eat the animal because it is deemed "unclean" in their books. This is contradictory advise between science and faith, and something that I am getting at.

Personally, I don't consider myself bound by the stuff outside of the Qur'an (except the things from my personal interactions with the "supernatural"). Though many Muslims follow the Sunna (the supposed teachings of the Prophet Muhammad) because the Qur'an has a verse which tells us to follow the Prophet's teachings. I'd have no problem with that if I actually believed the Sunna and Hadith were authentic. But my own studies have cast doubt on that, as many things attributed to him actually came from other sources. Plus, he and his first 9 "successors" (known as Caliphs) directly forbade the religious teaching of anything other than the Qur'an, which kind of proves my point.

Though it's funny you brought up eating pig. I'll list what the Qur'an actually says about us eating pig, then I want you to compare that to what you've heard (Surah 2, lines 172 and 173, Pickthall translation).

172. O ye who believe! Eat of the good things wherewith We have provided you, and render thanks to Allah if it is (indeed) He Whom ye worship.

173. He hath forbidden you only carrion, and blood, and swineflesh, and that which hath been immolated to (the name of) any other than Allah. But he who is driven by necessity, neither craving nor transgressing, it is no sin for him. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Yes, those are the only things actually forbidden for us to eat besides humanflesh (as in, we aren't even supposed to dissect dead bodies). And if you notice, we can still eat those if we're driven by necessity, as long as we don't also crave it. However, some Islamic denominations and schools of thought feel that those restrictions are too easy. So some adopted the Leviticus kosher rules to add more "discipline". This is just another reason I encourage people to judge Islam by the Qur'an instead of the cultural interpretations.

Personal experiences are great, and I'm not denying they are happening, but how do we know what they are to assign to the particular faith. Many times people have the faith first, or they live in a society that heavily favors a particular faith. Then the personal experience occurs, and the person imposes the society's dominant faith's characteristics to the experience. Yet how does this man KNOW it is a Christian experience while living in a Christian dominant nation. How does this woman KNOW it is a hindu experience while living in India?

The person could even be a born again of whatever faith, and the pattern still holds true. Atheists in America are more likely to have "Christian" personal experiences. Atheists in the Middle East will have "Muslim" personal experiences. It's all a matter of perception, and no one knows who is right. Only that these experiences are happening.

Good point. I can't answer that for other people. Luckily for me, my parents encouraged me to study the world and figure out what works for me. Both of them were converts from Christianity, even though they both had Muslims in their families too. So I studied everything I could, from Hinduism and different forms of Chritianity to the mythical "Cult of Immortals". I still respect a lot of Hindu concepts (and have my suspicions on why), but only the Qur'an made sense to me. But even then, I kept questioning things until my personal experiences caught up with me lol.

I don't have it. I have a residual feeling from people telling me it is true. To me, it feels like social programming. If the concept of God didn't exist, no one would feel like there is more to things after death.

Perhaps you're just different? Not saying that's a bad thing though. I truly believe we all have our own paths to walk, so to each his/her own. But remember, not all cultures or regions have that concept of "God", yet most still have concepts of life after death (including reincarnation).

Of course, social conditioning can play a part in this. But it can also play a part in atheism and the disbelief of religious concepts. Think about it for a second, I'm a Muslim and a self described progressive. Do you really think people from the Left wing haven't mocked my religion or tried to get me to discard religion as a whole? I'm only bringing that up to make the point that social conditioning can and does happen on all sides of this debate. People can be conditioned to think either "side" is correct or stupid, which is why I'd rather focus on personal experiences instead. Because I chose my beliefs in spite of what anyone told me, and I'm sure many other believers have done the same.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn

Do publications of a theory from a person who has a degree and is a theoretical Physicist, should to be taken as truth even if it is not proven but only a theory?

I think not.

No, did I say you should???

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't think any of them believe it's a lie, they completely believe it's the truth and fact.

I think it's more a case of not looking deeply into their belief to avoid any feelings of being uncomfortable with it, they just accept it without question because to them, it's more comfortable for them to do so that way.

A crutch to avoid the unpleasant reality of life maybe, but definitely not a lie, not in their minds anyway

not meaning to be rude but this thread is just a mess and makes no sense whatsoever while this single post has got to be the most nonsensical offensive pile of rubbish ive seen in six years of ATS. You are both talking about a group of people who are quite small in number I believe, fundanmmentalists slash literalists??? Either that or youre addressing the whole of Christendom and forcing a characteristic upon the second largest grouping of people in the world by cultural/anthropological means. Or are Christians THE largest in number I forget. Either way this is the same as if I made a thread called Why Avatar and asked, "American people, Avatar is an American's favorite movie. That is easily ascertained as it grossed 2.2 billion dollars and received rave reviews. Why is Avatar your favorite? Why is it that just because youre American you cant even consider another title as best film? Why do you want to live a life like they live in Avatar and why are you so jealous you cant but are stuck as a human on earth?" Then this post is like, "Americans favorite color is blue. All Americans want to have blue skin and developed a penis like envy over the long three foot girthy tails the things in Avatar go around sticking in everything. And finally, everyone knows that Avatar is beyond a doubt the biggest treasure in cinema." Im sitting here and my interest is drawn when I see Americans addressed since im half American at least. And the person who asked all the questions did in a way that cornered me into just one or two possible answers none of which even come close to applying. And then not just the op but other members jump in and answer for them using their voice he/she decided was his place to im guessing because nobody is really answering the questions at hand cuz they are just horrible questions that rarely have an answer. Im sitting here basically thinking well thats I but ive never even seen...oh wait you mean THAT POS with the blue backwards penised freaks that i fell asleep twice watching staying only because I thought Sigourny Weaver could do no wrong and eventually walked out of an hour before they saved Fern Gully or whatever the crap was going on?! Not only do the questions not apply to me AT ALL, they dont even make enough sense to tweak and answer my way. Why does it need to be true what does that mean and who ever said it needed to!? I think any Christian can answer if he she believes in the bible or not and if so to what extent anyhow deep is the literal text how deep goes the allegory or is it literal or is it all symbolic. But i think only an atheist...a certain type of atheist we all know ugh...has questions lie that because any nobody but that type of atheist gives a damn about the need for a stranger to.....I dunno I still cant make two licks of what youre asking. Answer me this, we all know Harry Potter is a work of fiction, thats not what I want to discuss. Brits. Explain to me WHY do you feel Harry Potter NEEEEDS to be fiction. Is it possible you dont believe in Harry simply because J K Rowling is a living breathing British woman?