1. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    01 Mar '07 13:57
    Why is it so important for many Christians to take the whole Bible as authentic and factual?
    Let me take an example. Revelations. There is, as far as I know, no reference to this book in any of the other books of the Bible. So a good reason to think that it is authentic is:
    1. The content can be validated as authentic.
    2. You really think that the people who put the books of the Bible together had a way of determining authenticity.
    3. God wouldn't try to deceive you by allowing unauthentic books in the Bible.
    4. You saw it in a dream and it must be true.
    5. Your pastor told you it was.
    6. Other.
    Even if you are sure that all the other books are authentic, why would you think that one is.
  2. Standard membertelerion
    True X X Xian
    The Lord's Army
    Joined
    18 Jul '04
    Moves
    8353
    01 Mar '07 14:191 edit
    If Revelation isn't the truth, then you can just pick and choose what you want to be true. Did Jericho actually have walls that fell down from a trumpet blast? Did Jacob actually wrestle with an angel near a ladder to heaven? Is the world really 6,000 years old? Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Was he really the son of God? Is my religion actually true?

    You see just questioning once leads to a slippery slope that ends in a heresy. Do not question what you parents and preachers tell you.
  3. Joined
    11 Jul '06
    Moves
    2753
    01 Mar '07 14:54
    Originally posted by telerion
    If Revelation isn't the truth, then you can just pick and choose what you want to be true. Did Jericho actually have walls that fell down from a trumpet blast? Did Jacob actually wrestle with an angel near a ladder to heaven? Is the world really 6,000 years old? Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Was he really the son of God? Is my religion actually ...[text shortened]... slippery slope that ends in a heresy. Do not question what you parents and preachers tell you.
    "Did Jacob actually wrestle with an angel near a ladder to heaven?"

    Wow, now that's something new to me! I didn't read the whole bible. But this goes to show that we humans are more advanced than God! We have escalators and lifts/elevators. They're still using a ladder up to heaven? Nah... the Christians will say, "well, "ladder" in the context of the bible means "escalator"!........."
  4. Joined
    28 Feb '07
    Moves
    4256
    01 Mar '07 23:30
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Why is it so important for many Christians to take the whole Bible as authentic and factual?
    Let me take an example. Revelations. There is, as far as I know, no reference to this book in any of the other books of the Bible. So a good reason to think that it is authentic is:
    1. The content can be validated as authentic.
    2. You really think that the peop ...[text shortened]...
    Even if you are sure that all the other books are authentic, why would you think that one is.
    The book of Revelation was the last book written, around 90 AD. Later than the other texts in the New Testament, this is why you will not find references to this book in other New Testament books.

    Why is the bible taken as authentic? Though this is an enormous question, here is a short answer:

    The bible has more historical support than other document written, especially in Antiquity. For instance, the Bible has several thousand times the historical support than Homer's Illiad, a widely accepted and authenticated document in Antiquity.

    Again, just one brief response.
  5. Standard memberXanthosNZ
    Cancerous Bus Crash
    p^2.sin(phi)
    Joined
    06 Sep '04
    Moves
    25076
    01 Mar '07 23:35
    QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    02 Mar '07 11:27
    Originally posted by litlmike
    The book of Revelation was the last book written, around 90 AD. Later than the other texts in the New Testament, this is why you will not find references to this book in other New Testament books.
    I wasn't querying why there were no references but rather pointing it out.
    My point was that it is a seperate book and a lack of forward pointing references means that whatever you may believe about all the other books, it will only apply to revelations if you accept the decision of those that put the books together and called it the Bible.


    Why is the bible taken as authentic? Though this is an enormous question, here is a short answer:
    The bible has more historical support than other document written, especially in Antiquity. For instance, the Bible has several thousand times the historical support than Homer's Illiad, a widely accepted and authenticated document in Antiquity.
    Again, just one brief response.

    So if I publish a book containing both the Bible and Homer's Illiad then the whole (which will have more historical support than both the Bible and Homer's Illiad individually) will be considered accurate and you will believe it?
  7. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    02 Mar '07 16:41
    Originally posted by telerion
    If Revelation isn't the truth, then you can just pick and choose what you want to be true. Did Jericho actually have walls that fell down from a trumpet blast? Did Jacob actually wrestle with an angel near a ladder to heaven? Is the world really 6,000 years old? Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Was he really the son of God? Is my religion actually ...[text shortened]... slippery slope that ends in a heresy. Do not question what you parents and preachers tell you.
    Nor, apparently, should one look beneath the thinnest skin of rebuttal to the veracity of any Truth waiting innocently beneath. Here's a novel approach: let's all agree on this one unifying belief. To wit:

    "Truth does not exist."

    Anyone in the class see a problem with this axiom?
  8. Joined
    28 Feb '07
    Moves
    4256
    02 Mar '07 16:572 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I wasn't querying why there were no references but rather pointing it out.
    My point was that it is a seperate book and a lack of forward pointing references means that whatever you may believe about all the other books, it will only apply to revelations if you accept the decision of those that put the books together and called it the Bible.


    [b]Why i ...[text shortened]... ible and Homer's Illiad individually) will be considered accurate and you will believe it?
    [/b]
    I wasn't querying why there were no references but rather pointing it out.
    My point was that it is a seperate book and a lack of forward pointing references means that whatever you may believe about all the other books, it will only apply to revelations if you accept the decision of those that put the books together and called it the Bible.

    I am not really sure the point of this statement.

    So if I publish a book containing both the Bible and Homer's Illiad then the whole (which will have more historical support than both the Bible and Homer's Illiad individually) will be considered accurate and you will believe it?
    Again, not sure of what you are asking here. I think you are saying that "If I publish a book now, based on your reasoning, It would be considered accurate?" Your original post asked about authenticity, which is noted in my last post, and to that I was commenting. Is the Bible authentic? Yes. Historical data proves that, in fact, very few would contest that issue.

    Is the Bible accurate? In the sense that we have original documents? Yes.

    Is the Bible accurate? In the sense that what the Bible says is true about God and life, though I would say yes, that is for everyone to search out for themselves. I, of course, am willing to help anyone in that search.

    So I really would have to know more specifically what your queries are, because at this point they are a bit general. But good questions!
  9. Joined
    28 Feb '07
    Moves
    4256
    02 Mar '07 17:01
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Nor, apparently, should one look beneath the thinnest skin of rebuttal to the veracity of any Truth waiting innocently beneath. Here's a novel approach: let's all agree on this one unifying belief. To wit:

    [b]"Truth does not exist."


    Anyone in the class see a problem with this axiom?[/b]
    I assume you must be joking about this, correct?
    You say, "Truth does not exist."

    That statement is meant to act as a TRUE statement, is it not?

    If "Truth does not exist.", then how can that statement be True!? It must be a lie. And if it is a lie, then Truth DOES exist!

    So your statement, "Truth does not exist.", just proved that "Truth DOES exist."
  10. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36061
    02 Mar '07 19:15
    Originally posted by telerion
    If Revelation isn't the truth, then you can just pick and choose what you want to be true. Did Jericho actually have walls that fell down from a trumpet blast? Did Jacob actually wrestle with an angel near a ladder to heaven? Is the world really 6,000 years old? Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Was he really the son of God? Is my religion actually ...[text shortened]... slippery slope that ends in a heresy. Do not question what you parents and preachers tell you.
    Your first para had elements of the truth. The second was just juvenile Christian-baiting.
  11. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    23634
    02 Mar '07 19:22
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Your first para had elements of the truth. The second was just juvenile Christian-baiting.
    hear hear !
  12. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    03 Mar '07 17:08
    Originally posted by litlmike
    I assume you must be joking about this, correct?
    You say, [b]"Truth does not exist."


    That statement is meant to act as a TRUE statement, is it not?

    If "Truth does not exist.", then how can that statement be True!? It must be a lie. And if it is a lie, then Truth DOES exist!

    So your statement, "Truth does not exist.", just proved that "Truth DOES exist."[/b]
    The light of obvious truth casts no shadow around you. My poke back at tele is a comment about his endless railing complaints against the Bible.
    Any fool can find contraditions within any message; any fool can excuse their antagonism with claims of confusion; any fool deserves what they get.
  13. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    03 Mar '07 21:012 edits
    Originally posted by litlmike

    The bible has more historical support than other document written, especially in Antiquity. For instance, the Bible has several thousand times the historical support than Homer's Illiad, a widely accepted and authenticated document in Antiquity.

    Again, just one brief response.
    Do you have any evidence for this claim? Why should we think that the Bible is more historically accurate than, say, Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War? After all, Thucydides' work is widely considered one of the first historical accounts that eschews talk of the supernatural, and instead explains events in terms of political forces and human motivations. It really just defies explanation that you would take a book rife with supernatural wonder and contraventions of natural law as "historically accurate".
  14. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    03 Mar '07 21:04
    Originally posted by bbarr
    Why should we think that the Bible is more historically accurate than, say, Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War?
    For one, because it's the Word of God.
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    05 Mar '07 10:34
    Does anyone have any answer to my original question? So far only litlmike seems to have tried but he doesn't understand the question.
Back to Top