Originally posted by sonhouseWell there are various possiblilites.
How much of the bible is totally true?
1. If you dont believe in God then about 90% of the Bible appears to be parables whose origin is often not what is claimed. For example very few non-christians could be convinced that Moses wrote any of it.
2. If you are Christian and believe that divine intervention has ensured its accuracy right down to each word then it is 100% correct. The only problem with this view is it implies that every translation in existance is correct - now that requires a really big leap of faith. Or that only one particular translation is correct, for example the King James version. (which by the way some people think was written by King James)
3. You may be a Christian and believe that most of the new Testament is accurate at least in terms of the general teachings and the basic story and miracles of Jesus. But some parts of the Old testament such as Creation and Noahs flood could be taken as Jewish traditions rather than hard fast fact.
What amazes me is how many people are willing to take the whole Bible as fact without ever finding out where it comes from. There is also a myth that it says somewhere in the Bible that the whole Bible is 1005 true.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere is also a myth that it says somewhere in the Bible that the whole Bible is 100% true.
Well there are various possiblilites.
1. If you dont believe in God then about 90% of the Bible appears to be parables whose origin is often not what is claimed. For example very few non-christians could be convinced that Moses wrote any of it.
2. If you are Christian and believe that divine intervention has ensured its accuracy right down to each wor ...[text shortened]... rom. There is also a myth that it says somewhere in the Bible that the whole Bible is 1005 true.
A myth, eh? I'm assuming that you are refering to the following verse:
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness... (KJV)
I contend that there is more substance than you are willing to give merit to.
Originally posted by HalitoseHow do you come up with the conclusion that the book you refer to as the Bible is scripture and the many other jewish writtings are not. Some of these were considered for inclusion in the bible but were rejected and I am fairly sure that some of them you also reject.
[b]There is also a myth that it says somewhere in the Bible that the whole Bible is 100% true.
A myth, eh? I'm assuming that you are refering to the following verse:
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness... (KJV)
I contend that there is more substance than you are willing to give merit to.[/b]
Originally posted by twhiteheadGreat. Another merry-go-around of evasive questions. I don't really care what you want to classify as scripture and what not. You claimed something a myth; I pointed out to the contrary and now you are flashing your famous red herring. 😴
How do you come up with the conclusion that the book you refer to as the Bible is scripture and the many other jewish writtings are not. Some of these were considered for inclusion in the bible but were rejected and I am fairly sure that some of them you also reject.
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseI may be in over my head here, but it seems to me that twhite asked a good question. Couldn't you at least try to respond to the question itself?
Great. Another merry-go-around of evasive questions. I don't really care what you want to classify as scripture and what not. You claimed something a myth; I pointed out to the contrary and now you are flashing your famous red herring. 😴
(My apologies if you have responded to that very question in numerous threads that I haven't had the strength to plow through. There's so much nonsense in most threads that the good tidbits seem to drown.)
2 edits
Originally posted by stockenIt’s certainly a valid question; one that is rather large in scope and requiring more than a standard one line retort - but this does not detract from the fact that twhitehead was evading my attempt to prove his biased and assumptive statement wrong. While there may be a discrepancy on which parts of Jewish writing were left out and why, this does not mean that those left in are somehow less part of what is generally considered "scripture".
I may be in over my head here, but it seems to me that twhite asked a good question. Couldn't you at least try to respond to the question itself?
(My apologies if you have responded to that very question in numerous threads that I haven't had the strength to plow through. There's so much nonsense in most threads that the good tidbits seem to drown.)
Edit: Except if twhitehead is questioning the reliability of all scripture.
Originally posted by HalitoseIt's like most things I guess. If I can provide doubts for the genuinity of specific parts of a specific whole, then it's very common to choose and dismiss the whole as utter rubbish. Human capacity for drawing conclusions are so simplistic it's embarrassing.
It’s certainly a valid question; one that is rather large in scope and requiring more than a standard one line retort - but this does not detract from the fact that twhitehead was evading my attempt to prove his biased and assumptive statement wrong. While there may be a discrepancy on which parts of Jewish writing were left out and why, this does not mean ...[text shortened]... ed "scripture".
Edit: Except if twhitehead is questioning the reliability of all scripture.
Certainly, the whole bible and/or parts thereof might very well be scripture. But the doubts that has been cast on it, simply because humans wrote it and other humans selected which parts to include, makes it hard to accept the bible literally. Would you agree that to accept the bible as consistent of scriptures, speaking the word of God is purely a matter of faith? If so, there can be no questioning it. People like myself will keep looking for evidence that the bible is not in fact completely true, but it shouldn't bother those who believe in the bible. Because, if the bible is indeed true, then we shall find no evidence to the contrary.
And these amusing discussions can continue for the intellectual candy they represent.
Originally posted by HalitoseThat's fine, Hal. Perhaps you could explain why this is not considered the very epitome of circulus in probando?
A myth, eh? I'm assuming that you are refering to the following verse:
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness... (KJV)
I contend that there is more substance than you are willing to give merit to.
The Bible, in my belief, is a combination of myth, legend and history.
How much is true?
I figure that about 60% is historically based. However, history is written from the perspecitive of the author, so that narrows the 60% down to about 45% then take error in translation(s) into account and that leaves you with about 30%...
So - 30% would have a historical accuracy.
Originally posted by David COh, it certainly is circular reasoning - I definitely don't deny that. Twithead had asserted that there was no instance of the Bible claiming itself to be correct, which is a point I differ on. As he couldn't rebut on my claim to the contrary, he tried to pull a fast one hence my shameless tirade.
That's fine, Hal. Perhaps you could explain why this is not considered the very epitome of circulus in probando?
Originally posted by twhiteheadA new one to me! People really believe this? That's even worse than blindfaith101's insistence that "Revelations" is the correct name for John's Apocalypse.
Or that only one particular translation is correct, for example the King James version. (which by the way some people think was written by King James)
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseMyths are true by definition, albeit not in a material sense. Myths are the larger truths that explain ultimate things. Myths are to religion as theories are to science. They are the cornerstone of the entire edifice.
Great. Another merry-go-around of evasive questions. I don't really care what you want to classify as scripture and what not. You claimed something a myth; I pointed out to the contrary and now you are flashing your famous red herring. 😴
Myths become errors when they are carried into inappropriate realms. For example, when the myth of Eden creates expectations that archaeologists might someday unearth Adam's bones in the Middle East, and that these will prove to be older than ancient human remains found in Olduvai Gorge, then the biblical myth becomes a lie.
However, when one understands that ancient man living as gatherers in a pristine garden enjoyed a communion with their creator that was wrecked by human ambitions and the neolithic revolution--producing the emergence of agriculture and cities--, then one perceives the truths in the myth of the first chapters of Genesis.