yahya515 Posted October 24, 2014 Author Posted October 24, 2014 Still, I don't yet understand where yahya515 is heading with this. perhaps you are not interested in religious discussion, some people like religious discussion, they like discussing about other holy books other theologies , for the same reason people discuss about for example physics they discuss about religion , the difference is everyone believes in the theory of relativity but not all people believe in the Bible.
ajb Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 perhaps you are not interested in religious discussion, some people like religious discussion... Well I have discussed the mistakes in the bible, admittedly rather generally. Trying to find some hidden meaning by reading between the lines using inconsistencies is pointless. I got the impression before that you were trying to shoot down Christianity via these inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies. Maybe you could do that for fundamentalist Christians who believe every word is true. I have no idea what the response would be from a more moderate Christian. I am convinced one could do the same with Muslims and the Qur'an. I have some idea what the response would be from the more hard-line Muslims... Just ask yourself 'what would Muhammed do?' ...for the same reason people discuss about for example physics they discuss about religion , the difference is everyone believes in the theory of relativity but not all people believe in the Bible. Well unfortunately not everybody thinks that relativity is a good framework for discussing physics. This is despite there being a lot of evidence, both direct and indirect. The same cannot be said for the Bible or the Qur'an.
yahya515 Posted October 27, 2014 Author Posted October 27, 2014 Well I have discussed the mistakes in the bible, admittedly rather generally. Trying to find some hidden meaning by reading between the lines using inconsistencies is pointless.I got the impression before that you were trying to shoot down Christianity via these inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies. Maybe you could do that for fundamentalist Christians who believe every word is true. I have no idea what the response would be from a more moderate Christian.I am convinced one could do the same with Muslims and the Qur'an. I have some idea what the response would be from the more hard-line Muslims... Just ask yourself 'what would Muhammed do?'Well unfortunately not everybody thinks that relativity is a good framework for discussing physics. This is despite there being a lot of evidence, both direct and indirect. The same cannot be said for the Bible or the Qur'an. at least scientific theories have noticeable evidence.
Willie71 Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 The document attempts to reaffirm and expand on what Dei Verbum highlights. The truth of the Bible is affirmed but is related to the “project of salvation” (3), the “salvific plan” (4), and “our salvation” (63). The detailed biblical overview on the truth of Scripture is understood as limiting the inerrancy of the text to its soteriological purpose. As for the rest, “in the Bible we encounter contradictions, historical inaccuracies, unlikely accounts, and in the Old Testament there are precepts and commands that are in conflict with the teaching of Jesus” (104). More specifically, the Abrahamic narratives are considered more as interpretations than historical facts (107), the crossing the Red Sea is more interested in actualizing the Exodus than reporting its original events (108), most of the book of Joshua has little historical value (127), and Jonah’s story is an imaginary account (110). In the New Testament, the reference to the earthquake in the passion’s narratives is a “literary motif” rather than a historical report (120). More generally, the Gospels have a normative value in affirming Jesus’ identity but their historical references have a “subordinate function” (123): in other words, the theology of the Gospels is valid, but their historical reliability is less important. How the two aspects can be neatly distinguished is not explained. In the end the truth of the Bible is “restricted” to what it says about salvation (105). Another section of the document deals with the “ethical and social issues” raised by the alleged truth of the Bible, e.g. the theme of violence and the place of women. The hard and “offensive” texts of Scripture (e.g. the conquest narratives and the imprecatory Psalms) are not read in Catholic services due to “pastoral sensitivity” (125). According to the document, how can they be the Word of God is difficult to say. Again, the standard criterion to discern the inerrancy of the text is to “look at what it says about God and men’s salvation” (136) leaving the rest to the historical-critical readings and cultural sensibilities of the time. In a telling final statement, the document says that “the goal of the truth of Scripture is the salvation of believers” (144). The implication is that the Bible says beyond salvation (however defined) is not to be taken as necessarily true in the same sense. This is from the pontification council, the part of the Roman Catholic Church that "interprets" the bible. http://vaticanfiles.org/tag/inerrancy/ Even the oldest authority on the bible cannot claim its inerrent anymore.
MigL Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 (edited) Do we really discuss religious theology here or do we discuss religion as viewed by a bunch of science nerds ? I myself once had a T-shirt that said... "And God said <Maxwell's Equations>, and there was light" * ...along with the preamble from Genesis. And I was raised a Roman Catholic, but have long since stopped practicing ( or believing ). My opinion is that the Bible is a bunch of parables which are meant as guidelines for our morality and spirituality. Same goes for other religious texts like the Koran, OT, Torah, etc. They are not, nor do they need to be, accurate or based on reality. I don't even think the Pope believes the Bible is accurate, as none of the RC priests I've known did or do. I wish I could find another T-shirt like that. *-don't do LaTex Edited November 2, 2014 by MigL
Robittybob1 Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 (edited) I don't even think the Pope believes the Bible is accurate, as none of the RC priests I've known did or do. ..... I'd love to know if the Pope believes if Christ was raised from the dead? Edited November 2, 2014 by Robittybob1
yahya515 Posted November 2, 2014 Author Posted November 2, 2014 (edited) My opinion is that the Bible is a bunch of parables which are meant as guidelines for our morality and spirituality. Same goes for other religious texts like the Koran, OT, Torah, etc. They are not, nor do they need to be, accurate or based on reality. I do not say the Bible is not accurate , after I collect all mistakes of the Bible , the answer for the thread question will be : it is full of mistakes . Edited November 2, 2014 by yahya515
Robittybob1 Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 I do not say the Bible is not accurate , after I collect all mistakes of the Bible , the answer for the thread question will be : it is full of mistakes . If it is full of mistakes it can't be accurate. One would imply the other wouldn't it?
yahya515 Posted November 2, 2014 Author Posted November 2, 2014 If it is full of mistakes it can't be accurate. One would imply the other wouldn't it? accurate means correct in all details or exact , if the Bible is not accurate I mean perhaps it has 3 or 4 mistakes which is different from being full of mistakes.
Robittybob1 Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 accurate means correct in all details or exact , if the Bible is not accurate I mean perhaps it has 3 or 4 mistakes which is different from being full of mistakes. Can it be kept to so few mistakes? it is a very old book that has been copied so many times, there were more mistakes between the various manuscripts than words in the Bible I've heard. That doesn't mean the consistent text can't be worked out. That was only dealing with transcripts, do you think the stories actually happened, if they were just legendary fables are they mistakes or not?
ajb Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 accurate means correct in all details or exact , if the Bible is not accurate I mean perhaps it has 3 or 4 mistakes which is different from being full of mistakes. There are inconsistencies for sure, factual mistakes are harder to prove. Of course most of the stories in the bible have no independent sources of verification. There is little that is genuinely independent that can be used to compare with the bible. Maybe we have Josephus' account of some of the events, but this is not contemporary and I don't know how independent it can really be. His farther was descended from Jewish priests and this may have influenced his account. As I have said earlier, exactly the same can be said of the Qur'an. There is little independent evidence to support all the details of the account of Muhammad's life. The early parts of his life for sure are not backed up by other independent sources, but the existence of Muhammad is not so much in question. The Muslim conquests of the 7th century do have independent verification. The last 10 years or so of Muhammad's life is better documented.
John Cuthber Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 accurate means correct in all details or exact , if the Bible is not accurate I mean perhaps it has 3 or 4 mistakes which is different from being full of mistakes. Why even talk about "perhaps it has 3 or 4 mistakes" when it well documented to have more than 400? http://www.thegoodatheist.net/2010/11/12/project-reason-lays-the-smack-down/ Are you just ignoring the truth because you want to believe in an old book?
Eise Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 Why even talk about "perhaps it has 3 or 4 mistakes" when it well documented to have more than 400? http://www.thegoodatheist.net/2010/11/12/project-reason-lays-the-smack-down/ Are you just ignoring the truth because you want to believe in an old book? Wow, that is funny way to picture discrepancies in the Bible. Enjoy, yahya515!
Willie71 Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 My thoughts are that yahya515 is starting the journey by at least questioning the bible. That is better than many do. Most "faithful" people I know have never read the bible front to back. My family doesn't even read the old testament at all. Its an interesting idea. faith, and to see it as a virtue in light of the obvious issues of potential for abuse of power, is stunning to me. I see questioning as good.
Robittybob1 Posted November 4, 2014 Posted November 4, 2014 My thoughts are that yahya515 is starting the journey by at least questioning the bible. That is better than many do. Most "faithful" people I know have never read the bible front to back. My family doesn't even read the old testament at all. Its an interesting idea. faith, and to see it as a virtue in light of the obvious issues of potential for abuse of power, is stunning to me. I see questioning as good. I can't disagree with that.
overtone Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 A better question might be: "Are there any significant and completely accurate factual assertions in the Bible?" Somebody once wrote that the ordinary "history" of Scotland was bizarre in that its standard, conventional, universally accepted recounting was almost entirely fantastic invention, completely fictional. Reading the Old Testament, one comes to understand that Scotland is not as unusual in that respect as one might assume. 3
Robittybob1 Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 A better question might be: "Are there any significant and completely accurate factual assertions in the Bible?" Somebody once wrote that the ordinary "history" of Scotland was bizarre in that its standard, conventional, universally accepted recounting was almost entirely fantastic invention, completely fictional. Reading the Old Testament, one comes to understand that Scotland is not as unusual in that respect as one might assume. Are you from a Scottish background?
yahya515 Posted November 8, 2014 Author Posted November 8, 2014 This mistake has the title: The funniest mistake in the Bible!! Gospel of Matthew chapter 13 verse 44"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field"(KJV) I'll tell a story to show my understanding for this verse: someone owned a field, he wanted to dig his field to plant more trees, he had a neighbour, so he called his neighbour to help him , the neighbour came to help him, while they were digging, the field owner told his neighbour that he would like to go to drink some water and return, while the owner was away, the neighbour as he was digging found a treasure, so he reburried it and after the owner came he told him that , you are doing much work, why you do not sell me your field, and I will give you 10 times the price!! the owner did not believe him!! so he instantly sold his field to that man. do you think this man is wise or he's just a thief?!! he's dishonest, why he didn't tell the owner about the treasure?when he bought the field he bought it as land not treasure so he tricked and decieved the owner. so, how we would steal the kingdom of heaven?!!
ajb Posted November 8, 2014 Posted November 8, 2014 How is that a mistake? It is some strange metaphor and one that you have interpreted as you have. But again how is this factually wrong? It is inconsistent with other parts of the bible?
Robittybob1 Posted November 8, 2014 Posted November 8, 2014 This mistake has the title: The funniest mistake in the Bible!! Gospel of Matthew chapter 13 verse 44"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field"(KJV) I'll tell a story to show my understanding for this verse: someone owned a field, he wanted to dig his field to plant more trees, he had a neighbour, so he called his neighbour to help him , the neighbour came to help him, while they were digging, the field owner told his neighbour that he would like to go to drink some water and return, while the owner was away, the neighbour as he was digging found a treasure, so he reburried it and after the owner came he told him that , you are doing much work, why you do not sell me your field, and I will give you 10 times the price!! the owner did not believe him!! so he instantly sold his field to that man. do you think this man is wise or he's just a thief?!! he's dishonest, why he didn't tell the owner about the treasure?when he bought the field he bought it as land not treasure so he tricked and decieved the owner. so, how we would steal the kingdom of heaven?!! Obvious the seller is not aware the treasure is in the field, for if he had hidden it himself he wouldn't be wanting to sell the property.
Eise Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field" You should see the context to understand it. Jesus believes that the end of times is coming soon. People should give up everything to assure they can enter the kingdom of God: the highest treasure.
Robittybob1 Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 You should see the context to understand it. Jesus believes that the end of times is coming soon. People should give up everything to assure they can enter the kingdom of God: the highest treasure. Still applies today, Jesus the same yesterday and today. When I went religious I tried to give everything away, no one wanted it!
John Cuthber Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 (edited) Surely the real mistake in that passage is that, like treasure, the "Kingdom of Heaven" is something you could steal. Is it not more like wisdom (or a disease) that, when you give it to another, you still have it? Of course all that depends on there being such a Kingdom, but since it's in the Bible, they will have assumed it did. Edited November 9, 2014 by John Cuthber
ajb Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 Of course all that depends on there being such a Kingdom, but since it's in the Bible, they will have assumed it did. Exactly, so we cannot view it as a mistake. There are no facts to check. The best one could say is that it is inconsistent with the rest of the bible. But as we have seen strange fables can be open to interpretation. A parable is a statement that an actual event occurred. The bible if of course full of these. However, few have any independent source of reference. They cannot really be checked against anything. We can discount the miracles and magic properties of Jesus accordingly. There is no independent evidence that Jesus, assuming that he even existed as a single person, had magic properties. Thus we can appeal to Occam's razor and say they we see no evidence of Jesus' magical powers, we also see no evidence of anyone else's magical properties, therefore we conclude that Jesus most likely did not have any magical powers. So, are Jesus' magical powers a mistake? I will say it is not a mistake. That is not to say that I claim it is true. The new testament was written with the full intention of making a super star magical hero out of the image of Jesus. Everything in the new testament needs to be viewed with this propaganda in mind. Including the magic properties of Jesus was very intentional. Assuming that Jesus did exist, we have no reason to think that the new testament is anything like a proper independent biography of Jesus, his life and times. At best it will be a mixture of real events that have been embellished. But again, few of these have any independent sources of reference. I think that the best we can do is look for clear contradictions in the bible. Trying to check facts on claimed events will be very difficult, if not impossible. There are for sure some inconsistencies, some more mild than others and other may not be so inconsistent. 1
John Cuthber Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 I realise there's no more than the slightest evidence that the Bible is anything other "than made up stuff". But that's not the point. Either the Bible is right; there is a "kingdom of heaven", and that story is wrong because it's not something you could pinch like a bag of gold, or The bible is wrong, there is no such thing as a "kingdom of heaven" and the story is wrong because it's not something you could pinch like a bag of gold. The assertion is wrong, pretty much regardless of one's theological position.
Recommended Posts