The Bible

kahn · Jun 14, 2006

A very powerful word, and a very powerful book. Supposively the word of God is found in this book. The Bible is one of the oldest books in the history of the world, and probably the most widely read book of all time. What is your take on the Bible? Truth? Fiction? Half and Half?

I'm not interested in started a debate on the existence of God, I'm more interested in debating the validity and authenticity of the book itself.

Commander · Jun 14, 2006

You can not believe everything you read in the Bible.

Now I am not the most religous person in the world, but I do believe there is some merit to the Bible. With that said, I do however believe a lot of manipulation has gone into how the book has been portrayed over the nearly 2,000 years.

It's no secret that certain books and stories have been excluded or been removed from the Bible. The Papacy only wanted us to read certain stories.

It's a hard question to answer. Some of the stories are probably true to the T, while others (Noah's Ark) may not be.

coolalex · Jun 14, 2006

I definately agree with Commander that everything isnt true. I mean how can we beleive the book of god When it wasnt at all written by him? That alone is a big reason why lots dont beleive it i think.

JustinG · Jun 14, 2006

I have to agree, the storys never are meant to be taken as the truth. There just a guide to place in your life to help you live and apply it in your real life.

Now, I believe Jesus was a person but Noahs ark might be a bit far off from the truth but its just a map for you to live your life by.

Bob · Jun 15, 2006

I watch a documentary recently that showed which civilization these stories had started with. Alot of the bible stories were taken and re-wrote. I don't have a good memory so I can't remember any specifics, but they really set out to rip the bible apart and seemed to have some success from what they were saying.

kahn · Jun 16, 2006

Do you think the story of Genesis is true? Did all humans sprawn from Adam and Eve?

tfw_c · Jun 17, 2006

Bible is the book that I believe in, it seems that different people have different though of stuff in this world...

Confederate · Jul 1, 2006

I believe some of the passages such as "Walking on water" is a metaphor for a Spiritual meaning. Not literally happening.

Lord_Cronus · Jul 1, 2006

The story of the Ark comes to mind when you talk about fact and fiction. There were at least seven different stories told of a flood where one person, or two in some cases, was warned by the God(s) of a flood that would wipe out existance and would rain for 40 days and nights. Which one of them is the true story or none them at all remains to be seen. I think all it proves is that there was a flood that if was not global was centralized in the area of Indonesia through the eastern part of Africa.

I have to say that a lot of the bible is probably true and an equal or lesser portion is false. And in my own opinion I think that Jesus was just a man, a very good teacher but just a man none the less. You must remember that before them the were dozans of religions with different Gods, then all of a sudden one man is crucified and all other religions are now wrong. It's just something that we will never know the truth to.

tedkaw · Jul 4, 2006

I think the book loses some validity when it mentions to creation of earth and human beings, but makes no mention to the existence of dinosaurs who ruled this land a lot longer than humans ever will (100s of millions of years old).

Why wouldn't the bible have at least a couple pages on these creatures who roamed our planet?

Belisarius · Jul 5, 2006

Which version of the Bible are we talking about?

Septuagint; Aquila; Theodotion; Symmachus; Vetus Itala or Old Latin; Egyptian or Coptic (Bohairic, Sahidic, Akhmimic, and Fayûmic, i.e. Middle Egyptian or Bashmuric); Ethiopic and Amharic (Falasha, Galla); Gothic; Georgian or Grusian; Syriac; Slavic (Old Slavonic, Russian, Ruthenian, Polish, Czech or Bohemian, Slovak, Serbian or Illyrian, Croation, Bosnian, Dalmatian); Arabic; Armenian. Chaldaic; Syriac (Peschitto); Arabic (Carshuni); Persian; Samaritan Pentateuch; Vulgate; Italian; Spanish; Basque; Portuguese; French; German; Dutch and Flemish; Scandinavian (Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic); Finnish (Estonian, Laplandish); Hungarian; Celtic (Irish, Scottish, Breton or Armoric, Welsh or Cymric), Aleutian; Aniwa; Aneitumese; Battak; Benga; Bengali; Chinese; Gipsy or Romany; Hindu; Hindustani; Japanese; Javanese; Mexican; Modern Greek.

Before we even start on the English versions!

cptJACK · Jul 6, 2006

sorry if I'm being ignorant, but don't all the versions say the same thing, just in a different language? or are parts lost in translation?

Belisarius · Jul 6, 2006

I was trying to illustrate that the Bible is not necessarily the word of God, but the word of several different authors who each had a view, a "spin" on events.
Imagine how a newspaper changes the story to pander to it's readership. The truth gets twisted to fit preconcieved notions, prejudices, cultural morality, political affiliation, etc. And that's just a newspaper.
Imagine a story told and retold for thousands of years, every teller embellishing it or puting their own interpretation on events to please their audience/readers. It becomes a massive game of Chinese whispers.
No, not every version of the Bible says the same thing.
As to it's authenticity? The books included in the standard Roman Catholic Bible, from which many other versions derive, were decided upon by eclesiastical politicians to please their Emperor at the council of Nicea 300 years after the events recorded in the new testament are supposed to have happened. A story can change a lot in 300 years.

Comet · Sep 3, 2006

cptJACK said:
sorry if I'm being ignorant, but don't all the versions say the same thing, just in a different language? or are parts lost in translation?

It's not necessarily ignorant.....you just need a little more background knowledge to light your way. You are right about parts of the bible getting lost in translation. No matter what language it is, there is just no word for word carry over from one language to another. Secondly, the earliest versions of the bible that have been preserved must be taken at face value. It was not uncommon for scribes to "tweak" the text slightly. Not to mention the earliest bibles written in long hand.....as much writing that occurs, there is bound to be some mistake located in within the text.

CelticBard · Sep 4, 2006

Plus archaeology is an incomplete field. They're always finding new things and due to most of the world being Christian a lot of study and field research goes into finding lost Christian artefacts.

Joshua1985 · Oct 1, 2006

The Bible is the infallible word of God. It has never been proven to be wrong on one fact that it claims. In fact it has been proven right many times. It was written over thousands of years by over 40 different authors and it doesn't contradict itself once. That is amazing.

Comet · Oct 1, 2006

Joshua1985 said:
The Bible is the infallible word of God. It has never been proven to be wrong on one fact that it claims. In fact it has been proven right many times. It was written over thousands of years by over 40 different authors and it doesn't contradict itself once. That is amazing.

I can't tell if you are serious or being saracstic....if you are serious, provide some examples that the bible has been proven right.

flaja · Oct 3, 2006

Bob said:
I watch a documentary recently that showed which civilization these stories had started with. Alot of the bible stories were taken and re-wrote. I don't have a good memory so I can't remember any specifics, but they really set out to rip the bible apart and seemed to have some success from what they were saying.

Why is that since the oldest known copies of the Bible are younger than similar stories found in other cultures, the Bible is automatically seen as a derivative of these supposed older stories? Just because the oldest known written copies of the Bible date to the year X, we have no legitimate reason to reject the idea that copies from before year X were made but have either not yet been found or have been lost.

Why is it not possible that the stories similar to the Bible are not corruptions of the Bible? I think most historians and Bible scholars will agree that the Bible began with an oral tradition that predated the written documents that became the Bible as we now know it. So why must we assume that these similar stories lead to the Bible instead of the other way around?

Cunedda · Dec 13, 2006

In my mind, any religious text should only be used as a moral guideline, not an unopposable truth.
I was raised a catholic but I can't see Jesus as the son of God.
I see him from the Islamic point of view, where he was a great prophet and teacher, but not devine.

Ragz · Dec 24, 2006

Fantasies written for the easily decieved and those who do not need much verification.

Search

Search

The Bible

kahn

Commander

coolalex

JustinG

Bob

kahn

tfw_c

Confederate

Lord_Cronus

tedkaw

Belisarius

cptJACK

Belisarius

Comet

CelticBard

Joshua1985

Comet

flaja

Cunedda

Ragz

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions