Can the Bible be trusted?

[Kenisaw]

Recently Student claimed that he had a list of information as to why cultists believe the Bible accounts are true, and even scientific. That information can be found here:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 48#798148]

The question is, can the information in the Bible be trusted?

I will give my answer: Most certainly not.

Evidence 1) The claim that the Bible is harmonious from beginning to end is clearly and flagrantly fraudulent. Even in Gen 1 and 2 the creation stories are clearly different. In one man comes after the animals, and in the other man comes before the animals. Is this harmonious? Of course not. There is a whole list of contradictions at this website: http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_ ... tions.html

From a historical note, the composition of the Bible itself also shows that it is not a harmonious book. The earliest known copies of various texts, which are known as Codex, show many differences between them. Even Answers in Genesis admits as much: https://answersingenesis.org/archaeolog ... f-a-codex/. There are also several gospels and other books that were omitted from the final modern Bible, either because they were from the gnostic side of early Christianity or they were considered redundant or unimportant.

Clearly Evidence 1 does not show the Bible can be trusted.

Evidence 2) We are given a passage of Leviticus. Most of it deals with orders about eating blood, which isn't evidence of anything in particular. One statement though, "For the soul (or life) of the flesh is in the blood" makes a pretty concrete claim. Is this evidence that the Bible can be trusted?

No, it isn't. If blood is the life of living things, so is oxygen, and water, and the magnetic field around Earth, and vitamins, and amino acids, and a fair number of the elements on the periodic table. So while blood is important, it is just one of a whole list of necessary things. Take salt away and the brain can't use electrical impulses to order muscles to move for example.

The ancients of course knew that blood was important. They slit the throats to slaughter animals, so they knew that lack of blood would kill. They saw humans bleed to death on battle fields or hurt in accidents. Throat slitting is still used in butchering today. They also knew the head was important. That is also still a butchering technique. Is the head not the life of the flesh too? To claim that this knowledge was first discovered by biblical peoples is utter nonsense, and it is isn't even biologically accurate because so many other things are important too.

PS - There is also a passage from Acts in here, but for no useful purpose. The finding of donor DNA in the recipients blood has no plausible connection to the Acts passage, and quite frankly it's inclusion in this information is baffling.

Next up is a rather simple geometric error that Student believes. The Bible calls the Earth a circle, but he says "or sphere" as if they are one and the same. This is geometrically incorrect. A circle is a 2D object. The word for circle was specifically used in the original Hebrew. Job 38 mentions the "edges of the Earth", as if it is flat, and Daniel 4 and Matthew 4 also talk of flat geometry. Isaiah 40 calls the Earth a circle and the sky is a tent spread out over it, clearly an example of something covering a flat spot.

This is followed up by a cherry picked passage pertaining to astronomy. What Student fails to disclose is all the OTHER passages in the Bible, like Psalms 93, 96, and 104, and Isaiah 45 and 51, and even later in Job 26, refer to a fixed planet or a place on a foundation or pillars. Not only does this further demonstrate Evidence 1 is nonsense, it also shows that most descriptions of the world were not astronomically correct.

Clearly Evidence 2 does not show the Bible can be trusted. Evidence 2, in fact, helps disprove Evidence 1!

Evidence 3) This deals with archaeological evidences that have been, for the most part, independently confirmed thru other sources. The Babylonian Exile, for example, is a known event. Student therefore claims: "From what I have seen, The Bible has been tested, using the most established method of analysts in existence - and it have been proven to be a reliable source. The primary source and secondary source has established that fact. It has passed the test as a book of facts."

Facts about mundane, everyday occurrences? Sure, I can agree to that. I don't know of anyone that doesn't find a story about people killing each other, or the sacking of cities, or the names of leaders to be out of the ordinary. We know these are plausible claims because human history is littered with them.

But what about every single supernatural claim it contains? Where, Student, is the independent corroboration for that? You list NOTHING supporting anything that isn't within the common human experience of the time. Given the inability to supply such evidence when asked for it in the past, there's no reason to expect it now. The Bible, therefore, is not a "book of facts". It is a work of historical fiction. It is a mythological tale that contains historically accurate places and people. Stephen King's 11.22.63 contains historically accurate information about the Kennedy assassination and Lee Harvey Oswald. Does that mean that we believe someone went back in time to try to prevent it from happening? No. Your claim is false.

Even claiming that the fact that defeats were mentioned doesn't say much. You are wrong that this is unique, the Greeks and Egyptians had such records of their history as well. And they were mentioned for other purposes. The Babylonian Exile, for instance, is mentioned in order to create a prophecy claim. It wasn't included in their for honesty's sake.

It appears that Evidence 3 shows that the Bible cannot be trusted for supernatural claims.

Evidence 4) This is a rather odd "evidence", and is a weak attempt to pad the number of "evidences" in my opinion. The fact that there is some good wisdom in the Bible doesn't mean all the Bible can be trusted. There is good wisdom in 11.22.63, but I still don't trust that someone went back in time to try to prevent the JFK murder.

The golden rule, for example, existed in other forms long before the Bible. So even though many accept it as a good saying to live by, we can't credit the Christian god or the writers of the Bible as coming up with it. Maybe we should credit them for repeating good stuff that was learned from earlier peoples. Of course since that saying already existed, we didn't need the Bible in order for it to exist today, either.

Which makes the 2 Tim quote about everything being inspired by the Bible god creature a lie by whoever wrote it...

Which means that Evidence 4 does not show that the Bible can be trusted.

Evidence 5) There are no known prophecies in the Bible that are accurate. To focus on your Isaiah example, it is scholarly consensus that Isaiah was written during the Babylonian Exile and after. So the fact that it "predicts" the end of the exile when Babylon was destroyed by Cyrus is not surprising at all, because it was written after it happened!

This is a common theme of prophecy claims. They "predict" things that already happened, and then back date the supposed year it was written, and POOF a prophecy.

Evidence 5 does not show that the Bible can be trusted.

I look forward to the comments of others.

[H.sapiens]

.

Moderator Zzyzx removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complementing or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Can the Bible be trusted?

No more'n a two dollar whore.

When folks tell of dead folks walking, I expect to be pitched a movie idea.

[endtimer]

[Replying to post 1 by Kenisaw]

If you really know it then you will trust it, it is the only support structure known to mankind to entrust over all of time. trust is earned and in everyday life there are millions of people testifying to this truth. if you read it and ask for interpretation that relates to your personal situation , you will see it's true glory. but the problem comes in with people and not the word doc... its the people that are out to deceive you not the bible... the bible is harmless, even to those who are against it. You cannot trust people... you can trust the word of God because it hasn't changed in 2000 Years. that is the most solid piece of truth to withstand time itself and not through trust , but through witnessing the same things that was witnessed in those days...

Now does your heart accept the word that shows the way out or is it a heart that cannot be trusted? We see in the above that, he that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, according to Gods word commandments, he shall be delivered

[Divine Insight]

Mark 16
[15] And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
[16] He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
[17] And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
[18] They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

I challenge any believer in Jesus who claims to trust the Bible and words attributed to Jesus to drink a cup of deadly poison.

If they refuse to do so then I question their claim to TRUST the Bible or Jesus.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 1 by Kenisaw]

If you really know it then you will trust it, it is the only support structure known to mankind to entrust over all of time.

The Vedas isn't a support structure? It's even older than the Bible. I'd say you aren't very familiar with the history of your planet...

trust is earned and in everyday life there are millions of people testifying to this truth. if you read it and ask for interpretation that relates to your personal situation , you will see it's true glory. but the problem comes in with people and not the word doc... its the people that are out to deceive you not the bible... the bible is harmless, even to those who are against it. You cannot trust people... you can trust the word of God because it hasn't changed in 2000 Years. that is the most solid piece of truth to withstand time itself and not through trust , but through witnessing the same things that was witnessed in those days...

Prove it.

I might also point out that the OT hadn't changed in thousands of years either...until it changed when the NT came out. Not that the NT can be called unchanged given the evidence of repeated additions, deletions, and changes made to the Bible over time. Not to mention the exclusion of some books because the church found them to be redundant or unimportant...

Now does your heart accept the word that shows the way out or is it a heart that cannot be trusted? We see in the above that, he that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, according to Gods word commandments, he shall be delivered

Let me know how that poison tastes...

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 1 by Kenisaw]

To be more precise.
That information is found
in this post, which contains a link to another post.

Thanks Kenisaw.
I've been asking for someone to provide a list like this a while now.

Only I don't know why you posted it in this sub-forum, because now I cannot use scriptures, since I would be breaking forum rules.
I am sure you didn't set out to trap me.

However, I will for now answer the first, since it's my bedtime.

1.
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_ ... tions.html

Which first--beasts or man?

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

No contradiction.

Genesis 1 recounts the actual events in a summary.
Geneses 2 presents a history, according to Genesis 2 verse 4.
Since the creation days were possibly a thousand, or thousands of years long, and man and beast were created during that time - the sixth day, then it does not mean that God created all the animals, before he created man. Other animals were apparently being crewted even after the man was created. This is clear from the fact that the woman was created a while after the man, as seen in verses 19 to 22, of Chapter 2. All however were created during the sixth creative day

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

Mark 16
[15] And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
[16] He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
[17] And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
[18] They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

I challenge any believer in Jesus who claims to trust the Bible and words attributed to Jesus to drink a cup of deadly poison.

If they refuse to do so then I question their claim to TRUST the Bible or Jesus.

Perhaps you ought to check that article RonE referred to again.
So that when the research is completed, you can find out if that's one of those spurious texts.

[endtimer]

[Replying to Kenisaw]

I actually agree to a certain degree on both of your counter arguments, however , the title reads "can the bible be trusted" ....It does not say can the vedas or the NT be trusted. Someone who doesn't know anything about the bible would not know that there even was translations, and thus my reasoning to point out that it can be trusted but only if one seeks the truth out of it. If the translations and its writers and its contents was such a huge mystery , why does everyone know about it. I believe the KJV is translated word for word accurately.

If young people go onto this website and they read the title can the bible be trusted, what do you want them to believe ? The truth always has to prevail no matter how you try and cover it up. the intent behind this subject seems to state everything but a healthy and constructive debate... how can one debate details if the you dont trust old text. do u even trust your own text then?

Prove it.

Not sure what you are going to achieve by asking that, but proving my statements none the less, it has stood the test of time and science, the archaeological finds go straight back to eden. that is enough to trust because there is supporting evidence... How about you proving that it cannot be trusted ?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology
http://www.equip.org/article/biblical-a ... the-bible/
http://www.bible-history.com/timeline/
http://timeline.biblehistory.com/home
http://amazingbibletimeline.com/timeline_online/

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

Mark 16
[15] And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
[16] He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
[17] And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
[18] They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

I challenge any believer in Jesus who claims to trust the Bible and words attributed to Jesus to drink a cup of deadly poison.

If they refuse to do so then I question their claim to TRUST the Bible or Jesus.

Perhaps you ought to check that article RonE referred to again.
So that when the research is completed, you can find out if that's one of those spurious texts.

I see. So you agree that the Christian Gospels can't be trusted then.

Thanks for the confirmation.