Why Trust The Bible?

[POI]

Many have rejected the Bible, due to the stories of Genesis alone 'proving' false. The ones, who still remain Christian, either reject science in favor of Genesis, or, instead dismiss the Genesis stories as merely being metaphorical/allegorical. Same goes for the Exodus account. And so on and so forth it goes, on through the entirety of the Torah and beyond. And when one gets to the New Testament, quite a bit of apologetics is required/necessary to explain away apparent 'problems/inconsistencies/discrepancies/other'.

For Debate:

As the title suggests, why place all your trust in this collection of books anyways?

[POI]

God. Once properly conceptualized, I can trust that God exists. But this doesn't mean that God literally did everything the bible says.

So, to "properly conceptualize" the God of the Bible, all the falsifiable stuff, which you personally deem falsified, must have been philosophical/allegorical. But continue to retain faith/belief in the unfalsifiable as being literal, like resurrection claims, because it makes us feel good?

[Tcg]

For example, God. Once properly conceptualized, I can trust that God exists. But this doesn't mean that God literally did everything the bible says.

Your ability to trust that God exists doesn't mean that God did anything the bible says. It doesn't even establish that God exists. All it establishes is that you trust such a thing exists.


Tcg

[Diogenes]

Here's a very simple test for anyone who believes any 'holy book' comes from an actual god who really exists:

Just read the 'holy book' for a tradition/religion other than your own.
For most of us in the 'West' that means the Quran or the Book of Mormon, for an easily accessible 'scripture.' There are many others, but these two examples will suffice. I suggest that for those who have not been raised to believe those books, their experience will be like mine:
a combination of laughter and astonishment that anyone could take them seriously.

The B o M is, as Mark Twain noted, 'chloroform in print.' If you can get past the boredom and the horrible writing (I'm using understatement) you will discover a collection of obvious fables noteworthy only because they manage to meld boredom with the fantastic- no small accomplishment. In the book of Ether (I am not making that up (I warned you about chloroform ) you will find a goofy history that includes a story about men building wooden "unpowered submarines... to cross the ocean to the promised land. The barges could circulate fresh air because of openings in the top and bottom of the vessel...."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Ether
They used these to discover North America about 600 BCE.

The Quran (as well as the Book of Mormon) reads like someone did a weird parody of the Old Testament. You have to have been raised on these from an early age with several thousand tons of peer pressure to believe a word of their contents. The Bible reads the same to anyone not brought up in its traditions. The sun standing still for a day, the flat Earth cosmology, talking asses and serpents, fiery chariots flying to heaven and animated corpses show the Bible only seems credible to those who grew up with such stories.

[1213]

...As the title suggests, why place all your trust in this collection of books anyways?

I trust in the Bible, because things go as told in it and also because I think it is correct about humans.

[theophile]

[Replying to theophile in post #18]

All I got from that was Ok the Bible isn't demonstrably true,and yes maybe other books or ideas deal with the same or similar matters, but if we just start with a Bible - enthusiastic mindset,one can still validate the Bible, God and maybe Christianity as somehow true. Is that it comes down to or not?

To look at it another way, or maybe the outcome of that is that the only common ground I can see is that there is no validation of the Bible as factually true, and the other stuff is humans living in the world that all religions and none deal with in thought, literature and religion. From there, you may say that having a mindset leaning towards Jesusgod, Bible and Christianity, one can see that as more significant than any other stuff,or at least a personal preference for talking about that other stuff. That's as far as I can go without being asked to invest unjustified Faith in the Bible, Jesus god and Christianity.

I invite your comments. This is a discussion forum, so I hope there is something we can find to discuss, because I do not discuss Religious Faith other than to show its' invalidity.

Huh? I guess the fault is in the communicator, but I tried my best.

If I took another crack, I would say that we need to distinguish between literally (or factually) true, and conceptually true. Literally true would be that God actually said "Let there be light" and created the heavens and the earth in six days. Conceptually true would be that there is something out there that conforms to God as a concept.

Another example: If we read the Lord of the Rings, we could extract from it the concept of totalitarianism. And we could conclude that totalitarianism as conveyed there is conceptually true insofar as we believe it conforms to something in reality. But that is all independent of the literal truth of the Lord of the Rings. i.e., we don't need to believe that there was actually a being named Sauron who made one ring to rule over all peoples in order to believe that totalitarianism exists... Same with God. We can believe in God irrespective of the literal truth of the bible.

Hence, again, it comes down to hermeneutics and what our concept of God is. Regarding which I had no real expectation that we would ever agree. (Again, if we assumed what your concept of God is, I would agree that it doesn't conform to anything in reality. I just don't think your concept of God is reflective of the bible's.)

[theophile]

For example, God. Once properly conceptualized, I can trust that God exists. But this doesn't mean that God literally did everything the bible says.

Your ability to trust that God exists doesn't mean that God did anything the bible says. It doesn't even establish that God exists. All it establishes is that you trust such a thing exists.


Tcg

To be clear, I don't think the truth of the concepts conveyed by the bible stand or fall based on the literal truth of what the bible says. The concepts stand or fall based on whether or not they conform to something in reality. The bible is just a vehicle to convey the concepts. As such, it is a non-essential layer. You could strip it all away and the concepts would (or could) still hold.

As such, I don't think that my trust in God's existence means that God actually exists. Rather, it is my concept of God that has me trust in God's existence. Whether God as such actually exists, well, that's as up in the air as the existence of anything, or whether the whole world is just an illusion. (Which none of us can say for certain I don't think.)

[theophile]

God. Once properly conceptualized, I can trust that God exists. But this doesn't mean that God literally did everything the bible says.

So, to "properly conceptualize" the God of the Bible, all the falsifiable stuff, which you personally deem falsified, must have been philosophical/allegorical. But continue to retain faith/belief in the unfalsifiable as being literal, like resurrection claims, because it makes us feel good?

Would refer to the above two posts for additional clarification. But no, I don't think a proper conceptualization of God requires making all the falsifiable stuff philosophical/allegorical. Rather, I think most of the falsifiable stuff (which is essentially storytelling) is just a vehicle for conveying the concept(s), which are the important part. As such, the falsifiable stuff should be used more as material for interpretation to make sure we have the right concept(s), than as a criterion for truth of those concepts.

Those concepts should stand or fall based on whether or not they conform to something in reality, not whether the falsifiable material used to convey them proves false.

[TRANSPONDER]

...As the title suggests, why place all your trust in this collection of books anyways?

I trust in the Bible, because things go as told in it and also because I think it is correct about humans.

...As the title suggests, why place all your trust in this collection of books anyways?

I trust in the Bible, because things go as told in it and also because I think it is correct about humans.

All that says it it is a book about humans, written by humans, with the limitation humans had in knowledge customs and morals of the time. That explains all the problems. The "evidence" presented for it being true and trustworthy is actually wrong or there are alternatives. The prophecy of Tyre is wrong and the excuses are wrong; the 'apologetic that it isn't under the present city are either ignorance, or denial. Either way it is wrong.

The miracle of the smiting of the Assyrians. Debated this with Otseng and we had to agree to differ, but at the least I can present an alternative theory:

Bible version .Assyrians arrive, Hezekiah offers submission. Siege. Assyrians Godsmitten, siege ends. Assyrian version Assyrians arrive, Siege, Hezekiah submits, Siege ends. There is other evidence, all of which supports the Assyrian version. It works fine and makes sense if the miracle is taken out and replaced with that odd submission (odd like 'they surrendered so we attacked them')

This is the case all through the Bible, Things wrong, things explainable. Bible apologetics range from fair like 'Why did the Pharisees and Sadducees want Jesus dead?" (Easy enough to explain (1), through opting for the preference for the theist apologetic over the natural one, like the cloud cover apologetic for the Bible claim that daylight was there before the Sun was made, to denial of what's impossible like stopping the sun for a day. An obvious tall story. And there the 'metaphorically true' thing comes in where they might prefer admitting it didn't happen (on all reason) but it is 'True' because it tells us something.

It tells us the Bible is not to be trusted, that's what it tells us, and that is how it is All The Way Through. Excuses and denial are only the Believer's way of shutting their eyes to the fact that The Bible and Biblegod is not true. Which they can do, but it is never going be a reason for atheists to rethink, or anyone not already a believer to be persuaded.

At least, not if they get to hear both sides because that's what Theist propaganda relies on, getting them young, keeping them brainwashed and keeping skeptics and atheists silent or at least sidelined. Like I have said - the Debate is long over and done, it is the war for epistemology that is going on.

(1) he was undermining their authority, so they had to see him off. (elephant - This is agreeing the Bible explanation works; don't reject it just because an atheist said it )

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to theophile in post #18]

All I got from that was Ok the Bible isn't demonstrably true,and yes maybe other books or ideas deal with the same or similar matters, but if we just start with a Bible - enthusiastic mindset,one can still validate the Bible, God and maybe Christianity as somehow true. Is that it comes down to or not?

To look at it another way, or maybe the outcome of that is that the only common ground I can see is that there is no validation of the Bible as factually true, and the other stuff is humans living in the world that all religions and none deal with in thought, literature and religion. From there, you may say that having a mindset leaning towards Jesusgod, Bible and Christianity, one can see that as more significant than any other stuff,or at least a personal preference for talking about that other stuff. That's as far as I can go without being asked to invest unjustified Faith in the Bible, Jesus god and Christianity.

I invite your comments. This is a discussion forum, so I hope there is something we can find to discuss, because I do not discuss Religious Faith other than to show its' invalidity.

Huh? I guess the fault is in the communicator, but I tried my best.

If I took another crack, I would say that we need to distinguish between literally (or factually) true, and conceptually true. Literally true would be that God actually said "Let there be light" and created the heavens and the earth in six days. Conceptually true would be that there is something out there that conforms to God as a concept.

Another example: If we read the Lord of the Rings, we could extract from it the concept of totalitarianism. And we could conclude that totalitarianism as conveyed there is conceptually true insofar as we believe it conforms to something in reality. But that is all independent of the literal truth of the Lord of the Rings. i.e., we don't need to believe that there was actually a being named Sauron who made one ring to rule over all peoples in order to believe that totalitarianism exists... Same with God. We can believe in God irrespective of the literal truth of the bible.

Hence, again, it comes down to hermeneutics and what our concept of God is. Regarding which I had no real expectation that we would ever agree. (Again, if we assumed what your concept of God is, I would agree that it doesn't conform to anything in reality. I just don't think your concept of God is reflective of the bible's.)

You communicated perfectly, I understood well enough, but I showed it didn't stand up. That's where the problem is for you, so you have to try another approach.Go for it

Oh please. 'Conceptually true' is taking not just what is explained as well without a god as with, but taking something that is wrong (like daylight before the sun) and saying something like 'It's True because it tells us about the God out there', using a claim that isn't true.

At best this is a faithclaim, an excuse and an apologetic that only works...chisel this on your bathroom wall.... "If one already believes in the thing being claimed" (and wants to excuse all the things that look wrong).

Yes, LoR, Peanutt, Startrek, and any other book including the Bible tells us about our condition. That (as well as literary and historical interest) is all the Bible is; it is not telling us anything credible about a god. Maybe there is one, but it really can't be that one. I think your concept of the claimed possible (Deist) god is not reflected in the Bible, which is an image of a tribal war god inflated to divine level (1), and smiting his own people as often as not. You know this is Myth or legend. If there is a god (possible) it is NOT this one.

You may refuse to see it, but you must surely see why I have no good reason to believe the Bible, Christianity, or the god claimed by either, and a Possible Prime Mover is nothing whatsoever to do with it or the various manmade religions The Bible sprouted. Over to you. I can only fill the trough to overflowing; I can't make you drink.

(1) later adapted for and (I reckon) by Gentiles to reflect their priorities rather than the Jewish ones of the OT.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to theophile in post #26]

I might suggest that you should consider Deism. You sound like you are halfway there. But I will not bamboozle you. Deism means taking the Bible and Abrahamic religions as false, Man -made and doing more harm than good.

Deism is feeling Good because you have a Theism but one which makes no more difference to your life than whether Pluto is a planet or a Kuyper object. The Deist (Irreligious theist - sometimes called inaccurately "Agnostic" which means nothing in practical terms) are in the Atheist camp. They are brothers and sisters to the atheists. But it doesn't stop some of them battling atheists on this academic First Cause, in the dirtiest and most venomous way possible, because of course First Cause is all they have for their Faith when the Bible is gone. So know what's in the water before you consider drinking it .