Here's an interesting look at this question. It's one most deal with at some time. This is a Christian apologist R.C. Sproul. The broadcast is about 20 minutes long.
Just throwing this up as a \"fyi\" for those that might be interested.
Clik!
Is the Bible reliable?
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
-
CUDA
- DBB Master
- Posts: 6482
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: A Conservative Man in the Liberal bastion of the Pacific Northwest. in Oregon City. Oregon
after having done my own in-depth research. the Bible is the most accurate book of history ever written. if you research Roman history and Roman written documentation for the times they match exact.
research, Pliny the younger, Talius, Josephus just for a beginning since they are probably the most well known of the bunch. there are several more references written by lesser known historians that confirm its accuracy
Plus archyologists <sp>? are finding more information everyday that confirms the Bibles historical accuracy
research, Pliny the younger, Talius, Josephus just for a beginning since they are probably the most well known of the bunch. there are several more references written by lesser known historians that confirm its accuracy
Plus archyologists <sp>? are finding more information everyday that confirms the Bibles historical accuracy
-
Nightshade
- DBB Master
- Posts: 5138
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Planet Earth, USA
- Contact:
-
CUDA
- DBB Master
- Posts: 6482
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: A Conservative Man in the Liberal bastion of the Pacific Northwest. in Oregon City. Oregon
Re:
people often mock what they do not understand. so your response was predictableThunderBunny wrote:Let us put it this way:
The Bible is more accurate than the koran, but that's not saying much.
It's like comparing a drawing of the universe by a child in crayon to a shredded paper towel a psychopath scribbled on in blood.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
― Theodore Roosevelt
Not really what I was talking about. The writings in THIS book are actually 66 books, written over a period of around 1600 years, on 3 different continents and in 3 different languages by people from all walks of life all the way from shepherds to kings without one single contradiction. Yes I stand by my statement.
Could someone post a textual summary? I don't like audio as a medium, especially for something that I'd like to thoughtfully analyze, and I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way.
But more generally, I think that it is always better to post your own thoughts versus or in addition to posting a link, even if it is just a summary of the link. One reason is it is just more fair. If you want me to take time to thoughtfully analyze your assertion, then it is only fair that you put some time into making it. (Not surprisingly, I've also noticed that people who just post links are the least likely to respond to others' rebuttals of their links (or worse, they just post more links as a rebuttal).)
Another reason is that it's never clear which parts of the link you agree with, think are important, and so on. I hate having to type up a rebuttal to a part of someone's link just to find out the poster didn't agree with that part or felt it was unimportant.
Perhaps as a culmination of the previous reasons, I think that it's important for you to own your ideas and be willing to go out on the line for them. I would rather engage a real human being's thoughts than the archive of someone's thoughts who doesn't post here. I also want to be able to hold you intellectually responsible for your ideas, both the ones I agree and disagree with. And I can't do that if you don't post them.
I could have posted this in a variety of topics, but I chose this one because I find it interesting.
So Duper, would you like to personally convince me that the Bible is a reliable historical document?
But more generally, I think that it is always better to post your own thoughts versus or in addition to posting a link, even if it is just a summary of the link. One reason is it is just more fair. If you want me to take time to thoughtfully analyze your assertion, then it is only fair that you put some time into making it. (Not surprisingly, I've also noticed that people who just post links are the least likely to respond to others' rebuttals of their links (or worse, they just post more links as a rebuttal).)
Another reason is that it's never clear which parts of the link you agree with, think are important, and so on. I hate having to type up a rebuttal to a part of someone's link just to find out the poster didn't agree with that part or felt it was unimportant.
Perhaps as a culmination of the previous reasons, I think that it's important for you to own your ideas and be willing to go out on the line for them. I would rather engage a real human being's thoughts than the archive of someone's thoughts who doesn't post here. I also want to be able to hold you intellectually responsible for your ideas, both the ones I agree and disagree with. And I can't do that if you don't post them.
I could have posted this in a variety of topics, but I chose this one because I find it interesting.
So Duper, would you like to personally convince me that the Bible is a reliable historical document?
-
CUDA
- DBB Master
- Posts: 6482
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: A Conservative Man in the Liberal bastion of the Pacific Northwest. in Oregon City. Oregon
The Bible as History by Werner Keller
The Stones Cry Out by Randall Price
there is enough corroborating evidence for you in those 2 books.
The Stones Cry Out by Randall Price
there is enough corroborating evidence for you in those 2 books.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
― Theodore Roosevelt
Jeff250 wrote: So Duper, would you like to personally convince me that the Bible is a reliable historical document?
No Jeff, I don't. Most here that don't trust/believe the Bible aren't going to be convinced here. there's an ilk here that tends to constrain that kind of influence.Duper wrote:Just throwing this up as a "fyi" for those that might be interested.
As far as a summary goes, I've never been good at "summary".
I really can't add to what is in the audio and I put it up as a point of interest more than a point of debate. Perhaps in the future, I'll pm a couple of folks rather than posting.
If you all want to discuss, be my guest. I have thoughts and beliefs but no sources to call up. Other than the Bible itself that is.
Re:
"No" is a fair answer to my question. I suppose that I can't promise that I would be convinced by your arguments either. In fact, if I had to predict, I probably wouldn't be. But I'm satisfied in a debate if I can get someone just a bit closer to seeing things my way. You may not be able to convince me that the Bible has a perfect record of history, but I bet I'd see it in some forms as better after our discussion. In any case, if you ever want to put your ideas to the test, I'm willing to put some effort into testing them.Duper wrote:No Jeff, I don't. Most here that don't trust/believe the Bible aren't going to be convinced here. there's an ilk here that tends to constrain that kind of influence.
I would also assert that the source documents also have no contradiction to each other, which is really astounding considering we can't even get 10 people in complete agreement on this board, and we all live in the same day and time with mostly the same experiences. I think that speaks volumes for the Bible just in itself.
Just to throw this out: Christ means \"Anointed One\"
I also agree with Duper that there is just so much you can do to sway someone to your way of thinking, but at the very least Jeff seems to have the same mind as I do. Instead of just dismissing it right from the beginning as superstition, the \"uniqueness\" of the Bible deserves further investigation.
Just to throw this out: Christ means \"Anointed One\"
I also agree with Duper that there is just so much you can do to sway someone to your way of thinking, but at the very least Jeff seems to have the same mind as I do. Instead of just dismissing it right from the beginning as superstition, the \"uniqueness\" of the Bible deserves further investigation.
-
CUDA
- DBB Master
- Posts: 6482
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: A Conservative Man in the Liberal bastion of the Pacific Northwest. in Oregon City. Oregon
Re:
A parable is not meant to have a solid meaning. it is meant to illistrate a pointBet51987 wrote:Pick any parable and it is without a solid meaning. It needs to be, and often is, interpreted to mean several different things to several different and educated people.
Bee
par·a·ble /ˈpærəbəl/ Show Spelled[par-uh-buhl] Show IPA
–noun
1. a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.
2. a statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
― Theodore Roosevelt
-
Heretic
- DBB Admiral
- Posts: 1449
- Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:54 pm
- Location: Why no Krom I didn't know you can have 100 characters in this box.
Yep no there is no meaning to this illustrated point.Aesop wrote:The Ant and the Grasshopper
In a field one summer's day a Grasshopper was hopping about, chirping and singing to its heart's content. An Ant passed by, bearing along with great toil an ear of corn he was taking to the nest.
"Why not come and chat with me," said the Grasshopper, "instead of toiling and moiling in that way?"
"I am helping to lay up food for the winter," said the Ant, "and recommend you to do the same."
"Why bother about winter?" said the Grasshopper; "We have got plenty of food at present." But the Ant went on its way and continued its toil.
When the winter came the Grasshopper had no food and found itself dying of hunger - while it saw the ants distributing every day corn and grain from the stores they had collected in the summer. Then the Grasshopper knew: It is best to prepare for days of need.
Re:
Obvious troll is obvious.Isaac wrote:And, there's no 'meaning' behind illustrated 'points'. Amen!
-
CUDA
- DBB Master
- Posts: 6482
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: A Conservative Man in the Liberal bastion of the Pacific Northwest. in Oregon City. Oregon
my point was the topic. how historicaly accurate is the Bible. dont not confuse the facts or history of the Bible with a Parable.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
― Theodore Roosevelt
Re:
Duper wrote:Obvious troll is obvious.
-roar!Scripture Reliability
Is the Bible reliable?
Is the Webster Collegiate Dictionary reliable?
Is the Encyclopedia Britannica reliable?
The list of questions of reliable documents could go on and on. Let us consider some observations of reality.
Dictionaries allow people to keep their language accurate and reliable.
The encyclopedias are an abundant source of historical evidence.
Consider that the Bible is a condensing of history. If all the details in between key events were listed the Bible would be a system of books sufficiently large enough to fill an eighty-foot cargo trailer. A tractor truck would be needed for a person to carry the whole Bible with them wherever they would go.
Secular history supports the Bible. By using a reference Bible the reader can trace back through Bible history and see where the Bible agrees with itself by comparing Scripture with Scripture.
Keep in mind that the writers of the Bible had no cameras. They had no television. There was no radio.
There is a problem . . . People will read their encyclopedias, they will read their dictionaries, they will read other sources that provide information on what they are looking for. But, The Bible?
Yes, The Bible is a profound history book, but it is also other information:
1. History
2. Rules
3. Personal
4. Love letter.
1. The history in the Bible is supported by secular documents.
2. Rules for personal living are in the Bible. That is how a person should conduct himself or herself in their daily living.
3. In the process of reading the Bible sooner or later the reader is exposed to the personal attributes that affect them.
4. The history of the Bible is a play by play on how God has dealt with his creation, man. It is a history of how man has tested God again and again and how God has been willing to be patient with man. There have been times when God has been angry enough with man that there has been judgment on man for what he has done. That judgment has often been death to the perpetrators of not following the rules. The Love of God has been presented to us, man, in the Bible in the form of His Son, Jesus. It is said: God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Sports (Baseball, Football, Soccer, etc.) have rules. A player that breaks a rule gets some form of punishment. Rules keep a game on course. Broken rules only lead to confusion and fairness in the game is forfeit.
In this day and time few want to read the Bible because it points its finger at the reader and plainly tells the reader that they are a “sinner”. The reader does not like that. The readers’ personal evaluation of them self will not allow for this. What is “sin”? It is missing the high calling of God. That is to say, “Abstain all known evil and do all known good”. How can one do this if they do not read the rules? If there is any doubt, consider the morality of the day in which we live today.
Is the Bible reliable? . . . . Read it . . . It tells of a day of judgment coming. The Bible also tells of a way of escape of this judgment. All of the prophecies of scripture that involve man to the current time in which we live have come true. That is profound reliability.
Is the Webster Collegiate Dictionary reliable?
Is the Encyclopedia Britannica reliable?
The list of questions of reliable documents could go on and on. Let us consider some observations of reality.
Dictionaries allow people to keep their language accurate and reliable.
The encyclopedias are an abundant source of historical evidence.
Consider that the Bible is a condensing of history. If all the details in between key events were listed the Bible would be a system of books sufficiently large enough to fill an eighty-foot cargo trailer. A tractor truck would be needed for a person to carry the whole Bible with them wherever they would go.
Secular history supports the Bible. By using a reference Bible the reader can trace back through Bible history and see where the Bible agrees with itself by comparing Scripture with Scripture.
Keep in mind that the writers of the Bible had no cameras. They had no television. There was no radio.
There is a problem . . . People will read their encyclopedias, they will read their dictionaries, they will read other sources that provide information on what they are looking for. But, The Bible?
Yes, The Bible is a profound history book, but it is also other information:
1. History
2. Rules
3. Personal
4. Love letter.
1. The history in the Bible is supported by secular documents.
2. Rules for personal living are in the Bible. That is how a person should conduct himself or herself in their daily living.
3. In the process of reading the Bible sooner or later the reader is exposed to the personal attributes that affect them.
4. The history of the Bible is a play by play on how God has dealt with his creation, man. It is a history of how man has tested God again and again and how God has been willing to be patient with man. There have been times when God has been angry enough with man that there has been judgment on man for what he has done. That judgment has often been death to the perpetrators of not following the rules. The Love of God has been presented to us, man, in the Bible in the form of His Son, Jesus. It is said: God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Sports (Baseball, Football, Soccer, etc.) have rules. A player that breaks a rule gets some form of punishment. Rules keep a game on course. Broken rules only lead to confusion and fairness in the game is forfeit.
In this day and time few want to read the Bible because it points its finger at the reader and plainly tells the reader that they are a “sinner”. The reader does not like that. The readers’ personal evaluation of them self will not allow for this. What is “sin”? It is missing the high calling of God. That is to say, “Abstain all known evil and do all known good”. How can one do this if they do not read the rules? If there is any doubt, consider the morality of the day in which we live today.
Is the Bible reliable? . . . . Read it . . . It tells of a day of judgment coming. The Bible also tells of a way of escape of this judgment. All of the prophecies of scripture that involve man to the current time in which we live have come true. That is profound reliability.