Is everything in the Bible true?

[Mise]

Simple question really. I don't want any sarcy responses from those who are atheists and just want a cheap shot, I only want opinions from people who actually know what their talking about, like people who have read and studied the bible.

I haven't read the bible, btw.

 

[Dida]

I don't think everything in the bible is true. On the contrary, many things were outright lies. But of course, some part of the bible were quite interesting to read, like the Proverb or the Gospels. But don't take stuff literally or too seriously.
Go read the bible, and tell me what you think.
Also note that there are hundreds of other religious texts, many as fascinating or even more interesting than the Bible, there is no reason at all think the bible is in anyway special, or more 'inspired' than others.

 

[Mauer]

Yes everything in the bible is true. However, I agree with Dida, read it and tell me what you think.

 

[ybbor]

short answer: yes.

long answer: in it's original form and translation, and interpreted the way the author's intended; yes.

 

[Mise]

long answer: in it's original form and translation, and interpreted the way the author's intended; yes.

But some interpretations are more valid than others, right? I.e. the interpretation that you subscribe to is, in your opinion, more valid than if say a catholic interpreted it?

 

[Yom]

I haven't read everything in the Bible, but I've read enough things about and in the Bible to know that it cannot all be true.

 

[Perfection]

short answer: yes.

long answer: in it's original form and translation, and interpreted the way the author's intended; yes.

But some interpretations are more valid than others, right? I.e. the interpretation that you subscribe to is, in your opinion, more valid than if say a catholic interpreted it?

All literallly true, or do you believe the authors used figurative devices like extended metaphor?

 

[Shadylookin]

no. The bible makes several mistakes on the first chapter alone and constantly continues to fail thereafter. For instance in real life the sun came before the earth in the bible the earth comes before the sun. in real life plants require the sun for light and heat, in the bible the plants came before the sun. in real life the moon is not a source of light, and many stars in the universe came before our planet was formed not after.

 

[ybbor]

But some interpretations are more valid than others, right? I.e. the interpretation that you subscribe to is, in your opinion, more valid than if say a catholic interpreted it?

I can't say. I believe that my interpretation is closer to the way the author intended it than say a catholic's; but my or anyone's opinion on the precise interpretation isn't definitive. There are obviously some things that have a large consenus, such as the flood, Jesus's death and resurection. But there are some that are more controversial, like the keeping of OT law. However, interpreted the way it was intended, the Bible is 100% true.

 

[Mauer]

no. The bible makes several mistakes on the first chapter alone and constantly continues to fail thereafter. For instance in real life the sun came before the earth in the bible the earth comes before the sun. ..............................

That's funny, I didn't know you were there to see the order of creation

 

[Shadylookin]

That's funny, I didn't know you were there to see the order of creation

I wasn't there and neither was your god, but at least I have scientific evidence. If you honestly think the bible has the only creation story ever proposed you're delusional, many religions (some much older than judaism) have a creation story. Accepting one as absolute fact and ignoring the laws of physics simply because you were raise into that belief system doesn't seem like a good idea to me

 

[Perfection]

However, interpreted the way it was intended, the Bible is 100% true.

Why do you believe that?

That's funny, I didn't know you were there to see the order of creation

He might not have been there, but the scientific evidence still persists...

You may feel like debating this point, please don't threadjack in order to do so, this place would be most appropriate.

 

[Mauer]

I wasn't there and neither was your god, but at least I have scientific evidence. If you honestly think the bible has the only creation story ever proposed you're delusional, many religions (some much older than judaism) have a creation story. Accepting one as absolute fact and ignoring the laws of physics simply because you were raise into that belief system doesn't seem like a good idea to me

A bit touchy there shadylookin. You rise defensively very easy, and I apologise if my comment seemed meant to provoke. It wasn't.

Just to clear up some stereotypes, I do not believe nor have I ever stated that the bible is the only creation story ever proposed; am not ignoring the laws of physics (if you must state which law(s), please tell me how I ignore them not just what they are); and I was not raised in a christian family.

If your only purpose is to publicly flame a christian, then by all means go at it. I have seen it before.

 

[Mise]

Why do you believe that?

Assuming that God wrote it, and that God was infallible, it would make sense for him to believe it.

Given that we don't know how it was intended, and that it is open to interpretation, is it wise to treat any particular interpretation as fact?

 

[eyrei]

Moderator Action: I'm not happy about having to read threads like this anyway, so don't make me close it. Enough with the trolling. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[luiz]

I have read nearly the whole Bible(not at once, but during the curse of the years I spent in a Catholic school), and I must say that I'm entirely convinced that not everything in the Bible is true.

And if someone believes that everything in the Bible is the literal truth, then they should not like the God described. We're talking about a God who kills innocent children to make a point(Job's book).

 

[Perfection]

Assuming that God wrote it, and that God was infallible, it would make sense for him to believe it.

That's a potential explanation, however I'm not sure if Ybbor agrees with it. He would then have to explain how god wrote it.

 

[BasketCase]

When I was going to church as a kid (ACK!), I noticed several passages in the Bible that looked like they weren't meant to be taken literally--they appeared to be transcripts, if you will, of somebody telling a story.

The Bible may not be so much a literal history as, say, a collection of Aesop's fables--stories that are not literally true, but are meant as story-based lessons about how one should live.

Alternatively, some events in the Bible might be based on real events, the descriptions of which arrived in their current form either through colorful descriptions, additions, ad libbing, and typos--or maybe we just translated the thing wrong.....

 

[ybbor]

its so wierd hearing me refered to in the 3rd peson

I'm not going to go much further because its futile. the purpose of the thread was to get opinions regarding the authenticity of the bible, which i provided. aything more is just dragging me into an endless debate.

 

[Quasar1011]

No, everything in the Bible is not true. It records opinions that are other than God's. For instance, Satan get his chance to have his say. But when Satan speaks, he is lying. So in that regard, there are untruths in the Bible.

Everything that comes from God, however, is true.

Hebrews 6:18
God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged.