by SixofNine 9 Replies latest jw friends
No really, should I believe the Bible?
I posted the above and topic title several months ago, before the H20 crowd got here. At the time, the silence was deafening, even from those who indeed believe the bible is inspired of God (btw, that "inspired of God, His word to man" part is implied in the question, so please don't waste your time nitpicking the question). No one stepped forward with any reason the Bible should be believed.
So, let's try it again. Should I believe the Bible?
no
before the H20 crowd got here.
Is that why there are all thse fundamentalist foaming at the mouth bible thumpers who sign all their posts 'May you have peace' or 'Drink lifes water free' or 'a slave of christ' now? I was wondering about that.
-A slave of the great squirrel god,
Dan
Should you believe the newspaper?
Should you believe the news shows?
Should you believe the directions for your new DVD?
Should you believe the stoplight?
Should you believe the history books?
Should you believe school teachers?
Should you believe the health community?
Information, information, information coming at us every day.
How do we decide what to believe and/or use?
1. Personal experience--used before and it worked
2. Individual's reliability attested to by people we know and trust
3. Used successfully by others (testimony)
4. Source correct about other things in the past
Since the Bible is largely a historical document (except for future prophetic statements which is another topic), why not use some historian tools. It's amazing how little "proof" we need to believe in historical events and people (non Bible sources). We mostly only come into contact with tertiary sources (history books) comments about comments made by secondary sources about primary sources.
PRIMARY SOURCES: DEFINITIONS
"By a 'source' the historian means material that is contemporary to the events being examined. Such sources include, among other things, diaries, letters, newspapers, magazine articles, tape recordings, pictures, and maps. Such material may have appeared in print before, edited or unedited, and still be a source. The term is meant to be restrictive rather than inclusive, in that it attempts to indicate that works of secondary scholarship, or synthesis, are not sources, since the data have been distilled by another person. ... One good way for the novice historian to lose Brownie points among his serious-minded fellows is to call a biography of George Washington or an analysis of the Magna Charta a 'source'
A primary source gives the words of the witnesses or the first recorders of an event. Primary sources include manuscripts, archives, letters, diaries, and speeches. ... Secondary sources are 'descriptions of the event derived from and based on primary sources'. The line between primary and secondary sources is often indistinct, for example, a single document may be a primary source on some matter and a secondary source on others.
HOW DO THEY KNOW THAT?
As you are reading through sources for your history papers, ask yourself, where does this information come from? How does the author know this particular date, this name, or that this event occurred? It's a little like putting together a puzzle, and the farther back in time you go, the more pieces are missing. Historians often must make assumptions based on a few scraps of information. This does not invalidate their conclusions, it should simply make you aware that truth of often in the eyes of she who views the evidence. Statements made in a textbook, on the air, in a newspaper, or a historical monograph can be true in varying degrees. As you write for history professors, you must learn to determine for yourself the degree of accuracy in your sources. Ask journalistic questions: who, what, where, when, and why.
WHO recorded this information? A witness? A close friend? A monk nine hundred years after the fact? A respected scholar who has studied all available sources? A talk show host?
WHAT does the author say about the events, persons or trends you are researching?
WHERE were they during the time period or event he/she discusses in the record? Front row? Two continents away? In the same house but out of earshot?
WHEN did they record the events? The same day? Twenty years later? Two hundred years later?
WHY did the author make this particular record? Scholarly interest? Personal journal? As propoganda for a particular organization or ruler? Look for the author's biases and motivations. They affect how a subject is presented, and as a researcher, you should be aware of this.
Blondie, can I take it you are of the same general opinion as bbneko?
well i think the point i get from blondie is that 'should i believe the bible?' is a big question with no simple answer. the bible is collection a whole bunch of literature on different subjects. more than 66 books, many of the books are collections of previously written books, ie 'secondary sources.' they say so right in them. theres no argument about them being compliations. the only argument from an inerrantists viewpoint is whether the compliations are inspired and placed a stamp of inerrancy on the original works.
so every piece of the bible you have to take on its merits and get what value you can out of it. i dont see how anyone can make an argument that one part of the bible can be verified therefore another part is also trustworthy when there is no indication that the parts have common sources. even where a common source is indicated, it often cannot be established on the weight of the evidence.
mox
Hey, moxy, have you been reading my mind...it's pretty light reading.
Yes, the Bible is made up of 66 books...it's not such a simple question, "Should I believe the Bible?"
It's amazing what we believe though without much personal research, even nonbiblical areas....
The question my history teacher asked us, "Why do you believe Julius Caesar existed?"
Eh, that wasn't simple either and the inspiration by God was not even an issue.
Moxy & Blondie,
Yes, that is undoubtedly true. But that is the answer to the set of questions "should we believe Claim X in the Bible?" It is a general source-critical challenge that historians meet for every piece of data about the past. And it is interesting for those who hold the Bible as being nothing particularly unique among sources, like me.
However, for someone being a JW or fundie/conservative Christian generally, the question may be: "Is the Bible inerrant, unique and the word of God?" This is a question that, once it is generally understood, can be answered with a yes or a no. Of course, were the answer yes, one could argue the Bible should be excepted from source-critical analysis, and accepted for what it says. That is why fundies use terms like "historical-grammatical analysis", which presumes that the Bible (in original form, or whatever) is inerrant.
- Jan
--
"Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets
Dearest Six... may you have peace!
Should you believe the 'Bible'? Yes... and no. No, you should not believe it to be the 'source' of truth, the 'word' of God, or the 'way' to reach God. You SHOULD, however, believe it when it TELLS you that it itself is NOT the Way, the Truth or the Life. Or God's Word. (John 14:6; 1:14; 1:1; Revelation 19:13)
But DO believe it, Six... when it says:
"Do NOT put your trust in earthling man... or in nobles... to whom NO salvation belongs."
DO believe it, when it states the words of my Lord, who said:
"You are searching the scriptures because you THINK
that by means of THEM you will have everlasting life.
And these are the very ones that bear witness about
ME... and yet... you do not want to come... to ME
to get life."
Do not believe Paul; do not believe Luke; do not believe Matthew... or John or any other Bible 'writer'. Believe INSTEAD, the One who taught... and/or INSPIRED such ones (the ones that WERE inspired), the One who is recorded to have said:
"Come to ME, all you who are toiling and loaded down... and I... will refresh you."
Believe instead, the One who is recorded to have said:
"If ANYONE is 'thirsty', let him come to ME... and drink."
and
"I am the Bread of Life... so that ANYONE may eat and drink of it and have everlasting life..."
Believe instead, when it says:
"I am the Way... AND the Truth... AND the Life. NO ONE comes to the Father... EXCEPT THROUGH ME."
While, indeed, the Bible may contain that which is 'practical' those who can't hear the Master himself speak to them 'from the heavens' (Hebrews 12:25; John 10:27)... in TRUTH... it is... irrelevant. It CANNOT grant you life; it can only lead you TO the One... who can... by means of the spirit of God... holy spirit... the 'streams' of 'living water'... that 'issue forth from [his] inmost parts'. (John 7:37, 38)
That's it; that's all.
I bid you peace, and I am,
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SJ
Janh got to the heart of the question (and I think I made clear I was looking for folks to get to the heart of the question).
People who view the bible as 66 books, don't generally live their lives jumping thru hoops to make those 66 books congruent and evidence of Gods word to man.
It's amazing what we believe though without much personal research, even nonbiblical areas....I agree. Still, most historical figures are historical because of ...well, history.
