Without using the Bible......... (page 2)

Zico

True in what sense? The fully inspired word of God?

Even if parts of it are false, does it mean the whole book should be dismissed as inaccurate?

You know, the bible is actually a record of History in itself.

Vivamus

As any historian would be able to argue: "there is no truth".

Doug Mason

The Bible is a collection of writings by many people spread over a long time, from the Iron Age to the time of the Romans.

Each writer spoke to their own people, using their own culture, understandings, concepts, contemporary contexts (political, geographic, etc). They did not write to us or for us, but recorded their thoughts in their own styles for their own immediate audience.

They used the full range of forms, such as poetry, narrative, and employed the range of language, such as hyperbole, parable, allegory, etc. The earliest book -- Job -- was a play. One can imagine it being played out on the desert sand in front of an ancient eastern audience.

The writers came from a wide range of backgrounds: doctor, poet, king, fisherman, tax collector, priest, and this influenced their language and their understandings. Over time, later scribes made some amendments.

The WTS treats the Bible as a flat board where they can jump around from place to place, joining together totally unrelated pieces. Go to the Bible and see the colors, the smells, the activities of the times.

It no longer becomes, "is the Bible true", but rather "what message can I extract from their experiences".

Men wrote as they were inspired by God, but he did not pen their words. These are their own words, describing their experiences.

Doug

kifoy

Without using the bible ... Prove that the Bible is true

So how is how is it any better or worse or different to prove that the bible is true by using the Bible?

kifoy

onacruse

Interesting observations above. There certainly is an "unprovability" about everything, even the reality of our own existence!

However, the first thought that came to my mind when I saw this question was how I so frequently used 1 Timothy 3:16 ("all scripture is inspired of God") as proof to myself, and others, that the Bible must therefore be true! It had never occurred to me (until a few years ago) the absurdity of taking what a book says about itself as proof of anything!

Heck, I might just as well take one of Kevin Trudeau's books like Cures They Don't Want You to Know About, and then simply because he says in his book ("like I say in the book!"....one of his most common sales pitches) that everything he has written is true, that therefore I should buy into it (and, of course, also buy the book).

Self-delusion is one of the most powerful forces in this universe.

VoidEater

Thanks, Awakened! There were spiders? ;-)

Steve J

However, the first thought that came to my mind when I saw this question was how I so frequently used 1 Timothy 3:16 ("all scripture is inspired of God") as proof to myself, and others, that the Bible must therefore be true! It had never occurred to me (until a few years ago) the absurdity of taking what a book says about itself as proof of anything!

Good point onacruse, I've been there and got the "T" shirt.

I also realised that Paul was only talking about the Hebrew Scriptures here as the canon of the Greek had not been set when he wrote to Timothy and the word inspired doesn't really mean much does it? I could be inspired to write a piece of music after listening to Beethoven say, but it does'n mean Beethoven communicated his thoughts directly to me, and believe me it wouldn't sound anything like his stuff. Likewise, the Bible might well have been inspired, but it doesn't mean to say that its true.

That was enlightening also, when I read how the canon of the New Testament was decided upon by the church Fathers at the two major councils of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397 and that it wasn't until the Council of Trent (1545-63) that the Apocrypha was dropped from the Protestant Bible.

Evidently the greatest difficulty was in choosing the Gospels and after much debate those we now call Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were decided upon as they were in thematic agreement with Paul's letters and he was seen as the prime interpreter of the Gospels. The number of the Gospels was also important and four were eventually decided upon. Irenaeus, for example, argued in his Adversus haereses just as there are four winds, there must also be four Gospels, for the Holy Spirit is embodied in the wind.

Sound reasoning for the time I suppose.

Steve J

blueviceroy

Real isn't the same as true.

The Real is what is not illusion or imagined, it is what is experienced and found tangible in some manner acceptable to an individual.

Accuracy is different than Real.

Accuracy is absolute while Real is subjective , The truth is not absolute it is subjective in nature.

While Real and truth are related they are mutually exclusive of each other.

If a man says to me "The bible is true" I believe it to be so for that man.

Each day the truth changes around us , The Real within us does not.

What was the question?

AllTimeJeff

This is a rather open ended question, so I will respect all of the responses. Nevertheless, my take on the question is i.e. "Can you prove that the bible is the truth that it and its adherants claim it to be without using the bible?" It is that question I will opine on.

Circular reasoning is very powerful. It is thinking for thinkings' sake. I say this because there are those who will say that in reality, you can't disprove anything. The example of Ronald Reagans diary was used. This is apples and oranges, and I don't think it address's the issue of the original question. I know that Ronald Reagan existed, that he was president of the USA, that he in effect, existed! I saw myself. We have video evidence. I also believe that Theodore Roosevelt existed, though he died well before I was born, due to the evidence of his existence.

There is no evidence that any of the spiritual/supertitous claims the bible makes is in any way true. Not a single shred. The history is there, but this is all there is: History of a people as seen through the lens of their efforts to please a made up god.

We can argue semantics and metaphysical rubbish all we want. The fact is that the bible's adherants claim to one degree or another that its contents prove that god exists, and that it has instructions to help us worship god acceptably. So I appreciate the original question from this point of view. In effect, you can't prove these things from the bible.

Again THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF DIVINE INSPIRATION. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT CAN BE MINED THAT PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD".

Is the bible real? Of course. Is there some history that is (somewhat) accurate? Absolutely. Thats all it is. The rest is superstition.

AllTimeJeff

I would also add that if the bible were really true as its adherants claim it to be, that the evidence in the physical world would clearly point to the bible. It would beat a path to the bibles door. We would in this scenario constantly be learning and discovering new things that would lead us to this overstudied collection of ancient scrolls.

However, the more that is learned in the simple gathering of facts, the more the bible is discredited as an authoratative source of information for guiding our lives by. The more that is learned, the further the path takes us away from the bible.

Without using the Bible.........

Share this