The Bible, Historical or Hysterical?

Answer 1

The Bible is really just a fake story, perhaps a bit like the Loch Ness monster tales.

When we pass on information to another (example: story, joke, description of something etc) by the time these details are passed on by word of mouth, interpreted by others, and then written down, the final details are typically quite different than the original information.

Since the Bible is just a man-made story passed down over many years in various forms, the chance of it being accurate in any shape or form is remote.

There are people who swear blind that the Loch Ness monster exists regardless of all the evidence to the contrary, but a fence post bobbing up and down in the Loch does the trick. Similarly there are people who swear blind that God exists and the Bible is fact, yet there isn’t one blind bit of evidence to support such theories.

Biblical tales are really no different than Loch Ness monster tales, just the era is different. Have a good laugh if you must.

Answer 2

The bible, well there is a lot within the bible that CAN be proved, so there is a lot of Historical FACTS within it, however the translation from Hebrew is far from perfect, and the person translating has not fully understood, for example, there is no mention of a Virgin Mary in the text, it's young woman, Christmas is in Fact a Roman holiday, Christ was born around March Fact,
Man has used the bible to control people for years, like most things that man has done it's has been changed to suit the times, and for profit, but don't right it off, as i said there are true facts within it, you just need to read it and find them, and don't be taken in, We should question everything for the truth, if we did you would see very big changes within all these so called religions.

Just to add remember ALL holy books have been written by man, not God

Answer 3

Both. Numerous stories and events in the Bible have been found consistent with archeological evidence. However, some have not, and some of the bible has been proven to be outright in error.

Think of it as a good baseline for study, but not the end result. If you went to the jungle and caught a fever, and none of your meds was helping, but the chief of a tribe came to you and presented you a red flower and told you that it was the tears of his tribe's god and to eat it, and you got better, would you believe it was the tears of god? Or would you take blood samples from when you were recovering along with the flower to a lab, isolate the infectious agent, and then isolate the substance(s) in the flower that killed that infectious agent?

Same difference. Look past the story and you'll see a bunch of little isolated truths. Look at the story and you'll find some decent moral teachings. But some of the history and some of the morality is totally bogus.

Answer 4

Historical

Answer 5

For Christians, the Bible is genuine. the way it truly is interpreted levels on the believer and their training. Their faith is in Christ, because of the fact Christ grew to become right into a actual individual, grew to become into certainly accomplished and resurrected. something outdoors of the Gospels factor to Christ. To make it basically memories does not provide the Bible plenty substance, to take each little thing in a twenty first century mindset of heritage would possibly no longer be honest to what the textual content textile is asserting.

Answer 6

Lol with the amount of nut case Bible bashers on this site for sure hysterical.

Answer 7

THIRD-PARTY EVIDENCE — "ACCORDING TO . . ."
The amazing thing about the Christians' sworn affidavits (writings attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) is that not a single one of them is duly attested. Not a single one bears the signature, mark or thumb-print of its author in the so-called originals. They now boast of being in possession of over 5000 "originals" of which no two "originals" are identical. Amazing! Little-wonder the Christians themselves label their Gospels as — "The Gospel according to St. Matthew", "The Gospel according to St. Mark", "The Gospel according to St. Luke" and "The Gospel according to St. John".

When Christian scholars are asked why the words "according to" are repeated at the beginning of every Gospel, the obvious implication is that they are not autographed. It is only assumed that they are authored by the names the Gospels carry today. The translators of the "New International Version" have unceremoniously expunged the "According to’s" from the four Gospels in their latest translation. Of the alleged Gospel writers, viz., Matthew, Mark, Luke and John it can be categorically stated that 50% were not even the elected Twelve Disciples of Jesus.

Every knowledgeable Christian concedes that the real founder of Christianity is St. Paul and not Jesus Christ. St Paul's "Christianity" was the one officially adopted by the Romans. It' was his choice of what went into the new testament. And he never even lived at the same time as Jesus. We can indeed ask: Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction?

Answer 8

The best person who can tell us about the bible, historical or Hysterical is President Bush. Acording to the President's statement ' God gave him instructions to destroy Talibans, Saddam and to protect Israel. We can't communicate with God, perhapes President George Bush can, who never tells lies.

Answer 9

The above quote from Hank Hannegraph is a perfect example of deceptive christian propaganda. A complete exageration of the facts combined with unwarranted generalization. BS!

Answer 10

Certainly more hysterical than historical...fantasy!