Is it logical to say that because the Bible contains some facts, the whole thing must be true?

Question

Many things in the Bible can be independently verified. The Mediterranean did flood around Noah's time; the Jews were enslaved by Egypt; Jesus was probably a real person; lots of other examples. Because some parts of the Bible can be verified, does that mean that all of it must be true? Even the parts that are predicting the future, like Revelations?

More importantly, if this is good, sound logic, will it work for other things besides the Bible? For example, the Communist Manifesto says that some people are poor. Some people really are poor. Does that mean everything else in the book must be accurate? Anton LaVey's Satanic Bible probably contains something that is true, although I haven't read it lately. Does this make the whole thing true?

Is there some part of this logical equation that I am missing, or is declaring the whole Bible to be inerrant because some parts are true really as silly as it sounds?

OK, I admit it, I didn't check my facts before posting this. There is no independent verification of the Jews being enslaved by Egypt, or of Jesus being a real person. But it's a big book, there must be something in it that really happened. It would be statistically improbable to have that many words without at least a few facts. So my argument is still the same.

Answer 1

They have found parts of the Iliad to be true - the City of Troy was found and had been razed (several times), some of the other locations were found - does that make the Greek myths true?

You are correct - it isn't a sound logic. Biblical archeology is a great field but it does not prove the supernatural aspects of the bible.

Answer 2

1) There is no evidence to prove that the Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt except for the bible story.
2) The scholarly line on Jesus's existence as a live person is now running 6 to 5 against.
For your main point- IN my closet I have a raincoat, a purple dress and a pink unicorn? If someone comes to my house and verifies the first 2 things are true, do you have to believe in the third?

Answer 3

You have to take into consideration how the Bible came to be about. It's basically many books that were put together by a counsel of cardinals called a canon. There were two canons that took place, which is why the catholic bible has 7 additional books in it, which basically bridges between the old and new testiments. Even then there were many books that were not included in the Bible that were quite interesting. Such as the Book of Jubilees and the Book of Enoch. Book of Jubilees tells you more about Jesus' life as he grew up. (because the Bible only tells you of his birth, and his adult life). Book of Enoch tells you about the war in heaven and why Satan was cast down, and more about Adam and Eve.

Anyway, the Bible itself shouldn't be the cornerstone of your faith. For instance, when you go to school to learn something, the true test is what you do with that knowledge outside of school. Same with religion, you go to church and read the Bible to be a better person, but outside of church, do we all "do the right thing?"

Hope this helps

Answer 4

While the bible may be true, it has been altered and changed by man to suit his needs and heighten his benefit ever since it was first written down. Over the years, its meaning and its text has been manipulated by man constantly; that is why there are so many versions, I think. If you looked at the original copy of the Bible and compared it to a modern one on the shelves today, they would probably be very different. You see, humans interpret things the way the individual believes is the right way or he or she interprets it to suit his or her needs and heighten his or her benefit; that is the nature of man. Give a man anything, and he will suit it to his needs/benefit.

Most of the bible is symbolic of whatever actually happened (Genesis), or is an elaborate interpretation of what actually happened/what will happen (Revelations). The final book, Revelations, is believed to be one massive and extremely complex code meant to be not only a great fantasy epic of good versus evil, but also an interpretation of something that may actually happen/had happened. The book of Genesis didn't actually occur (unless you're a creationist/fundamentalist), but it may be an interpretation of something that actually happened. However, both Genesis and Revelations, and even Ezekiel and Daniel, are symbolic of real-life events. They are also meant to be stories meant to teach a lesson. They are also meant to be an explanation of how everything in the world came to be. It's really simple that God created the world and everything in seven days; it should be easy for God, since he's omniscient and omnipotent and incomprehensibly invincible (however, he can be defeated through a different means; choosing not to believe in God). Overall, I believe that some parts of the Bible are indeed fact, but that fact has been altered and manipulated over the many years the bible has been held in man's inconsidering hands. Some parts of the Bible are symbolic, meant to tell a story. Some parts of the Bible are interpretations of real-life events, or interpretations of the beliefs of the prophets of the time (Revelations). But all in all, the bible is meant to tell us all a story, an epic that was created to give us hope and courage to live life, and to not be afraid of the future or fear death.

Answer 5

"In the beginning, darkness covered everything. Then God created light ..." Who could have been there with God writing each and every detail?

The Bible is a book written by people passed on from generation to generation. A lot of the text written need not be taken literally and needs much reflection. That's why scholars were tasked to keep the sanctity of The Bible and some communities conduct Bible lessons for better appreciation.

Philosophically speaking, the answer to your question is 'yes'. But I guess its more a question of faith than philosophy.

Answer 6

Well, if it was a book full of truth and fact wouldn't we find the Bible in the Non-fiction section of the library instead of the Religion section... I'd say that everything would have to be proved as truth and facts for the whole thing to be true... The Satanic Bible does have some truths in it But it's just like the standard Bible it's not fully true...

Answer 7

I am going to give you a very long post here, most likely. I apologize. I do not believe that just archeological verifications can validate the Bible, but it indeed does help. There are a few other things we can use, as well.

Firstly, "The Bible is the most unique book that has ever been written." It took over 1500 years to write the Bible. It is written by over 40 authors covering 40 generations. It was written on three separate continents, and has three separate languages: Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Furthermore, it speaks on hundreds of controversial topics with unity. Now, let us think about this. Over 40 different people from all walks of life: peasants, prophets, kings, shepherds, fisherman, doctors. They are writing different styles of literature: poetry, history, law, letters, biographies. Totally different types of literature. When you put it all together, on those hundreds of controversial topics, the Bible speaks in unity. How in the world could you ever do that? How could you concoct that? You can’t, but God can!

Secondly, if all we had was bare fact, then maybe it would just be history. But we don't have that. We have predictive prophesy. In the OT there are 48 major predictions about the messiah, let alone the hundred or so others. How he would die, how he would live, where he was born, etc. Jesus fulfilled all of them. The odds of someone fulfilling any eight of these prophesies by accident is a hundred million billion to one. "This book tells the future and is right. Only God could pull that off!"

Now, at this point, some will say to me, "I think people just invented this story. Jesus didn't really rise from the dead or perform miracles. People just made it up." The reason I know that's not true is this: All of those people who keep saying Jesus rose from the dead, most of them died for saying it. People don't die for lies.

About Jesus' life, you say yes, He was probably a real person...lets see what the Bible has to say about the writings on Jesus. The New Testament writers weren't writing just stories or fables, they wrote what they saw, felt, witnessed, what they experienced. "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete." (1 John 1:1-4)

So, in addition to archeological evidence, we also have the evidence of the consistency of the Bible, predictive prophecy, human factors, and what the Bible has to say about itself (which is, of course, the weakest evidence if you do not believe it).

I agree that archeological evidence cannot validate an entire document, but it can prove it wrong. I’m certainly not going to base my eternal salvation on someone who is lying. This is why I am not going to be a Mormon. The Book of Mormon says a lot of things about history that happened in Central America, even in the past 2000 years. Can I tell you this? There is not one shred of archeological evidence for anything that is recorded in the Book of Mormon. You can write to the Smithsonian today and ask them, ‘Do you have any evidence from anything recorded in the Book of Mormon, anything even remotely close?’ And they will say, ‘We don’t have anything, sorry. We’ve been digging there for years and haven’t found a thing.’ Meanwhile, events that happened 3000 years earlier and we still have archeological evidence. That is a good enough reason for me to look at the Book of Mormon and say, ‘You are not true.’

I hope this helps and again, I am sorry for the length...

Much love.

Answer 8

Even if many things were true, it wouldn't make them all true. I wonder if there are any facts in the Bible. The tale of Noah was copied from the Sumerian one of Utnapishtam and relates to flooding of the Euphrates, not the Mediterranean. If one is aware of it, the Bible copies much from various cultures, e.g. Sumeria and Persia. There is no scientific evidence of any world flood. Noah didn't live, so no one can say when his time was. Many skeptics say that Jesus didn't exist, for he is only mentioned in Jewish writings. Do you expect them to be objective? What about King Arthur, Achilles and Robin Hood? We are more certain about the existence of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Charlemagne and others for they are mentioned in many lands.

Answer 9

My sister and I argue about this all the time. She believes everything in the bible is true and I say if you read closely some of the things that the disciples say like, this is my word and opinion and not what Heavenly father had said, leads me to believe man is fail-able and has always put his two cents into everything. I think we need to read with the spirit of discernment to figure out what God wants us to believe and what he doesn't.

Answer 10

There are many facts supporting evolution. Is it logical to state that it is true just because some parts have been supposedly verified through science, which is ever changing?