The Bible makes all sorts of very bold statements like God created the world in 7 days, he later destroyed everyone on earth but Noah's family, that one day he will destroy the world by fire. After these staggering claims why do people try and discount the word by saying "It is written by men"! If he can make a virgin preggers surely he can get someone to take notes and get it right! If you said you've reviewed the evidence and decided you don't believe in God that is one thing, but isn't it ridiculous to say you believe in God (read omnipotent power) yet doubt he can control the content of the Bible?
2007-01-22 11:06:54 · 40 answers · asked by Be nice, or at least funny 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I got a lot of off topic responses, let me clarify. When I say God I am referring to the God of the Jews, and I thought that that was clear as I referenced the Bible. This is withing a Christian context specifically asking for an explanation of the views of one who claims this faith yet questions this text.
To those of you pointing out the discrepancies in the Gospels I think it is widely understood that these are first hand accounts, and first hand accounts always vary from person to person. The point of these first hand accounts is to see the life of Jesus through the eyes of a witness, not to cross examine what color sandals Jesus wore on Tuesdays. And for that matter how do you know that an Angel doesn't look different to one person that it would to another? Who are you to say God could have a purpose in letting there be some discrepancy among the Gospels? I think this is a legit question and I hope to get some real answers. Is this Yahoo Answers or Yahoo Agendas?
2007-01-22 12:23:22 · update #1
Right...
I been reading the bible twice now... also I read several of those books that didnt make it into the bible.
At first I had some doubts about the bible itself, just because it is a compilation of scriptures and its content was decided on in the year 700.
Now the answer to my thoughts was a completely different one than the one you are looking for.
I realized that God not only spoke to man in scriptures but also reveals himself in nature, so those that dont have or know about his word can find him as well (Paul said it too).
Taking the scripture word by word has misled several generations and got the whole system corrupted, until Jesus came to set things right again.
Today many religious hardliners put christianity in the same bad light, just by harshly beating people up mentally.
2007-01-22 11:11:50 · answer #1 · answered by Hartz4 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm one of those people. I've read the Bible 7 times and studied extensively beyond that, and I've found some errors that are unavoidably clear (certainly not the "thousands" that atheists claim, which is, of course, ridiculous).
Since I don't equate God with the Bible, and I don't worship the Bible, I have no problem with this discovery.
On the other hand, if I were you, I would be careful about what doctrines you try to foist onto people. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the "Word of God"--this is a man-made doctrine. Errors in the Bible are obvious, and the practice of pushing the Bible as perfect and faith in God as equivalent is the same as manufacturing an artificial stumbling block in front of a person who has weaker faith than your own.
Continue down this path, and you may find out the meaning of Jesus' words, "Woe to the man who would harm a single hair on the head of one of these little ones", spoken to a group of men who were doing the same thing you are doing now--requiring belief in a complex and hard to understand body of beliefs--when belief in Jesus is the only real requirement.
2007-01-22 11:27:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm a polytheist so maybe I should stay out of this one, but. . .
It is undeniable that the content of the Bible has changed dramatically over time, so which version did God control, if He chose to? Is it a work in progress? A lot of people swear by the King James, but that is the one farthest afield from the originals, the one the most tampered with for artistic reasons. So how do you decide?
I feel about all holy books, actually, that maybe they are imperfect, but maybe they have to be, to be completely understood by imprerfect creatures. We get, I think, what we are supposed to out of them, even if they are not for the most part, literally factual. You don't have to believe something is factual to believe it has merit.
As a side note, a lot of religions believe in a single omnipotent power- and the Bible is nothing to them.
2007-01-22 11:29:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
There's so many different versions of the Bible, that one must conclude that they are different because of man's translation. The purity of light depends on the quality of the lense through which it passes. The Bible is a book that's been translated from old writings. It contains many great truths, with God the author of truth, the Bible becomes a book about and from God. To not believe in God because there are disconnects in the Book is not really a strong argument against God's existence. The Gospel of John says that "In the beginning was the Word...and the Word became flesh..." Does that mean that the Bible was in the beginning and became flesh? The Word of God is something more transcendent than just words on a page.
What makes the Bible so believable, I think, is that it's writings span thousands of years, yet the people in it are connected with the same purpose and vision and understanding - a transcendent quality.
2007-01-22 11:16:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
It all comes down to interpretation, context and not taking everything in the Bible literaly and simplisticaly. ALL of the major Churches have a more symbolic and mythic take on parts of the Bible that don't equate say - with science (Rabbits DON'T chew there cud and Locusts have 6 LEGS! Etc..) It's about treating their faith as a LIVING experience of God and not a dead one. Read some of Bishop Spong's books!
2007-01-23 17:33:32 · answer #5 · answered by Tirant 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Holy books are written by men. The older the books become the more the cultural, technological, and legal stamp of the period in which they were written becomes apparent. Changes in laws, culture, and technology can date a book just like hair styles in a movie or television show can pin down their periods of production. The concept of children inheriting their ancestor's guilt (Adam & Eve and Original Sin) is nonsense is an example of the breakdown. This particular concept was popular for at least 4,000 years and lasted up until the 18th century. It still exists in some under developed nations. To God these books are irrevelant.
And yes, there is a God!
2007-01-22 12:00:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Probably the same way someone can be a pro pool player and not believe it's possible to get a center-racked 8-ball in a pocket on the break shot. -Or be a vegetarian and not accept that eggs are part of the meat group.
People can believe what ever they like, and usually like to pick and choose what they are willing to believe and accept. The Christian Church and Jewish Synagogue don't like that, but that's what a lot of individual people do. And most of them believe their God didn't wish to control what men wrote. They understand that He was bamboozled by a slick spin doctor.
2007-01-23 16:54:59 · answer #7 · answered by BuddyL 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I dont know...I gues they are the LUKEWARM
Bless u brother, I believe every word is From G-d, no mistakes.
The Bible is the most reliable ancient document. Three factors used in determining the reliability of an ancient document ensure that the Bible we have today is very close in content to the original manuscripts.
The number of manuscript copies in existence, and their agreement. The greater the number of manuscripts the more reliable the text produced.
The time span between the copies and the original. The smaller the time span between the original and the creation of manuscript copies, the greater the reliability.
The method of transcription. The more rigorous the method, the more reliable the transcribed text.
2007-01-22 11:26:09 · answer #8 · answered by David T 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Very easily!
Put it on a Venn diagram.
They may believe the god that exists is not the god that the bible depicts, therefore the perfect accuracy of the bible is not an issue for the existence of god, and neither would the existence of god imply of a necessity that the bible is perfect.
Take the Qur'an, for one example, which many god believers take as their perfect text (while maintaining the bible has been corrupted,)
Or Baha'i, which doesn't derive belief in god from biblical texts.
2007-01-22 11:37:05 · answer #9 · answered by Pedestal 42 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Even if there were a God, it does not logically follow that he must be the exclusive province of the bible. There are many different antique and mistranslated books that could be depicting the alleged creator, or it could be that none of the books are right and there is god out there but nobody is worshiping the right one...
All of the books claim to be for the one true god, none of them are any more valid than the other. Deists believe in god, but not the god of the bible, and so on.
2007-01-22 11:16:29 · answer #10 · answered by Kit 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋