For the people who believe the Bible is filled with lies, do you also?

Question

Think many History and Science books are filled with lies?

If every book you read which is written by man, how do you choose which ones you will believe and which ones you refuse or do not accept as gospel?

Answer 1

No. Science and history books are backed up with fact, not fiction. Do you believe everything in Greek mythology, or do you believe that it is mythology? There is a difference.

Answer 2

I think your question is great. I notice the very same thing often. People will tell me that the Bible is a "fairy tale" and that it's full of contradictions, etc.. That's fine.. BUT how can the same person turn around and suggest to me that the "big bang THEORY" is fact?? This theory is just as much a "fairy tale" to me as the Bible is to those people. I have never seen any PROOF of a "big bang" except for THEORIES that are just that.. theories.. IDEAS of how things MIGHT have been, etc..

I'm not saying that everything in the Bible is perfect and mistake proof.... In fact, my opinion is that the Bible was written by men and there is a large chance some of what they wrote was their own belief and not inspired by God, and... I think that many people have misinterpreted many of the Bibles verses as well.. But at the same time, I do look at it as a general explanation of the belief system of Christianity, etc.

I also am not saying that things like evolution is wrong either... (as in species adapting to their surrounding, NOT the idea of one species completely becoming another).. It's obvious and proven that some species need to adapt and thus differentiate from previous forms of the same species..

What I am saying though is that the idea that people put across in their answers on here that their science and history books are based purely on fact.. is not completely true.. Science books have many theories.. (ones that are sometimes presented as fact) and history books are often written from the perspective of a certain group of people.. two different history books can see things in different ways..

I just wanted to point out that, while the Bible may not be perfect, neither are most other books/texts, etc.

Answer 3

Many so called history books are revisionist containing many twisted and down right made up "facts" and many so-called science books are nothing more than pseudo-science. That's why you have to make sure you trust credible sources.

Yes, if things stated in the book are not verifiable to be true, then I would conclude that it is indeed filled with lies.

Now, your bible is nothing more than mythology. Many of the "historical" things it takes about simply did not happen, it is mere fiction. As far as comparing it to science book, that is down right laughable. It has far too many things in it that would put it right in the same category of a "science book" as those written by David Icke, the nutter who thinks the world is run by Reptilian aliens from another dimension.

I don't dis-believe the bible because it was written down by humans, I don't believe it because the things in it are ridiculous and have no evidence to support them. It's the same reason I don't believe David Icke's books about time loops and Reptilian aliens.

Answer 4

The major difference between the Bible and science/ history books is that as new information becomes available the former never changes and the latter always does.
I don't see anybody writing an updated version of the Bible to reflect the changes in the human font of knowledge that the past 2000 years have brought forth.

Answer 5

There's a big difference here. The bible was written for religious purposes, and has been PROVEN to be filled with plenty of errors. such as the wandering in the desert, and the conquering of Canaan: Most of those towns and cities were either ruins at the supposed time of conquest, or hadn't been founded yet. Genetically, Hebrews are one and the same with the Canaanites, which means, well, they were...Canaanites. Not Special. Ahem. Also of note is that the Egyptians, who were at the time, in control of Canaan, never mentioned Hebrews. Or a conquest of these Hebrews. And about the whole History/ Scientific books: At least now a days we fix errors as they come up. :)

Answer 6

History like many things is left to individual beliefs to guide and value things for truths or lies many things in history may become accepted fact but it's a fact based on faith that the people who agree that it happened that way are being truthful about their findings. Always take history with a grain of salt and remember that most history is written by the victors.

Answer 7

You're missing a critical difference.
Most history books are researched carefully, provide supporting evidence, cite previous works (and the evidence supporting them) as sources, and have a well-established chain of evidence that shows where the information came from, how it was obtained, and what evidence supports it. Where the author speculates or guesses based on incomplete evidence, they say so.

Now, the bible...hmm. The sources are mostly unknown authors, many of which wrote under assumed names. There is no evidence to back up the assertions made, and in fact in the vast majority of cases the available evidence directly contradicts what is written in the bible. The bible contradicts other written records of its time periods, contradicts well-established science, contradicts archeaology, geology, biology, astronomy, and pretty much every other science -- and offers no evidence at all to show why it's right and all those other carefully researched, evidence-based sciences are wrong.

Do you really not see the difference?
If so, I feel very sorry for your lack of critical thinking skills.

Peace.

Answer 8

most credible science and history books have been peer reviewed to enforce their credibility and cite their sources. all the science books i have read mostly describe experiments and state facts that have been discovered by reputable scientists. that is how i know i can trust science books. history books, on the other hand, are a whole different story. its is hard to find an objective history textbook since it is mostly opinion, unless it states a year someone was assasinated or whatnot. the bible is a whole nother topic that shouldn't be in the same breath as a science book or sometimes even a history one. the bible should be taught just as greek mythology is. teach the literary value but nothing else.

Answer 9

I never believe in another person's words 100%. Even if I agree with that person (or book).

The bible is filled with lies. So are many other books. Basing your beliefs on what's written on a book is not very smart.

You're probably making a hidden (not-so hidden) reference to Darwin or Dawkins here. A person doesn't need a book to be a skeptic.

Answer 10

Actually with most books and stuff I really don't have proof of, I would go with faith, trust, and whatever makes most sense to me. We don't know what people who lived so many years ago were like other than by stories or in this case books they wrote. We can choose to believe them or we can reject them as lies. It all applies the same to me, be it history books or the bible.

Answer 11

Of course not, Marie!!

History and Science books come from academic disciplines which scrutinize each writer's work with a proces called 'peer review.' Until a scholar in history or science satisfies his emminent peers and convinces them about his theories, then they are not accepted as 'gospel.'

The Bible on the other hand, cannot be compared to history and science books, since it is a relgious and cultural artefact. When subjected to the rigorous scrutiny of science and history, the Bible is shown to be neither historically accurate, nor scientific.

But of course, the Bible was never supposed to be either, since it was meant to persuade people to join a religion.

Historians and scientists are too careful to accept this Bible as one of their books.